"...because... because gay men are SUPER FABULOOOUS, geddit? Wait, wait, let me do the voice!!" October 3, 2009 10:14 AM   Subscribe

MeFi normally does gay marriage stuff just fine. So what happened here?

Four comments in we get this klanger.

I know I don't have much to complain about - MeFi is about as open-minded as online communities get, on gay issues (including most LGBT sites, I'd say).

But this LOLGAYS stuff is so tired for me in daily life. I know that gay people make these jokes. I know that some gay comedians make a living out of it. But it doesn't make it any less cringe-inducing, for me. And it seems that here, this kind of joking around sometimes gets the OK because hey, it's MeFi, c'mon, we're all friends here, you can take a little joke, right?

But then along comes this guy (elegantly taken to task by hermitosis) and you realise that OK, not everyone on MeFi is part of our club that takes these issues seriously. And klangklangston's one-liner kind of unwittingly set the tone for that.

LOLGAYS is an unusual genus in the taxonomy of HURF DURF comments in that the person making the comment usually supports equality for same-sex couples, whereas the LOLXTIAN commenters are not often big fans of the church, and the "I'd hit that"ers probably haven't read that much de Beauvoir. But, for me at least, it's just as eyeball-wrenchingly infuriating.
posted by creeky to Etiquette/Policy at 10:14 AM (97 comments total) 3 users marked this as a favorite

I don't know, I'm not seeing the direct line between a joke and a mildly bitter divorced dude's comment. Don't you think he would have made the comment regardless of the joke upthread? It seems more likely to me that someone saw a post about gay marriage being expensive and just plopped in to say "it'd be cheaper than my heterosexual situation", joke or no joke.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:23 AM on October 3, 2009 [4 favorites]


Why are divorces so expensive?

Because they're worth it.
posted by box at 10:32 AM on October 3, 2009 [16 favorites]


Looks to me that the comments you're objecting to were the exception and not the rule, and were both dismissed within the thread for the same reasons you didn't like them.

That's pretty much my definition of MeFi "doing gay marriage stuff" just fine. Not perfectly, no, but to an extent having a few duds in the thread gives us a better appreciation for the quality of the discourse here.
posted by Riki tiki at 10:38 AM on October 3, 2009


I thought Klang's joke was not funny, and played into a lame stereotype about gay people, and I'm a little sad that it got so many favorites (assuming the favorites were meant as "Haha, that is hilarious; good work, Klang, on your perfectly timed bon mot." and disregarding the whole "what are favorites for "discussion").

That said, I don't think it really set up any sort of LOLGAYS tone in that thread; most of the discussion there seems appropriately aware that the topic is a serious one. I think the (non)gay dvorcee was making what he thought was a valid point: marriage can be expensive for everybody. It didn't come off as LOLGAYS at all to me.
posted by maqsarian at 10:49 AM on October 3, 2009 [1 favorite]


Two really not all that bad comments? That's it?
Flag it and move on, next time.
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 10:50 AM on October 3, 2009 [4 favorites]


You can only find two comments to call out in an entire thread about gay marriage? I bet if you go back to other gay rights threads, you can find at least two comments that are offensive in each of them. And I really don't think there's anything relating the two comments, either. Bitter divorced dude totally would have said that no matter what, because that's what bitter divorced dudes do. I was expecting an actual anti-gay comment, but bitter divorced dude could work that comment into any thread tangentially related to the cost of marriage, of kids, or of divorce. So what you're really calling out is one admittedly stale gay joke, because the other comment didn't even, in truth, have anything to do with gay couples. Which is a pretty weak callout.
posted by Caduceus at 10:52 AM on October 3, 2009


MeTa normally does moralizing outragefilter just fine. So what's happening here?
posted by felix betachat at 10:52 AM on October 3, 2009 [13 favorites]


The yucky part of that thread is more 'disproportionate response to bitter divorced guy' than LOLGAY.
posted by dirtdirt at 11:02 AM on October 3, 2009


Flag it and move on, for this one. Divorced guy is pissed, had nothing to do with a tonedeaf gay snark. And the snark itself, as you said, was most likely not actually intended to disparage gay people, but rather to call humorous attention to the ridiculous nature of anti gay discrimination along with a gentle "you're fabulous" compliment that, yes, only applies to individuals and not all gay people.

This isn't the fight you're looking for.

/jedihandwave

posted by lazaruslong at 11:03 AM on October 3, 2009 [2 favorites]


OK - I brought it up because Ithought this kind of thing might be grating on other people too, but it looks like I'm the only one getting wound up about this.
posted by creeky at 11:11 AM on October 3, 2009


That's cool though. Everyone has a different threshold for snark, and take more or less offense based on their personalities and so forth. Usually, though, MeTa callouts are more for the massive shitstorm type derailings that occur from obvious and egregiously offensive behavior, and not so much for the personal alarm bell ringing. That's what the flags are for. And when enough folks have that similar alarm bell going off, the flags mount up and the mods take a look, or it derails the thread sufficiently to provoke a MeTa callout.
posted by lazaruslong at 11:16 AM on October 3, 2009 [2 favorites]


Of course you already know this, having a usernumber 7k lower than mine. That wasn't intended to come off as condescending, although looking back it reads like it does. Sorry!
posted by lazaruslong at 11:17 AM on October 3, 2009


I thought klang's snark was funny, but I can see how other folks wouldn't.

And mefi has done gay marriage threads way, way worse than that one.
posted by rtha at 11:34 AM on October 3, 2009 [2 favorites]


what rtha said.
posted by small_ruminant at 11:44 AM on October 3, 2009


I thought klang's comment was meant in a sort of offhand kind of joking among friends kind of thing, and I thought it was funny. His further comments in the thread were in line with this.

And yeah, the thread seems fine except for the citizen who thinks life would be easier if he were gay. Can we object to that instead of klangklangston's one-liner? Because, yeah, I'd like to object.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 11:56 AM on October 3, 2009


And the snark itself, as you said, was most likely not actually intended to disparage gay people, but rather to call humorous attention to the ridiculous nature of anti gay discrimination along with a gentle "you're fabulous" compliment that, yes, only applies to individuals and not all gay people.

I'll be honest, as the person who originally chimed in in the thread, I think that's a generous interpretation of Klanger's post.

I don't think he's a bigot, and I don't think it warranted a flag, but these type of remarks really get under my skin. Had the post been about racial disparities and someone had replaced the cost of being 'fabulous' with the cost of fried chicken, they would have been flagged to oblivion. I don't see any reason why crude stereotypes of gay men are any less worthy of a call-out.
posted by Adam_S at 12:02 PM on October 3, 2009 [8 favorites]


You know, between the dicks in that thread and the horrible failures of humanity in the Polanski thread, I'll take the Blazecock thread, thanks.
posted by Pope Guilty at 12:08 PM on October 3, 2009


I just dismissed it as a lame attempt at a joke, plus a dash of truth because is IS more expensive to be gay in the US than not, as the FPP makes clear.

Flag it and move on, or at least grow a thicker skin. Being queer in America won't do well for you if you're that overly sensitive. It's not like he was saying something actually homophobic...
posted by hippybear at 12:40 PM on October 3, 2009


Sadly, not everything that bothers you personally can be excised from Metafilter.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:59 PM on October 3, 2009 [1 favorite]


Sadly, not everything that bothers you personally can be excised from Metafilter.

That's for sure, honey!
posted by ericb at 1:22 PM on October 3, 2009 [9 favorites]


OK - I brought it up because Ithought this kind of thing might be grating on other people too, but it looks like I'm the only one getting wound up about this.

I also thought it was pretty annoying personally but the flag queue wasn't registering a lot of outrage.

That said, klangklangston: you need to quit with the ironic hater/lulzy stuff or get better at it. Not everyone knows you and knows your heart is in the right place and I'm tired of explaining to people why you're still here after some of the things you say. To people who know you, it can seem funny. To people to whom you're a total stranger, you seem like a scary creep. Work on your tonemeter some maybe?
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 1:23 PM on October 3, 2009 [1 favorite]


Honey is a proper name, and should be capitalized.
posted by Astro Zombie at 1:25 PM on October 3, 2009 [3 favorites]


At Metafilter we do ALL kinds of marriage well.
posted by Elmore at 1:34 PM on October 3, 2009


Well, as a heterosexual dude who got married last night to a sexy heterosexual lady, I can tell you that our heterosexual wedding was pretty expensive.

But it dosent matter, because the point of last night and the point of marriage is not cost to benefit ratios but rather commitment to one another, respect and, of course, love.

Gay or straight, that's what marriage is about.
posted by Effigy2000 at 2:01 PM on October 3, 2009 [2 favorites]


fabulous
posted by found missing at 2:02 PM on October 3, 2009


Congratulations, Effigy2000!
posted by lilac girl at 2:09 PM on October 3, 2009


Effigy2000: "Well, as a heterosexual dude who got married last night to a sexy heterosexual lady, I can tell you that our heterosexual wedding was pretty expensive."

Congratulations! Now get off the computer and back to your honeymoon.
posted by The corpse in the library at 2:13 PM on October 3, 2009 [5 favorites]


She's sleeping next to me in bed in our hotel room, looking beautiful as she does. Typical me; I'm up first and, being the geek that I am, I'm on my iPhone checking metafilter.

Thanks for the congrats all!
posted by Effigy2000 at 2:32 PM on October 3, 2009 [2 favorites]


I'm glad you thought my comment was elegant. But looking at THIS thread, I'm especially glad that I restrained myself in the thread -- before I hit Post, I deleted the last bit about how the dude probably already counted as half-gay anyway, judging from the way his ex-wife had bent him over.
posted by hermitosis at 2:36 PM on October 3, 2009 [1 favorite]


Effigy2000, please check mefi mail...
posted by harperpitt at 2:38 PM on October 3, 2009


I vote we all just embrace the budding derail and congratulate Effigy2000 instead of expending more energy on this. Honestly if this is the worst we do do gay marriage, then that's yet more proof of how unique a place MeFi is, because a lot of places on the internet don't do it very well at all.
posted by ORthey at 2:49 PM on October 3, 2009


Yay Effigy!
posted by The Whelk at 2:57 PM on October 3, 2009


People say "Metafilter does X very badly" for very, very broad values of X. And I usually think Metafilter does most of those Xs pretty dang well, relatively speaking.

Yay, Metafilter!
posted by Justinian at 3:00 PM on October 3, 2009


Uh hermitosis, a guy getting pegged by his female SO is still het.

In no way am I implying that this poster engaged in this.
posted by brujita at 3:01 PM on October 3, 2009


Honey is a proper name, and should be capitalized.

Only if you're Jessica Alba.
posted by P.o.B. at 3:17 PM on October 3, 2009


For all your isitgayornot wonderings, including pegging, Mercy Fuque lipsyncs King Missile's Gay/Not Gay, providing all the answers. And here are the lyrics, if you want to lipsync along.
posted by Kattullus at 3:18 PM on October 3, 2009 [1 favorite]


Um, Kattallus...

by posting that link to the lyrics, I think we can safely say you are "discussing sex." And there are a lot of guys here. So, umm.....
posted by drjimmy11 at 3:26 PM on October 3, 2009


as a heterosexual dude who got married last night to a sexy heterosexual lady

Damn straights... flaunting their lifestyles all over the place.
posted by hippybear at 3:26 PM on October 3, 2009 [3 favorites]


brujita: "Uh hermitosis, a guy getting pegged by his female SO is still het."

You could read it as a queering of straight sex (by departing from the privileged "tip" of the sexual triangle, i.e. PIV-intercourse), so it may be "straight" in that it's M/F but in another way it may not be straight.

I say this mainly because that's the point my thesis made about pegging and I'm honor bound to defend it or they take my degree away.
posted by subbes at 3:27 PM on October 3, 2009 [5 favorites]


I think klangklangston already apologized for this 18 hours before being called out.

Actually, no, that was way more assholish than I meant it to be.
posted by klangklangston at 4:13 PM on October 2 [+] [!]

posted by ActingTheGoat at 3:31 PM on October 3, 2009


klangklangston's comment was funny to me personally because it's the TRUTH regardless of straight/gay/bi/queer/likes-to-stick-it-in-butter labels.

It generally does cost to be fabulous. And by fabulous I mean exceptionally good/unusual. And by cost I'm not just talking about money...I'm also talking about time, effort, etc.
posted by fluffy battle kitten at 3:40 PM on October 3, 2009


drjimmy11: by posting that link to the lyrics, I think we can safely say you are "discussing sex." And there are a lot of guys here. So, umm.....

I lost a bet with a woman.
posted by Kattullus at 4:05 PM on October 3, 2009 [1 favorite]


klang's an asshole and water is wet. Does anybody else get away such direct name-calling on the blue so consistently?

I hope you don't mind my calling you an asshole, dude. I am, reallY, just curious about the name-calling protocols. I mean, also I think it's below your ability and I don't get the appeal. But I kind of think I should figure that out.
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 4:05 PM on October 3, 2009


The fabulous comment was... not. As meh as the rest of this. It's caturday, people. Be more amusing. *GONNNNNnnnnnggg*
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 4:11 PM on October 3, 2009


"I say this mainly because that's the point my thesis made about pegging and I'm honor bound to defend it or they take my degree away."

subbes, you might want to have a word with Dan Savage re: his latest column, then. (scroll down to the last question)
posted by mr_crash_davis mark II: Jazz Odyssey at 4:12 PM on October 3, 2009


You could read it as a queering of straight sex (by departing from the privileged "tip" of the sexual triangle, i.e. PIV-intercourse), so it may be "straight" in that it's M/F but in another way it may not be straight.

This sounds like some shit I'd hear on Fox News.
posted by Mikey-San at 4:31 PM on October 3, 2009


Well, I think Dan's saying sexuality is based on the actors, rather than the acts - and probably working from a different field of analysis, since I doubt he's about to start quoting Halperin and Butler up in there.

The answer he gave was to some dude who was scared taking it in the ass made him gay, so that "no, you're not" is a logical response - divorcing the sexual act from any definition of sexuality, so men can be pegged without worrying that they're gay. And that's fine if that's what you want to do.

But the sex act itself can be deeply queer, if the couple wants it to be - you can disrupt and play with assumptions and constructions of gender and sexuality through this one act.

If you don't, and you just want to fuck, cool. I like to analyze it and quote Foucault about it, as well.

</pet theory>
posted by subbes at 4:42 PM on October 3, 2009


Dan Savage is right. The distinction between homosexual v heterosexual is not specific acts, but the sex of the people involved. Not understanding this very simple, basic aspect of sex displays an immature understanding of sexuality in general.
posted by Mikey-San at 4:43 PM on October 3, 2009 [1 favorite]


I'm not quite sure how to respond to that, Mikey-San.

Maybe I'm not explaining things adequately, if you believe that I have "an immature understanding of sexuality in general."

I trust that you haven't taken offense at anything I said; my intent was not to say anything as naive as that anyone who takes it in the ass is gay, but rather that pegging, as a sex act, can be a great way to play with the conceptions of sexuality, gender, and heterosexual norms, using the toolbox of queer theory - if you want to.

And I want to - it's part of why I spent entirely too long writing notes in the margins of my Foucault.

If you'd like to discuss it more in-depth, we could take it to MeMail and out of this thread that I pushed off-topic.
posted by subbes at 4:55 PM on October 3, 2009


Your comment was posted while I was composing mine. Don't jump to conclusions.
posted by Mikey-San at 5:21 PM on October 3, 2009


Well, then it appears we crossed wires. I am sorry if anything I said was inappropriate.
posted by subbes at 5:24 PM on October 3, 2009


the point of marriage is not cost to benefit ratios but rather commitment to one another, respect and, of course, love.

Though being allowed into each other's hospital rooms, keeping your kids if the "biological" parent dies, etc are all nice benefits, too.
posted by small_ruminant at 5:24 PM on October 3, 2009


fwiw, this metatalk thread exists as a side-conversation about an existing thread. i dunno what the point would be of going to private mail about anything being discussed here. ;)
posted by Mikey-San at 5:25 PM on October 3, 2009


Your comment was posted while I was composing mine. Don't jump to conclusions.
posted by Mikey-San



OH OH so now we're not aloud to jump?! Is that it??
posted by nola at 5:31 PM on October 3, 2009


I believe it is the having of an ass which makes you queer. QED, Mary.
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 5:31 PM on October 3, 2009


er . . . or allowed
posted by nola at 5:32 PM on October 3, 2009


No one should be denied basic human freedoms: gay, straight, etc. There is no doubt that people should be more kind and compassionate. I really do believe this, but I'm a little confused as to the reason that some issues should be treated so respectfully by default while others aren't. For example, almost every vegetarian/vegan post I've read on Metafilter is quickly derailed by trolls, haters, and "needs more bacon" asshats, and this is tolerated as humor and/or legitimate debate when it clearly is neither. Now, I'm not being deliberately obtuse, and I don't intend to derail the original discussion because I am sympathetic, however, I do think it is pertinent to the spirit of the LOL discussion. So help me, what am I not understanding?
posted by belvidere at 5:59 PM on October 3, 2009


What does "pegging" mean?
posted by lazaruslong at 6:01 PM on October 3, 2009


. . .what am I not understanding?
I think for many people what you choose to do if fair game, but if you have no choice in the matter then it's not cool to give you shit for it.

In other words being gay is not thought to be a choice therefore not something to criticise.
Being Vegan is a choice so it's open to criticism.

I think that's the logic.
posted by nola at 6:10 PM on October 3, 2009



. . .

But the funny thing is even if you could prove that being gay was a choice I still don't think that it would be ok to slag a person for it. Same with being vegan. To my mind everyone has the right to be whatever they want and as long as they don't get on my lawn about it I'm cool with it. Sometimes lawns get got on anyway and that's when all hell breaks loose.

At the end of the day everyone picks things they can live with and things they can't and I'm not really sure you or me are going to ever change their minds, but then again I'm not an optimist
posted by nola at 6:16 PM on October 3, 2009 [1 favorite]


Pegging (wikipedia) NSFW
posted by small_ruminant at 6:19 PM on October 3, 2009


Maybe just dial down the cheap outrage a bit. Relax, unclench, go outside, etc.
posted by Burhanistan at 7:19 PM on October 3, 2009


Burhanistan: "Relax, unclench, go outside, etc."

but it's DARK out there and there are GHOSTS.
posted by subbes at 7:24 PM on October 3, 2009 [3 favorites]


Relax, unclench

But how am I supposed to hold these recently-glued pieces of wood together?
posted by dirigibleman at 7:50 PM on October 3, 2009


Wait, you can get a degree for writing a thesis about pegging?
posted by fourcheesemac at 8:02 PM on October 3, 2009


Wait, you can get a degree for writing a thesis about pegging?

*clears schedule*
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:05 PM on October 3, 2009


Relax, unclench

Those are the first two steps in that Wikipedia link on pegging.
posted by gman at 8:20 PM on October 3, 2009 [1 favorite]


Oh. I see. Hmm.
posted by lazaruslong at 8:37 PM on October 3, 2009


I love Dan Savage and all, but I'm not calling it pegging. I just refuse. What was wrong with just plain anal?
posted by crataegus at 9:06 PM on October 3, 2009



I love Dan Savage and all, but I'm not calling it pegging. I just refuse. What was wrong with just plain anal?


Nothing, it was great, honey!

Oh, uhm, I mean... I think they wanted a shorter term for "a woman anally penetrating a man with her strap-on dildo" and came up with "pegging". But I personally think the word "pegging" has already vague connections to many penetrative sexual acts.
posted by NikitaNikita at 9:59 PM on October 3, 2009


MeTa callouts are more for the massive shitstorm type derailings that occur from obvious and egregiously offensive behavior

Don't forget displaying the booboo of butthurt and celebrating our special snowflake status. Without these things, MetaTalk would barely be worth reading.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 12:06 AM on October 4, 2009


the point of marriage is not cost to benefit ratios but rather commitment to one another, respect and, of course, love.

Though being allowed into each other's hospital rooms, keeping your kids if the "biological" parent dies, etc are all nice benefits, too.


I love my wife. I'm committed to her. And both of those things were true during the couple years we dated that I maintained that, like James Joyce and Nora Barnacle, I had no intention of marrying her despite wanting to spend my life with her.

And then, I had a hypnagogic hallucination that I was physically fighting with a doctor to let me into her ER room after an accident. Tears streaming down my face as security dragged me away.

That one pseudo-dream is the reason we're married. If I had my druthers, a partner's rights wouldn't require marriage to exercise. But as it stands, they do, and so I agreed to marry her. I also worried about the hospital room issue when I dated dudes.

Love, respect and commitment are all you need for love, respect and commitment. Marriage is about a constellation of exclusive rights granted by the state and recognized by numerous private institutions. Until the last 80 years or so, marriage was about ownership and oppression of women.
posted by Netzapper at 2:11 AM on October 4, 2009 [2 favorites]


At first, I favorited klang's comment because I thought it was so tasteless as to be funny. But then I realized again how fucked up the situation was and how little right he had to poke fun, so I took away my favorite. I was disappointed to see his comment get as much upvoting as it did.

Basically, klang was once again being an asshole, but at least he owned up to it later in the thread, which is commendable, if a rare event to see.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 3:26 AM on October 4, 2009


At least no one got called a drama queen.
posted by TedW at 4:13 AM on October 4, 2009 [1 favorite]


MetaFilter: Sometimes lawns get got on.
posted by headnsouth at 5:34 AM on October 4, 2009


TedW: At least no one got called a drama queen.

Picking on people is not cool.
posted by Kattullus at 6:45 AM on October 4, 2009 [3 favorites]


I like klang, but he has poor impulse control. This callout was probably unnecessary, but hey, maybe it'll give him a slight itch next time he feels like tossing a firecracker into a thread and he'll get distracted by the itch and forget what he was going to say.
posted by languagehat at 7:30 AM on October 4, 2009


likes-to-stick-it-in-butter

I'm sorry but sticking it in butter is only permissible if the butter is atop mashed potatoes.
posted by jonmc at 7:32 AM on October 4, 2009


I still think it was funny. If you can't whistle past the graveyard, what have you got left?
posted by small_ruminant at 8:17 AM on October 4, 2009 [3 favorites]


jonmc: "I'm sorry but sticking it in butter is only permissible if the butter is atop mashed potatoes."

Atop hardcore mashed taters, you mean?
posted by subbes at 10:27 AM on October 4, 2009


If I'd have known it was gonna be that kind of party...
posted by lazaruslong at 12:14 PM on October 4, 2009


....I'd have been pegged by a unicorn before entering.
posted by lazaruslong at 12:14 PM on October 4, 2009


Dan Savage is right. The distinction between homosexual v heterosexual is not specific acts, but the sex of the people involved. Not understanding this very simple, basic aspect of sex displays an immature understanding of sexuality in general.

Consider gender.
posted by kathrineg at 12:40 PM on October 4, 2009 [1 favorite]


To people to whom you're a total stranger, you seem like a scary creep.

Really? An off-hand fabulous joke isn't scary and/or creepy, at all, and I don't see the point of this callout, nor this scary/creepy characterisation of klang for making it. It was innocuous and lame-ish but mildly funny, but not deserving of a callout or labelling of the commenter a 'scary creep' for making it.
posted by goo at 6:23 PM on October 4, 2009


It's not just that joke, goo. Jessamyn is referring to other stuff.
posted by kathrineg at 6:50 PM on October 4, 2009


MetaFilter: Work on your tonemeter some maybe?
posted by Pax at 9:20 AM on October 5, 2009


This sounds like some shit I'd hear on Fox News.

Sometimes you have to do it with the dong you have, not necessarily the dong you want.
posted by electroboy at 9:32 AM on October 5, 2009


Come on. This merits a whole callout thread?

I've seen way, way worse snark in comments in other threads on same-sex marriage/relations. These two called-out comments barely register on the typical snark/sarcasm scale for mefi. I'm same-sex married and did not take offense to either comment. (Okay, the second one was a little annoying, but then I've never been through a heterosexual divorce, so he may be right, for all I know.)
posted by blucevalo at 11:48 AM on October 5, 2009 [1 favorite]


blucevalo: "Come on. This merits a whole callout thread?"

The site is not like, running out of room or anything. MetaTalk has a point and I think it's silly to discourage people from using it
posted by kathrineg at 12:31 PM on October 5, 2009


Outrage is a limited resource, katherineg. If someone doesn't start planning for Peak Outrage, what will happen when there's a FPP about a declawed, circumsized, albino tater?
posted by electroboy at 2:58 PM on October 5, 2009


Jessamyn is always saying take it to metatalk and then when people do, everyone gets all het up about it! Also I am pretty sure the tater should be conventionally attractive and US-centric.
posted by kathrineg at 3:53 PM on October 5, 2009


You didn't hear it from me, but word on the street is that mods have been buying up outrage futures on the open market like crazy.
posted by electroboy at 4:06 PM on October 5, 2009


MetaTalk has a point and I think it's silly to discourage people from using it

MetaTalk may have tons of points. This particular MetaTalk thread does not.
posted by blucevalo at 7:06 AM on October 6, 2009


As the non-Klang commentor called out here, I have a few things I'd liked to say. First, I favorited his comment because my immediate reaction to it was I laughed. Out loud. What does that say about me as a person? Nothing other than I don't share the sensitivity level of those who were offended by it.

Second, I didn't go back to that thread until just now, after discovering this one. I'm surprised at the reaction to my comment. And most, but not all, of the objections there were way off and I wish I had replied to them when they were fresh. I'm not particularly bitter about the divorce. My point was that tax law is unfair to others besides gay couples. I wasn't (as quite a few people asserted) complaining about paying child support, about my ex receiving the money or anything other than the tax laws suck with regards to child support. If they were changed in certain ways, more men and women would not only pay their minimum child support obligation, they would be encouraged to pay more than what was required, to the benefit of their children. There is no anti-woman/bitter man sentiment intended in my comment.

As hermitosis pointed out in his comment about mine, "your split-up would put you in a world of terrifying legal choices that would probably make what you have now seem like a real picnic. So that's sort of a weird thing for you to say, considering." Quite true. I guess I didn't think enough before leaving my comment. And it was kind of a derail on top of it.

Last, the outrage expressed here and there is, in my opinion, way out of proportion to the "offences". I was, as the OP of this callout stated, "elegantly taken to task" by hermitosis and some of you would do well to learn from his example. To anyone who was offended, please believe me when I say I'm not homophobic or anti-gay. I support equal protection and rights under the law for all people.
posted by Mike Buechel at 11:09 AM on October 6, 2009 [2 favorites]


It's not just that joke, goo. Jessamyn is referring to other stuff.

Yeah, I know, but jessamyn's comment was in this thread, in relation to this joke. Without further context it doesn't make much sense. Klang's comment called out in this thread was way down the innocuous scale, as far as klang's comments and Metafilter comments in general go.

Maybe I've missed some major recent transgression on klang's part that would warrant such frustration in an unrelated thread, and I'm totally not discounting that, but this comment in itself is pretty inoffensive.
posted by goo at 12:12 PM on October 6, 2009


I was referring to the comment "At least I'm not in here trying to argue that the gay lifestyle is unhealthy and tasteless." which is sort of ironic jokestery as I read it in the context of the thread. klang and I have a long friendly history of email and occasional MeTa mentions, so I figured it was okay to make a slightly public "hey you need to dial it back some about now" message but yeah the original joke was no big deal and wouldn't under normal circumstances necessitate any sort of mod callout.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 12:48 PM on October 6, 2009


That makes a lot more sense! My net has been intermittent lately (grrr) and I actually missed that comment in the thread, so thanks for the context.
posted by goo at 1:02 PM on October 6, 2009


« Older For he's a jolly good mollusk   |   Mental Discretion Advised. Newer »

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