rafaelloello. Again. And again, and again... January 31, 2009 10:11 AM   Subscribe

This isn't OK. And neither is this. Yes, it's rafaelloello redux, for those of you who remember this very special moment. Or this one.
posted by scrump to Etiquette/Policy at 10:11 AM (107 comments total)

Oh for heaven's sake. He disagreed with someone in one thread. And then you dug up some stuff from months ago. This hardly qualifies him as someone on a tear who needs to be shamed in MeTa..
posted by orange swan at 10:18 AM on January 31, 2009 [21 favorites]


Memory
All alone in the moonlight
I can smile at the old days
I was beautiful then
I remember the time I knew what happiness was
Let the memory live again
posted by gman at 10:21 AM on January 31, 2009 [2 favorites]


I think his opinion is wrong, but since the point of view he expressed is held by a substantial proportion of people who don't have direct experience with this kind of issue, I don't think he's insincere or trolling the thread in this case. Frankly I was surprised he was the only one to come in with something like that. Sorry if I provoked too much of a derail.
posted by Daily Alice at 10:23 AM on January 31, 2009


Why do you think his comments in the "wacky, wonderful kid thread" aren't OK?
posted by prefpara at 10:25 AM on January 31, 2009


The comments that you link to are great examples of someone offering their personal opinion and critiquing an AskMe poster without even trying to offer a constructive answer. The OP asked for "tools and strategies to recommend to her teachers, for strategies for me in talking to my kid about this stuff," not Rafaelloello's opinion on child-rearing.

That said, they don't rise to the level of MeTa callout. This seems to be a good "flag and move on" moment.
posted by googly at 10:26 AM on January 31, 2009


Those are two properly formed Ask Metafilter answers which you're just calling out because they go against certain biases of the site, and don't act circumspect about it. Most answers suggest the Ask Metafilter standby that the subject has a mental disorder and/or has problems which will be solved by therapy. A few suggest the possibility that more or stricter discipline could be helpful, but everyone except rafaelloello avoided using that dirty word, probably to avoid callouts and flags. His answers basically suggest a mode of "talking to my kid."
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 10:29 AM on January 31, 2009 [12 favorites]


I personally found his comment to be pretty right-on, though Alice's objections make sense. Also, it was totally on-topic. Seems "OK" to me.

Is this part of the new public shaming initiative?
posted by Navelgazer at 10:30 AM on January 31, 2009 [12 favorites]


So your point is that children don't need discipline?

Or that, having made some shit posts previously, one is no longer allowed to disagree with anyone ever again?

I remember those old threads. He seemed like a jerk. Now he is advocating structure and discipline in child rearing in a fairly topical way. It wasn't deliberately inflammatory, accusatory, or off topic, and I've seen much harsher replies to AnonAskMe's in the past.
posted by paisley henosis at 10:30 AM on January 31, 2009


This last example...whats wrong with it? Many people will disagree, many people will agree. No reason for a callout. If you're gonna get all the bad kids at recess to beat someone up when the teacher isn't looking, it better be for a good reason. Disagreeing with his opinion is NOT a good reason.

Scrump=fail.
posted by hal_c_on at 10:30 AM on January 31, 2009


Those kids sound like they'd benefit from declawing.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 10:34 AM on January 31, 2009 [5 favorites]


Here's my pony: a new subsite just for these things. In addition to MetaTalk, we should have OKCorral.metafilter.com. It should only be open at 3 p.m. ServerTime. Perfect for those pointless callouts that aren't going to go anywhere.

For anyone who has had a hundred comments on the site which consist of more than two sentences, I could probably cherry-pick through them and construe something objectionable. Objectionable to me. Objectionable to someone else? You're about to find out!

If you object to what someone says in a thread, come up with a coherent, carefully reasoned rebuttal, then post it in that thread. If you find yourself unable to do that, then it is quite possible you do not have a good position from which to argue. Relying on some kind of (and I do love this phrase) public shaming initiative to do the work for you smacks of groupthink.
posted by adipocere at 10:34 AM on January 31, 2009


it seems to me that the kid's a spoiled brat with an overly indulgent parent unless there is something psychologically or developmentally wrong with him

the questioner either needs to teach him what the word no means or get him evaluated - after which he can still be taught what the word no means
posted by pyramid termite at 10:34 AM on January 31, 2009 [7 favorites]


Ok, I see that you don't like this rafaelloello fellow. And it is not hard to see why based on the prior comments, but why the callout here and not just a flag on the answers? I don't see how they were so offensive that they must be dealt with at once.

If I read the question and his answers correctly, he looks like he is saying that the problem does not lie in the school bending to this child, but lies elsewhere. I can see how that might be an unpopular opinion, but it appears to be a point of view that is valid for this conversation.
posted by sciatica at 10:43 AM on January 31, 2009


Goddammit, will somebody let me know who we're burning at the stake? These torches won't stay lit forever, you know.
posted by languagehat at 10:58 AM on January 31, 2009 [9 favorites]


If how he answered the question was considered unacceptable for the site, then the majority of answers to, say, relationship questions, would be invalid, deleted, and called out. You might disagree with his opinion but his approach to the question and his type of answer (I think that disagreeing with the assumptions that lead to the question is a legitimate answer to a problem) is par for the course of metafilter and what the common culture of metafilter accepts and expects.
posted by Stynxno at 10:59 AM on January 31, 2009


I see no problem with his answers.
posted by Bookhouse at 11:19 AM on January 31, 2009


For all our disagreements with Raf during the election season, I really can't see what's wrong with his answers in that thread. It's a different POV than maybe you have, but it's not an outrageous one or even an uncommon one. And he seemed sincere. I don't understand what the deal is.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 11:20 AM on January 31, 2009


"not OK" isn't an argument. The answers seem perfectly fine, even if I don't agree with them. Can you explain why they are worse than simply something you disagree with which is stated strongly?
posted by OmieWise at 11:39 AM on January 31, 2009


I think the OP of that thread is strong enough to read those opinions without crumpling like a used piece of Kleenex (tm).

Seriously, I think there's a lot to be gleaned from all the suggestions in that thread, to include the ones in question. Perhaps the tone could have been a bit less more confrontational, but hey, it's the Internet, and we should expect that.
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 11:47 AM on January 31, 2009


I don't see a problem with his answer either. I mean, I don't like the tone, and I don't agree with it...but he succinctly defines a particular point of view. That you don't like it is fine...flag and move on. But it's not call-out worthy commentary.
posted by dejah420 at 12:00 PM on January 31, 2009


Rafaelloello's responses read as 'Your kid would benefit from more structure and a stronger authority' which IMO is a perfectly cromulent response to 'What are some strategies for dealing with my child's behavioral issues?'

The guy may be a ding-a-ling at other times, but there isn't anything horrible there that I can see, and linking to his previous dorky MeTas really isn't necessary in this case. If anything, it hurts your credibility by making it look like you have a personal beef but really don't have anything substantial to back up your call-out, and are instead relying on prior irrelevant stupidity on Rafaelloello's part to bolster your position. Like the law talking guy on the tee vee says, 'Prejudicial, your honor!'

Those kids sound like they'd benefit from declawing.

They're way easier to circumcise after, too.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 12:07 PM on January 31, 2009


Those are two properly formed Ask Metafilter answers which you're just calling out because they go against certain biases of the site, and don't act circumspect about it. ... His answers basically suggest a mode of "talking to my kid."

No, his answer basically suggests--actually, states in so many words--that OP's child's struggles are a result of the fact that OP has fucked up her upbringing. Which is stupid and inflammatory, especially combined with the unhelpful data point "I have two kids and they're both fine."

I agree with scrump that that answer is most definitely not okay. Likely it was just written carelessly, but as written, it's smug and insulting.
posted by torticat at 12:11 PM on January 31, 2009


For all our disagreements with Raf during the election season, I really can't see what's wrong with his answers in that thread.

I'm glad you brought politics up, Mstpt, because I think there is a weird political resonance to Rafaelloello's answers in that thread. Remember the dust-up about Michaell Savage (the "conservative commentator") last summer?

Last Wednesday, Mr. Savage said that autism was an “overdiagnosed medical condition” and that “99 percent” of autism cases in fact reflected lax parenting.

"Lax parenting" is rapidly becoming one of the stations of conservative cross-training, and Raf was just getting part of his daily work-out in, I suspect.
posted by jamjam at 12:15 PM on January 31, 2009 [1 favorite]


It's pretty mild as far as 'jerkfilter' goes, even though it's a bit ranty and makes a lot of assumptions.

But thanks for giving DU the opportunity to eventually come in here and say 'Roffledoffle' again.
posted by CKmtl at 12:15 PM on January 31, 2009 [2 favorites]


"Lax parenting" is rapidly becoming one of the stations of conservative cross-training, and Raf was just getting part of his daily work-out in, I suspect.

Could very well be, and that particular POV is far from a favorite of mine. I could see why OP would be insulted. But the response did sound sincere to me, albeit with the soupcon of smug we've come to expect from the guy.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 12:24 PM on January 31, 2009


Oooh, are we calling out all of the Ask answers we don't like for their tone? Cool! I'll change into my special crucifixion outfit!
posted by desuetude at 12:24 PM on January 31, 2009


Um. Can I say that I kinda agree with him on some points and I'm a "Childcare Professional" (read: Grown-Up For Hire). Does that make me a jerk, too?

Sure, I probably would have used a gentler tone, but I didn't comment on that thread because I just absolutely do not EVER question anyone's parenting methods. I'll jump in on a stroller-recommendation thread or "How do I get my 2 year old to nap?" or any number of childcare related threads where I have actual concrete experience, but I've learned that telling someone else how to PARENT is not an area that I'm comfortable touching with a ten foot pole.

So, yeah, I thought his tone was really condescending, but his point that kids need limits is valid.

I guess that evens out to, despite the time it took me to make this comment, total apathy.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 12:30 PM on January 31, 2009 [1 favorite]


I'm crafting a thread to call out the fact that grapefruitmoon kinda agrees with rafaelloello on some points. Jerk.
posted by gman at 12:42 PM on January 31, 2009


I'm crafting a thread to call out the fact that grapefruitmoon kinda agrees with rafaelloello on some points. Jerk.

Oh yay! I've been looking forward to my first call-out. I've been saving marshmallows for the bonfire!
posted by grapefruitmoon at 12:50 PM on January 31, 2009


Smugness? On Metafilter? We-

W-

...crap. I... I can't do it. I think I blew a sarcasm valve. Man, that stings.


Where's the instruction manual on this stupid thing?
posted by Scattercat at 12:53 PM on January 31, 2009 [1 favorite]


This is a dumb callout. Really.
posted by ob at 1:08 PM on January 31, 2009


I don't really have a dog in this race. I'll leave you with one piece of insight: People who write "um, no" tend to be insufferable.
posted by boo_radley at 1:14 PM on January 31, 2009 [11 favorites]


Cool! I'll change into my special crucifixion outfit!

Ya' know all ya' need for that is a loin cloth, dont'cha? Crown of thorns optional.
posted by ericb at 1:23 PM on January 31, 2009


Uh, yeah, you're right.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:23 PM on January 31, 2009


seems this was not so much a callout as some personal ax-grinding shit.
posted by dawson at 1:26 PM on January 31, 2009


"Lax parenting" is rapidly becoming one of the stations of conservative cross-training, and Raf was just getting part of his daily work-out in, I suspect.

Couldn't possibly disagree with this notion any more. I'm a bleeding heart, card-carrying, otter-scrubbing liberal, and I abhor "lax parenting" of the sort that Rafaelloello describes in the first paragraph of his first answer in the AskMe, where it's okay to treat children like adults with mature mental capacity who will just "come around" as long as they are eternally negotiated with -- because it's easier on the parent than actually being firm and adhering to rules, which doesn't always feel like much fun.

Did I weigh in in thread when I personally decided that the Asker's real problem is not the kid, not the school, but a lack of boundaries? I did not, because I didn't think I could do so usefully. But raf's not off-base for his opinion, and I think he even framed it in a fairly respectful way, all things considered.

Further, to say "I don't like Person X and I'm going to find ways to ascribe ugly political motive to EVERY WORD HE SAYS, EVER," is not good for the site.
posted by pineapple at 2:08 PM on January 31, 2009 [14 favorites]


Or even axe grinding.
posted by Science! at 2:08 PM on January 31, 2009


Wow, I thought rafaelloello's answer was excellent, completely on-topic, and he gets called out for it? Because scrump didn't think it was precisely what should have been said in response to anonymous's question?

Scrump, why don't you just jump in at the head of future askmes and give us the script. You'll save us the time of writing our unacceptable answers that way.
posted by jayder at 2:19 PM on January 31, 2009 [4 favorites]


Scrumpledumple?
posted by Rock Steady at 2:58 PM on January 31, 2009


"We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas!"
posted by chillmost at 2:58 PM on January 31, 2009 [6 favorites]


I agree with scrump. I've long since decided to pass over raffaelloello's answers because I do not generally like their tone and they are often unhelpful and sometimes downright mean. That's personal bias, of course, and I didn't want to start a Meta about it, but scrump has a good point. Also, this particular question was directly related to the school, not to parenting. The OP didn't say she was having any trouble parenting her own child; her child is having trouble in school and that's what she specifically asked to be addressed.

For the record, I also have two children. One did wonderfully well in school, has a BS in psychology and is working in her field and applying to grad schools. One has a diagnosed learning disability, struggled mightily with academia and finally decided, after a very rocky tenth grade year, to throw it in for the time being. I don't think I parented them all that differently. I think they're both wonderful, just different. Different kids have different reactions to school and suggesting nastily that it's all the fault of the parent - in a school related question, at that - is fairly useless.
posted by mygothlaundry at 3:06 PM on January 31, 2009 [4 favorites]


The OP didn't say she was having any trouble parenting her own child; her child is having trouble in school and that's what she specifically asked to be addressed.

Yes, but this is one of those gray areas in AskMe. Search is down right now so I can't provide links but there have been many instances in these "soft" questions where answers are allowed even if they speak to the question in spirit but not in letter, and many instances of discussing it in MeTa too. If enough people thought his answer was unacceptable, it would have been flagged like crazy and drawn the attention of the staff. And if the staff thought rafelloello was off-base, his comments would have been deleted.

Regardless of whether you think he answered the question acceptably or not, what I have the problem with is that it seems like people are saying that it's acceptable to pass judgment on a user, and then every single contribution he or she ever makes to the site, ever after, is to be held under a microscope and called out publicly -- even if another less-inflammatory user would have totally skated by with the same behavior. There is a reason that a jury isn't always allowed to hear about prior bad acts.

I especially have a problem with people saying, "Well, it's okay to do that because he's a CONSERVATIVE trying to INFILTRATE." Raffdskfjghllo can't even comment on child rearing without people assuming it's got political undertones and poking him with a stick? That's what I'm hearing.

And, I can't believe I'm in the continued position of defending rafelloello, but it's a point of order, at this point:

especially combined with the unhelpful data point "I have two kids and they're both fine."

This is not what he actually said. He gave his children's ages at the end of the post simply to demonstrate his own age, and clarify that he's not a baby boomer who wants everyone off his lawn. That Daily Alice extrapolated self-congratulation from those words doesn't actually mean it's what he actually said.

(That's a site-wide pet peeve of mine: when Poster A shares Opinion X, Poster B reads it as Opinion Y, and everyone in the thread thereafter assumes that Opinion Y is what was stated. and the pile-on commences. If you're going to attack people, at least take a minute to read their actual written words.)
posted by pineapple at 3:36 PM on January 31, 2009 [5 favorites]


If you're going to attack people, at least take a minute to read their actual written words.

STOP MESSING WITH MY ARTISTIC VISION.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 3:44 PM on January 31, 2009 [6 favorites]


Scrump's axe-grinding in the call-out reflects poorly on scrump.

Rafaelloello's answer is weak because he fails to communicate to many readers his belief in the present and future utility of a connection between the parent enforcing boundaries now at home and the child's behavior in school, instead concentrating on grinding his own axe regarding his assumptions about the prior parenting of the child.

Our anonymous asker acknowledges that her child is a significant disruption to the other kids and their teacher, but is unwilling to disrupt her own academic career when she can clearly see that her child's academic career is floundering and degrading the academic careers of her peers. This reflects poorly on her.

All in all, there's a lot of room for improvement.
posted by NortonDC at 3:49 PM on January 31, 2009 [1 favorite]


I thought it was a reasoned response to the question. It is a flawed response, bet He Is Not A Lawyer. "If you expect good behavior, you will get good behavior. Period." Kinda sticks out at me as a really asinine statement from someone who agrees with his overall point, simply because it's an absolute. You can't deal in absolutes when you talk human behavior. I have three kids from whom we've expected good behavior pretty adamantly (while piling on the love & attention) and let me just say for argument's sake that well, two out of three ain't a bad average, really.

Other than that, someone asked for opinions, and he gave his. Though in retrospect, the Super censoring thread was fun.
posted by Devils Rancher at 4:04 PM on January 31, 2009 [1 favorite]


This reflects poorly on her.

As does the phrase "she's immune to the hazards of peer pressure". I hope that's hyperbole and not an actual stable belief about the kid.

Otherwise, it's taunting the gods of adolescence and asking for trouble.
posted by CKmtl at 4:04 PM on January 31, 2009


I understand the urge to roll one's eyes and say "oh man, that guy's such a troll" (I'm actually thinking of other people here), but I try not to, because even those people post comments that I find illuminating sometimes. Just earlier today, I was trying to find an old comment that I'd liked, and in searching, I ran across this comment by Rafaelloello with 54 favorites. That comment was thought-provoking to me, whatever his track record elsewhere. So I generally don't think the "oh no, him again" prejudice is that useful, and that within certain boundaries, we should look at each comment on its own. His comment in that AskMe thread is not in the 99% percentile of cool-and-helpfulness, but especially compared to other answers to anonymous human relations questions, it's pretty close to the mean.
posted by salvia at 4:45 PM on January 31, 2009


I thought his comment was pretty reasonable.

"She also gets really freaked out at times when she's asked to do things and may scream or hit."

Really? But anonymous still thinks that the kid simply doesn't like school? Screaming and hitting when requested to do her maths (or whatever) is pretty likely to be indicative of 'something going on', whether that is parenting issues or mental/emotional stuff, and homeschooling is unlikely to fix either of these. But anonymous sounds like they've pretty much rejected both these ideas already, thinks kid is 'wonderful' and just doesn't like that creativity-destroying 'authority', so I guess the kid will just struggle on with whatever problems they have. Poor kid.
posted by jacalata at 5:09 PM on January 31, 2009 [2 favorites]


I am too lazy (and it is too late) to read all of this thread but since it's here I will say what I didn't say in the AskMe itself:

The phrasing of the question ('whacky, wonderful, she's such a little genius but just not made for this world' etc) really grated on me, esp. as a former teacher. I had an answer drafted in my mind, but then I read the OP's follow up and figured, maybe she's not one of those parents after all. So I kept quiet - also because I knew my view would be unpopular (as proven above!!).

Rafablabla really annoyed me during/after the election but I find myself agreeing with him here. Not surprisingly, since I know I can have pretty conservative views wrt child-rearing. Being faced with parents who think their little brat is God's gift to earth can do that to you.

(I think what I'm trying to say is, maybe you don't agree with him scrump, but his can still be a valid view)
posted by ClarissaWAM at 5:09 PM on January 31, 2009 [4 favorites]


Nothing wrong with his answer.

No, his answer basically suggests--actually, states in so many words--that OP's child's struggles are a result of the fact that OP has fucked up her upbringing. Which is stupid and inflammatory, especially combined with the unhelpful data point "I have two kids and they're both fine."

I agree with scrump that that answer is most definitely not okay. Likely it was just written carelessly, but as written, it's smug and insulting.


Since when is criticism not ok? Especially when it's not necessarily wrong? The poor kid has got some troubles, and his answer is in the spectrum of possible explanations.

I'll tell you what ISN'T ok- using someone's perception of someone else's political beliefs, or a correlation with some nut's beliefs, to marginalize their statements. You know, the "he's just a conservative troll" and non-ironic "you know who else believed in discipline?" bullshit.

If we're going to beat down opinions that interfere with our world-view, we might as well just have a bot do all the answering. "See a professional!" and "Everything is a-ok, keep on doing what you're doing." and "I once ate an old sandwich and didn't die, therefore you should eat that week old chowder!"
posted by gjc at 5:54 PM on January 31, 2009 [2 favorites]


I never thought I would say this, but: Rafaelloello was pretty much right.
posted by tkchrist at 6:22 PM on January 31, 2009


Your Kid Is OK, It's Just Not My Kid
posted by PeterMcDermott at 6:24 PM on January 31, 2009


Perhaps Ask Metafilter needs a way to approve comments before they are posted to avoid any delicate feathers being ruffled by some mean old hot air.

I mean the right way of child rearing is obvious and there really aren't multiple ways to look at it.
posted by Argyle at 6:42 PM on January 31, 2009 [1 favorite]


Speaking of ugly behavior, the dismissiveness of people unwilling to put in the effort to type Rafaelloello (it's not that hard) and instead typing a mishmash of words, that's pretty solidly not ok in my book. People go on about the lack of civil discourse, or, "this guys an asshole." Why sink to their (imagined or not) level? At least try to have the decency to address the person by the name they've chosen to participate in the community.
posted by Ghidorah at 6:50 PM on January 31, 2009 [2 favorites]


Rafaelloello was pretty much right.

Naw, stricter parenting isn't going to help. The kid is obviously gifted, or perhaps is living with some sort of behavior disorder and needs help. There are probably environmental factors, but the OP is obviously trying and nothing is working out.
posted by KokuRyu at 6:59 PM on January 31, 2009


I find it interesting the Scrump hasn't bothered to defend the call-out.
posted by oddman at 7:27 PM on January 31, 2009


What a scrump!
posted by grobstein at 7:30 PM on January 31, 2009


Your favorite child sucks.
posted by bardic at 7:32 PM on January 31, 2009 [5 favorites]


Not to derail all of this fun, but I would like to take this opportunity to call out Alvy Ampersand for using the word cromulent.
posted by JeffK at 7:52 PM on January 31, 2009 [2 favorites]


When is someone going to call me out for being so sexay?
posted by dirigibleman at 8:25 PM on January 31, 2009


* tumbleweed *
posted by boo_radley at 9:09 PM on January 31, 2009


Speaking of ugly behavior, the dismissiveness of people unwilling to put in the effort to type Rafaelloello (it's not that hard) and instead typing a mishmash of words, that's pretty solidly not ok in my book. People go on about the lack of civil discourse, or, "this guys an asshole." Why sink to their (imagined or not) level? At least try to have the decency to address the person by the name they've chosen to participate in the community.

Guilty as charged. But for some reason, my fingers simply cannot properly type the name (and I'm clearly not the only one since both the pro- and against- camp have had similar typing problems). So just in this thread alone, I have found myself spending as much time saying what I'm trying to say overall as I have spent going through some version of the following:
rafello...

(shit)

(backspace backspace backspace backspace backspace)

rafaellollo

(shit)

(backspace backspace backspace backspace)

rafeloello (SHIT)

(backspace backspace backspace backspace backspace)

raefelloel (SHIT FUCK)

(backspace backspace backspace backspace YOU KNOW WHAT SCREW THIS)

rafskjfskjfllo
And being that the internet is long on stories about how the human mind can process what word was intended if there are some conventions in place, whether or not the word is spelled 100% properly,

and seeing as how I'm not typing "rafafuckyouello",

and being as how I'm sitting here in this thread DEFENDING THE DUDE,

I'm going to grant myself a pass, and assume that rafaelloello can interpret my actions as being in good faith, and decide for myself that I'm not actually ugly, dismissive, or indecent.

kthxbai
posted by pineapple at 9:40 PM on January 31, 2009 [3 favorites]


I copied and pasted the dude's name rather than tried to spell it, so while I do believe the intentional warping of a user's nick is disrespectful and counterproductive regardless of their opinion or actions, I'm with whineapple on this one.

Zing!
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:03 PM on January 31, 2009 [3 favorites]


That was a good one, hoser.
posted by pineapple at 10:21 PM on January 31, 2009


Alvy Pampersman for the win.
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:06 PM on January 31, 2009 [1 favorite]


Last Wednesday, Mr. Savage said that autism was an “overdiagnosed medical condition” and that “99 percent” of autism cases in fact reflected lax parenting.

I think I can speak to this issue a bit.

I have three autistic boys who are rambunctious, to say the least. It certainly wasn't due to lax parenting. My wife and I have found that structure and setting and enforcing clear boundaries are absolutely vital. For us, this has nothing to do with promoting a right-wing agenda (hint: check my username)

I'm not talking about corporal punishment: that isn't necessary. I'm talking about making our expectations clearly understood, rewarding compliance and punishing non-compliance. I'm also talking about keeping our promises to our children and showing them lots of love.

Rafaelloello may be a wingnut and he may have an abrasive Internet persona, but those things do not preclude him from being a good father. His comments may have been unpopular and rough around the edges but I think that they were offered in a sincere hope that they might help the asker.

As for Michael Savage, I would say that he could suck my balls, but the thought of having to boil them in bleach afterwards is too painful to contemplate.
posted by SteveTheRed at 12:07 AM on February 1, 2009


Would it work if we filled Michael Savage's mouth with bleach?
posted by Lemurrhea at 12:26 AM on February 1, 2009 [1 favorite]


The kid is obviously gifted, or perhaps is living with some sort of behavior disorder and needs help.

KokuRyu, I'm curious as to why you think the child is "obviously" gifted? The OP describes what seems to be an otherwise normal child with some sort of problem with authority (the root cause of which I won't speculate on.)

The girl is said to be creative, but who's young child isn't? She's "dreamy", "engaged", and "bright", which again are commonly seen in children by their parents, and we can't really judge just what these terms mean here and how objectively they're being assessed. What we know with more certainty is that she's disruptive and not responsive to authority or the pressures of others. What makes you believe this is a gift? (This is an honest question, I'm not being snarky.)
posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 12:39 AM on February 1, 2009 [1 favorite]


At least try to have the decency to address the person by the name they've chosen to participate in the community.

So whatever happened to cunt? I surely miss seeing their posts...
posted by PeterMcDermott at 1:09 AM on February 1, 2009


Since we're MeTaing, KokuRyu's answer in the thread is infinitely worse than the one generating the callout, which at least attempted to answer the question. Hint: The poster asked for strategies, not random threadshitting.
posted by rodgerd at 1:54 AM on February 1, 2009


Rafaelololol, amirite?

it had to be done
posted by Devils Rancher at 6:59 AM on February 1, 2009


Since when is criticism not ok? Especially when it's not necessarily wrong? The poor kid has got some troubles, and his answer is in the spectrum of possible explanations.

Rafaelloello didn't offer a "possible explanation." He said that any 6-year-old with attention problems has not been brought up right, period.

It's like this. Someone asks how to deal with lung cancer. A poster answers, "If you have lung cancer, you must be a smoker. So cut that out, for starters."

As likely as the smoker assumption might seem to many readers, it's not necessarily the case, and it's offensive to assume and to state as fact that the asker's problem is something she has brought on herself.
posted by torticat at 8:58 AM on February 1, 2009 [1 favorite]


I don't get it.
posted by electroboy at 10:29 AM on February 1, 2009


Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese: I'm not positive,, but I think KokuRyu was being sarcastic.
posted by Caduceus at 11:29 AM on February 1, 2009


Woo! Extra comma!
posted by Caduceus at 11:33 AM on February 1, 2009


He's just Not Into You(r kid).
posted by cestmoi15 at 11:43 AM on February 1, 2009


After 24 hours and having been asked many times, scrump hasn't turned up to explain why the two answers are not OK. Nor how the choice instances of the answerer's past dickish behavior are in any way relevant. Which really makes me wonder why this thread is still open.
posted by George_Spiggott at 12:08 PM on February 1, 2009


It is still open because nothing bad has happened. The argument is very clear, there doesn't seem to be any dissenting voices that wish to continue. Rather than forcefully cut it short, the thread is allowed to die naturally.
posted by Catfry at 12:24 PM on February 1, 2009


I prefer Snyder's pretzels to Rold Gold.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 12:31 PM on February 1, 2009


Even though this was dug up from months ago, Phelps qualifies as someone on a tear who needs to be shamed in MeTa.
posted by gman at 12:31 PM on February 1, 2009


After 24 hours and having been asked many times, scrump hasn't turned up to explain why the two answers are not OK.

It's a strategy. When things aren't smelling good for your side, you lurk in the background and hope that representatives of the other side will put their foot in it or that a posse will form for your side. Ideally for scrump, rafaelloello would have come in here to say something mean about a single mother and her special needs child, but rafaelloello did not take the bait.
posted by pracowity at 1:06 PM on February 1, 2009 [2 favorites]


For some reason, Gman's picture loaded very slowly. As in 14.4 modem-porn-viewing slowly. Which is fitting, because for the first part of the picture that's what it looked like it was gonna end up as.
posted by Lemurrhea at 2:06 PM on February 1, 2009 [1 favorite]


Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese: I'm not positive,, but I think KokuRyu was being sarcastic.

Oh. Hmm. Now I see it.

I is gifted too.
posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 5:29 PM on February 1, 2009


You know, he isn't running for office. Just because he said something you don't like is no reason to go back to that one time in college when he was in the same room as a guy who smoked pot and has a copy of The Communist Manifesto somewhere in a box or something and paint him as some kind of drug-crazed pinko.
posted by turgid dahlia at 6:13 PM on February 1, 2009


People who write "um, no" tend to be insufferable.

Uhh, wrong.
posted by turgid dahlia at 6:15 PM on February 1, 2009 [1 favorite]


scrump is away at a skiing meetup at Lake Tahoe for the weekend, if I get my time zones right. Hard to fault him for preferring that to this.
posted by jacalata at 6:27 PM on February 1, 2009


Skiing meetup?

"Everybody here?"

"Yes."

"Good. Good to see you all."

"Yep."

"Okay, let's go ski! Catch you later!"

exeunt
posted by turgid dahlia at 6:29 PM on February 1, 2009 [1 favorite]


Raffaelloello is mostly incoherent so I'm usually literally incapable of parsing his shitty comments; therefore it is impossible to tell whether this callout is good or bad.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 9:28 PM on February 1, 2009 [1 favorite]


Metafilter: Jerkfilter
posted by P.o.B. at 5:55 AM on February 2, 2009


I always find it perplexing that people sometimes misconstrue any of the AskMeFi answers as something more than suggestions. If there is the slightest mention of something that may fall into some legal or ethical gray area (or even something that may not be popular), people tend to freak out rather than just make a reasoned reply against it.
posted by P.o.B. at 6:06 AM on February 2, 2009


I called this out because rafaelloello went after the poster as the cause of the issue instead of addressing the actual question the poster asked. It's really not okay on AskMe to do that, as has been previously established through multiple MeTa threads.

If you want to be abrasive, go for it, but don't go personal. It's a site standard. If someone goes personal, it should be called out. And my citations of previous comments were to point out that rafaelloello has a history of going personal: that's what I disagree with, not his goddamned politics.

The guy has run afoul of the site's standards a bunch of times, and, from where I was sitting, this was another example of basic disregard for the community's rules.
posted by scrump at 8:00 AM on February 2, 2009


Where were you sitting?
posted by netbros at 8:06 AM on February 2, 2009 [3 favorites]


On a tall equine.
posted by smackfu at 8:31 AM on February 2, 2009 [4 favorites]


I called this out because rafaelloello went after the poster as the cause of the issue instead of addressing the actual question the poster asked. It's really not okay on AskMe to do that, as has been previously established through multiple MeTa threads.

Another thing that has been established through multiple MeTa threads is that sometimes, when the OP asks a question, the answer to their problem is not necessarily the answer to their question. for example: "I've just accidentally severed my thumb from my hand and was wondering if anyone knows which type of laundry detergent will help me reattach it." While they're asking for laundry detergent recommendations, it's fairly obvious that the answer is "no, you should go to a hospital immediately." This is not carte blanche to give the asker whatever answer you think they need to hear whenever you want, but there is a certain leeway depending on the circumstance.

The poster asked "Sooo, do you have ideas for tools and strategies to recommend to her teachers, for strategies for me in talking to my kid about this stuff, for books I should read, anything!" emphasis mine.

So Rafaelloello gave her a strategy for talking to her kid about this stuff, and suggested that strategies for getting her school to bear the burden of this kid's behavior were not the answer, despite that clearly being the asker's focus. He was abrasive, yes, but that's not getting personal, that's just giving her parenting advice.

Part of the problem may be that we tend to take parenting very personally, so we regard criticism of parenting as personal attacks. But at the end of the day, he wasn't attacking her, he was giving what he believes is the answer to her problem, though only indirectly the answer to her question.
posted by shmegegge at 8:41 AM on February 2, 2009 [3 favorites]


I called this out because rafaelloello went after the poster as the cause of the issue instead of addressing the actual question the poster asked. It's really not okay on AskMe to do that, as has been previously established through multiple MeTa threads.

So the question is whether raf's comment is (too) "personal." Some posters here think so, but the line of argument seems to imply that any answer that goes into parenting techniques goes too far, simply because of its subject matter. There is a limited sense in which any suggestion about how to parent looks like an accusation of bad parenting, and is thus "personal." But this standard of personal-ness is untenable, because it rules out a huge swath of answers that both address the substance of the question and have a fair chance of being correct. Just because an asker may not want to hear that their parenting habits are a problem does not mean such answers should be scrubbed out of the thread.

"[Going] after the poster as the cause of [an] issue" has to be allowed in AskMe, because very often that will be the correct explanation of the issue at hand. (It doesn't matter whether it was in this case.)
posted by grobstein at 8:45 AM on February 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


On failure to preview, this from shmegegge is a very good companion to my comment:
Part of the problem may be that we tend to take parenting very personally, so we regard criticism of parenting as personal attacks. But at the end of the day, he wasn't attacking her, he was giving what he believes is the answer to her problem, though only indirectly the answer to her question.
posted by grobstein at 8:46 AM on February 2, 2009


This:
If you have a child that doesn't listen at 6, it's because she has been raised for 6 years with no expectation that she will listen or obey. This is because the adults in her life have set no expectations for acceptable behavior.
isn't phrased as an opinion on parenting. It's phrased as a bald statement of fact.
posted by scrump at 9:57 AM on February 2, 2009


The second response says:

Homeschooling is a band-aid. It won't help your daughter in the "real world." She will eventually grow up and have bosses who will insist she be on time for work, do her job, etc

That's a statement of fact that people argued with in the thread. Should that be deleted as well?
posted by smackfu at 10:05 AM on February 2, 2009


This . . . isn't phrased as an opinion on parenting. It's phrased as a bald statement of fact.

People believe their opinions to be facts. It happens.
posted by grobstein at 10:07 AM on February 2, 2009 [2 favorites]


isn't phrased as an opinion on parenting. It's phrased as a bald statement of fact.

so if he'd posted, "IMHO" at the begining of the line, you'd have been OK? How about we rational human being just be charitable enough to assume the IMHO has been implied.
posted by nomisxid at 10:44 AM on February 2, 2009


Reasonable people can disagree, etc. You all have had your say, I've had mine, and that's about all the time I'm willing to spend on this.
posted by scrump at 10:53 AM on February 2, 2009


which is why this callout is so awesome.
posted by shmegegge at 11:03 AM on February 2, 2009


rafaelloello. Wrong on children, wrong on newsfilter.

Wrong, for metafilter.

(???)
posted by shownomercy at 12:50 PM on February 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


scrump said: "Reasonable people can disagree, etc."

And its corollary: People can disagree about what's reasonable.
posted by pineapple at 1:00 PM on February 2, 2009


...basic disregard for the community's rules.

Know who else didn't play by the rules?

That's right. Martin Riggs.
posted by turgid dahlia at 1:21 PM on February 2, 2009


Reasonable people can disagree, etc. You all have had your say, I've had mine, and that's about all the time I'm willing to spend on this.

Thanks for starting a shit storm and not having the inclination to continue the discussion to its conclusion.
posted by gjc at 5:44 PM on February 2, 2009 [1 favorite]


Geez, since I thought this was a pointless call-out, can I meta-call-out this post? What is with people acting so sensitive because they don't like the advice? There was a whiff of criticism there, but nothing blatantly mean. Sounds like a political ax-grinding, or personalizing something unnecessarily. He answered the question very clearly, in my opinion. There is only one word for this kind of stuff: whiny. There, go ahead and call me out, now.
posted by Edgewise at 9:39 AM on February 3, 2009


« Older 5 years ago today in Metafilter.   |   Seven seven seven seven by seven Newer »

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