there's trolls in there, lots of them. September 27, 2000 8:22 PM   Subscribe

there's trolls in there, lots of them.

holloway leads the pack, but there are a few others walking right behind.

matt, have you even looked at this thread? it's really offensive, completely unproductive as a conversation--the misogynists came
out of the woodwork too quickly for that.

honestly, if it were me, I'd boot a few people, but you might consider at least pulling the thread....

posted by rebeccablood to Etiquette/Policy at 8:22 PM (16 comments total)

I didn't see it until early this evening. Pretty messy stuff.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 1:48 AM on September 28, 2000

I agree that holloway and Catch and maybe even PWA_Badboy were posting some inflammatory stuff, but I'm kind of disappointed the thread was closed, because I think there was some productive discussion going on with Mars, SapphireBlue, Rebecca, and others. I certainly hope, Rebecca and Matt, that none of my comments could be construed as misogynistic or offensive in any way. Please tell me if you thought so.
posted by daveadams at 1:51 PM on September 28, 2000

Oh, and since I'm worried about how I'm being read, let me say that Matt, I totally respect your decision to shut down that thread, I can understand why you did it, and I support your decision.

And Rebecca, I'm extraordinarily worried now about how you view my point of view on the whole issue because you're one of the people in this community I really and truly respect, and I don't want to lose your respect for anything!
posted by daveadams at 1:59 PM on September 28, 2000

Dave, stopping that thread wasn't an easy decision. There were a few good posts, but like the Kaycee post a couple weeks back, a few people set a fairly negative tone that ruined the whole thing for most people.

As the site gets more popular, I'm seeing more and more things resemble slashdot, and that's a Very Bad Thing. I don't want other users to think saying "all feminists are whiny bitches" is acceptable on this site.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 6:11 PM on September 28, 2000

Hey Matt,
As I've had more time to think about it, I am more and more comfortable with your decision to stop the thread. Although I was picking through the mess to get the good stuff, obviously most people don't have the time or the patience, and there was far more noise (offensive noise at that) than signal in that discussion.

Hopefully you can continue to keep a good balance of free discussion while you still maintain enough of a grip to keep things from going wild. You've done a great job so far, Matt, I know it's difficult sometimes to know how to deal with these kinds of situations. I've been in similar situations with a few email communities I was responsible for. It's a hard balance to find.
posted by daveadams at 9:12 PM on September 28, 2000

And I quote:
To utter a posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable responses or flames; [SNIP!] in which one trails bait through a likely spot hoping for a bite [SNIP!] for no other purpose than to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion.
In the last year or two online I've noticed a trend to label people you disagree with trolls. I am not a troll. Trolling goes to the purpose of a post - any post will do - to spark retaliation.

Trolling is all about habit and intent.

Of course I could probably guess that my comments would offend some people. But many do, and that doesn't make them trolls.

I posted on Metafilter prior to my comments on feminism, and - matt-willing - i'll post after (as I have been doing).

It's all about context, and I don't and have never gone to get a reaction out of metafilter readers.

Henceforth I reject the term Troll and take "rebeccablood" off my christmas card list.

posted by holloway at 10:52 PM on September 28, 2000

"all feminists are whiny bitches"

It's in quotation marks. Who said it?

Or what?
posted by holloway at 3:54 AM on September 29, 2000


I have no problem with you airing your views on feminism, whether or not I agree with them.

and I see no need for you to use such offensive language in doing so.

repeatedly meeting each argument against your point of view with "Feminists, of all types, are silly bitches" or some variation thereof, is trolling, designed to be offensive and to elicit a predictable response.

posted by rebeccablood at 11:34 AM on September 29, 2000

Unless you're a mindreader you can't possibly know whether my comments were "designed to be offensive" and made to "elicit a predictable response" - you're not privy to my mind and you should remember that.

Is it really that strange to you that someone could just have this opinion? If I was out to get a predictable response and troll away then I failed miserably. There were posts agreeing with me, and i've since received six emails from similar minded limp-dicked readers not wanting to post in the flames.

(and if you're reading this, Mr Limp-dicked, you are; and that's OK)

Look at my posting history, I don't troll metafilter. If I repeatedly posted "linux sux0rs, micr0softy rUlz, Richard Stallman enjoys anal sex wiht GNUU" then you might have a case - but otherwise.

I'd much prefer you think of me as a "dickhead" rather than a "troll" as there is something behind my comments; it's my opinion.

Now, as to my choice of words in expressing my opinion. Feminism, historically and still today is about pro-woman's rights. It exists alongside pro-white, pro-black and pro-Australian in my book.

In the same way that I would call white-power members delusional trailer trash who watched too much smurfs while young, I would think of people who are pro-woman as stupid stupid stupid.

It's not about gender equality if you draw a line at gender.

Males have faced sexism too, for millennia. It's not nearly as recognised. And any person after experiencing sexism who decides to defend moreso against their gender, or one gender, is stupid stupid stupid IMO.

Maybe even a silly bitch along side those white-supremist silly bastards.

>> don't believe for a second that Feminists are
>> as touchy about male rights as they are about
>> female rights - hence my opinion.

>That's idiotic. And just what rights have men been
> deprived of? Women have the right to be murdered
> because they were raped? The right to be held down
> and have their clitoris removed because they are
> women and are therefore temptresses sent my Satan?
> The right to be paid less for the same work? The
> right not to vote?

Oh dear god.

Genital mutilation of guys and gals is an awful thing (the idea of circumcision and clit removal make my skin crawl). Everyone capable should be able to vote. All of this is awful.

I've just been accused of supporting these.

Unlike you, I wouldn't debase the person by saying they're `just a troll`, i'd take what they say to be their thoughts on the matter, i'd take them to be a person I disagree with - a person who doesn't know anything about me - called them a silly bitch and been done with it.

We can disagree. That's fine. But i'm not a troll and I resent you calling me that.

Keep it up rebeccablood, that's two years off my christmas card list.
posted by holloway at 7:36 PM on September 29, 2000

You know, I hate to say this, but I continue to have to agree with Holloway. He's not trolling. He really thinks what he says, and vice versa. His *approach* isn't calculated to be popular, but I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Emotions don't always make for good debate, but developing the talent to respond to emotional prods without losing control of your thoughts is a good thing.

And, of course, "defending popular speech is unimpressive". :-)

And, I hate to say *this*, too, but you *were* straw-manning him, rcb; his opinions to date don't paint him as a supporter of any of the things you brought up in your last post... and that tactic, too, is a commonly disliked one of the feminist arm of humanity... not that it isn't common to many other groups of debaters, too.

I dunno, Matt; I dislike attacks on specific people who aren't around to defend themselves, but attacks on people who *are* there don't bother me much... and attacks on groups of people I usually count as so much wind: there's not *really* a target.

Maybe you should have left it open...
posted by baylink at 2:17 PM on September 30, 2000

baylink: I wasn't straw-manning him, I was ignoring him.

my post addresses daveadams' last post.

my objection is to the use of the word "bitch". I would have the same objection to any slur, racial, ethnic, gender, whatever.

it hasn't come up before, to my knowledge, and I don't think it should be tolerated.

that's all.

posted by rebeccablood at 11:51 AM on October 2, 2000

Oh Rebeccablood, I never insulted any group aside from feminists, and I didn't lay a finger The Greater Women Collective.

Or TGWC as I like to call them.

I insulted things that are by choice. Not things that are part of your genetic code.

As i've said, feminists (those who accurately complain about sexism but rather strangely defend against only a single gender) are as misguided as any equality group only helping (or only being offended at) one subset of their respective "-ism".

Be that sexism, racism, ageism or whatever.

That goes for whites helping whites, and their members that aren't as touchy about that black guy down the street's rights - for example.

The irony for these groups overflows down the stairs and puts out a small fire in the basement.

> That's idiotic. And just what rights have men been
> deprived of? Women have the right to be murdered
> because they were raped? The right to be held down
> and have their clitoris removed because they are
> women and are therefore temptresses sent my Satan?
> The right to be paid less for the same work? The
> right not to vote?
> And Holloway, did you ever stop to think that those
> 14 feminist groups that didn't want you as a member
> probably didn't want you because you are a sexist
> toad?
>>> I'm not trying to win over people to my line of
>>> thought Jay. I'm giving you a piece of my mind.
>>> Don't assume otherwise.
> Watch how much you give, Holloway. It doesn't look
> like you can afford it.

(Why yes, I don't have much of me brains left. Thanks for the tip.) Could someone tell me if that's a troll? I'm not sure what's going on in that person's post.

This poster seems to be in denial, or hopefully just ignorant, that men experience any sexism whatsoever.

> And your admiration has nothing to do with the fact
> that Holloway ends every message with a statement that
> feminists are bitches? I gotta say I find that hard to
> believe.

Arr! That might be vile troll! Ooh arr! They be part of my "[troll] pack" be they?


I said early on in my piece what the definition of a feminist was for me, and I don't see any problems with my insult taken in context.

No one complained when I said KKK members were silly white trailer trash ass-bastards - now did they?

(ok, so I didn't call them ass-bastards, but I wish I had)

Is anyone going to defend them? Probably not, and it's because they're so disliked by me and others - don't dress it up otherwise.

More people would have lambasted those feminists and those insulting me if it were merely about trolling.

IMO it's the reaction to a popular and righteous group being criticised.

"Sapphireblue drew the excellent analogy between the position of women and the position of blacks. But it wasn't the Black Power movement that every decent human stood up and fought for, but the Civil Rights movement."


Yours sincerely,
Matthew "no i'm not religious" Cruickshank.
posted by holloway at 4:47 PM on October 2, 2000

Ahh... the countless qualities of Rebeccablood,

She accuses unnamed others and I of trolling and yet hasn't hasn't explained herself. I wasn't trolling, which I think i've proved above. Trolling is ones motivation; the only reason you're writing is to get a reaction of people.

Now she has her fingers in her ears and isn't listening. Lovely.

Calling someone a troll is a weak way of dealing with disagreements. Unfortunately it's also one of the most debasing categories you can drop someone into - as any troll worth his green pott-belly will deny being a troll. Natch.

Rebeccablood didn't even identify the trolls, only the "misogynist" trolls, and now it starts to become clear she doesn't have a clue what a troll is and uses it to insult people and belittle their opinion.

She's got some kind of weirdass troll paranoia, that's for sure.
posted by holloway at 12:02 AM on October 4, 2000

Holloway, I'm not sure if rebeccablood even knows if this thread is continuing (I rather found it by accident, even though I check MetaFilter and MetaTalk semi-religiously). It seems that if you want to continue this debate, perhaps you and she should continue this from the privacy of email; I'm not trying to stifle conversation by any means, but it seems that the rest of the MeFi community has moved on.

"move along, nothing to see here..."
posted by Avogadro at 6:16 AM on October 6, 2000

Advogadro: Point taken and I agree (although I thought that's what the bowels of metatalk we for, I should ensure she see's it). I'll do anything further by email. I've said my piece and there's little more to say.

RB: point conversations to if the mood strikes you. Although i'm quite content now, only if it's important, keh?

posted by holloway at 7:09 PM on October 6, 2000

Advogadro: Point taken and I agree (although I thought that's what the bowels of metatalk we for, I should ensure she see's it). I'll do anything further by email. I've said my piece and there's nothing more though.

I was unaware of this thread for quite a while also.

RB: point conversations to if the mood strikes you.

(now i've submitted this twice, haven't I? argh... how embaressing).
posted by holloway at 7:11 PM on October 6, 2000

« Older I was wondering if Metafilter outs a...   |   So, now that you've won a TiVo, what will you do... Newer »

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