Enough with the hating already April 21, 2010 12:42 PM   Subscribe

How come this nonsense gets a free pass while in-thread callouts get deleted without a word?

I mean, yeah, MeFi is liberal and all, but most of the time there's at least some pretense at even-handedness.

Barring that, consider this an official call-out of Blazecock Pileon for his constant meanspiritedness with respect to those whose opinions, political or otherwise offend him. Disagreement is all well and good, but there's no need to be this consistently unpleasant about everything.
posted by valkyryn to Etiquette/Policy at 12:42 PM (292 comments total) 2 users marked this as a favorite

man it's good to be back.
posted by boo_radley at 12:44 PM on April 21, 2010 [7 favorites]


Welcome back!
posted by jeffamaphone at 12:45 PM on April 21, 2010


Where did you go?
posted by jeffamaphone at 12:45 PM on April 21, 2010 [1 favorite]


Just to be clear: are we having a referendum on the word "cockroach" now? Is that what we're doing?
posted by roll truck roll at 12:45 PM on April 21, 2010 [8 favorites]


Your entire comment was this:

And Mr. Pileon again chimes in with his gracious and broad-minded commentary on political issues.

Typical.


That's not useful. If you have a problem with what he said, address it substantially, but don't drop random drive-by turds in a thread like that. Deleting such stuff "without a word" is not unusual.
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:46 PM on April 21, 2010 [5 favorites]


I like pronouncing it "cock-a-roach".
posted by jeffamaphone at 12:46 PM on April 21, 2010 [16 favorites]


He's a funny little bug!
Watch him run under the rug!

posted by roll truck roll at 12:47 PM on April 21, 2010 [1 favorite]


Fair enough, cortex.
posted by valkyryn at 12:48 PM on April 21, 2010


in-thread callouts get deleted without a word?

What? Callouts belong here, not in-thread. I'm not sure why this is confusing.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 12:50 PM on April 21, 2010 [3 favorites]


Why do people so often conflate First Amendment free speech issues and the non-legal debate over whether and when it is desirable for one private party to pressure another private party to retract previous speech, alter behavior, or disassociate themselves from the speaker? This isn't exclusively directed at BP, but the Washington petition situation is sufficiently complex and involves state action to an extent that it's silly to compare it to purely private actions, whatever one thinks of them. I wish that posters generally on this site would pay more attention to that distinction, because it quite often leaves their arguments short when they don't.
posted by Inspector.Gadget at 12:51 PM on April 21, 2010 [4 favorites]


ya gotta be more specific than that. Other than the word cockroach it all seems pretty straightforward... and are you really doing this over the word cockroach, because the fucking tea partiers get called worse everyday here... and I'm pretty unrepentant about it.
posted by edgeways at 12:52 PM on April 21, 2010 [1 favorite]


valkyryn: "How come this nonsense gets a free pass while in-thread callouts get deleted without a word?"

Instead of responding to the nonsense in situ, you go running to MetaTalk in the hopes that someone will declare you Right? If everyone did that, then all nonsense would always appear to get a free pass.
posted by Plutor at 12:52 PM on April 21, 2010


Isn't there another thread going on right now about how we don't like to delete statements due to abhorrent content?
posted by amethysts at 12:55 PM on April 21, 2010


Hey, you're crowding my call-out three doors down. Cut it out, will ya??
posted by hermitosis at 12:55 PM on April 21, 2010 [8 favorites]


That the moderation at metafilter seems to inspire frothing Metatalk posts from both sides of the ideological divide along with accusations of preference for one side or the other (viz. this thread and the one a few posts down) makes me realize that jessamyn, cortex et al. are doing a superb job at maintaining a very difficult balance while eliminating unnecessary drive-by douchebaggery from all ideological perspectives.

My hat's off to you guys-- I certainly couldn't do it.
posted by Nothing... and like it at 12:59 PM on April 21, 2010 [33 favorites]


Seriously, that's not okay.

He should have called them penisroaches.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 12:59 PM on April 21, 2010 [1 favorite]


I want to call out the practice of bolding usernames with no hyperlink. Not. Ok.
posted by greekphilosophy at 1:03 PM on April 21, 2010 [11 favorites]


La cucaracha, la cucaracha, The cockroach, the cockroach,
ya no puede caminar can't walk anymore
porque no tiene, porque le falta because it doesn't have, because it's lacking
marihuana pa' fumar. marijuana to smoke.
posted by fixedgear at 1:08 PM on April 21, 2010 [2 favorites]


Would it make you feel better if Mr. Pileon gave you a lap dance?
posted by special-k at 1:10 PM on April 21, 2010


I mean, yeah, MeFi is liberal and all, but most of the time there's at least some pretense at even-handedness.

valkyryn: Vituperative, generalizing comments directed against groups and individuals who are not members of MetaFilter, while not often well-received, are not expressly forbidden by this site's guidelines. However, that same kind of comment directed against a fellow Mefite is not only frowned upon, it is against the rules. (On the Blue, at least.)

Your comment was, no doubt, flagged by several members as a personal attack. This brought it to the attention of the moderators and it was deleted. If the roles had been reversed, and Blazecock Pileon had responded to a fiery statement you'd made with something along the lines of "Oh, brother. Here comes that crazy valkyryn again, spewing his usual nonsense", know that it would have likewise been flagged by multiple members and subsequently deleted.
posted by Atom Eyes at 1:16 PM on April 21, 2010


What part of "a factual statement" are you interpreting as "nonsense"?

The backers of the anti-gay bill in Washington was a group called Protect Marriage in Washington. Here is a list of their endorsers. On the list is the Washington State Republican Party, members of whom have spoken at Tea Party events, if their Facebook page is to be believed. There's also the Washington Values Alliance's Larry Stickney. Tea Part affiliation? You bet. Faith and Freedom Network? Yep. Former State Rep. John Ahern? Him too. And on, and on.

So is it that you tale issue with Blazecock Pileon saying there is crossover between the anti-gay activists and the Tea Baggers? Because there is -- abundantly. Or that they are the same people fighting to keep the names of their backers out of the public? Because they are. Maybe you take issue with him calling these folks cockroaches. Well, he's entitled to his opinion, which I share. It's pretty hard not to find contemptible people who actively look for government interference in the lives of others and then denounce it when they don't like how that same government affects them. Especially when they are actively seeking to deny human rights while at the same time sobbing that their taxes are too high.

Actually, calling these people cockroaches is an insult to cockroaches. At least insects don't try to force their petty morality on other cockroaches.
posted by Astro Zombie at 1:18 PM on April 21, 2010 [108 favorites]


And is this callout really because his opinion about a political group is not to your liking, but your direct, off-topic, in-thread attack on him was?

Grow up.
posted by Astro Zombie at 1:21 PM on April 21, 2010 [1 favorite]


Barring that, consider this an official call-out of Blazecock Pileon for his constant meanspiritedness with respect to those whose opinions, political or otherwise offend him.

As far as I'm concerned, call-outs like this one are much higher on the meanspiritedness-o-meter than anything BP said in that comment. As are personal attacks like the one you posted earlier. So much for "enough with the hating already".

If there's somebody here showing a lack of respect to those "whose opinions, political or otherwise offend him", it's you. The failure of others to play according to your rules is a feature of this site, not a bug.
posted by vorfeed at 1:22 PM on April 21, 2010


Address the thing said, not the person saying it. That person is just like you, really, and deserves respect even if you don't agree with what they say. It's easier said than done, of course.
posted by Burhanistan at 1:26 PM on April 21, 2010 [1 favorite]


"The failure of others to play according to your rules is a feature of this site, not a bug cockroach."
posted by ericb at 1:26 PM on April 21, 2010


As a Washingtonian, I agreed with BP's statement, for all the reasons AZ has pointed out above most eloquently. Although it is great you are back, your comment in the thread seemed way out of line, and I'm glad it was removed.
posted by bearwife at 1:35 PM on April 21, 2010


Although it is great you are back,

I don't think the OP of this thread is the one who went away...
posted by Burhanistan at 1:45 PM on April 21, 2010


For what it's worth, bearwife, it's boo_radley who said he was back, which I think was a semi-sarcastic evaluation of this callout.
posted by Caduceus at 1:45 PM on April 21, 2010


I am also back. I went away for a little while between my last comment and this one.
posted by Astro Zombie at 1:47 PM on April 21, 2010 [9 favorites]


I'm pretty sure the implication is simply that Tea Baggers will be the only ones to prosper in the coming nuclear war...
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 1:48 PM on April 21, 2010


That forgets the gulls.
posted by Astro Zombie at 1:50 PM on April 21, 2010


Astro Zombie: At least insects don't try to force their petty morality on other cockroaches.


No but fungi do. And no, you don't have to thank me for any nightmares this wild-life video will incubate in you.
posted by Kattullus at 1:51 PM on April 21, 2010 [2 favorites]


I too, wish to express backiness.

wait... er
posted by edgeways at 1:52 PM on April 21, 2010


Don't cockroaches survive nuclear blasts?
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 1:55 PM on April 21, 2010


I hope to never be taken down as thoroughly as AZ just did here.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 1:55 PM on April 21, 2010


I'll get you for that link, Katullus. Shudder.
posted by Cranberry at 1:59 PM on April 21, 2010


I'm back back! No, wait. I'm bringing back sexy back! No, that's not it, either.

I'm bringing bringing sexy back back.
posted by infinitywaltz at 2:01 PM on April 21, 2010 [1 favorite]


Note: Everyone needs a hug.
posted by iamabot at 2:02 PM on April 21, 2010


Cockroaches are actually pretty cool. They can survive if you cut their head off. I wish I could do that.
posted by Allan Gordon at 2:02 PM on April 21, 2010 [1 favorite]


How absurd is it for a company that started out as Government Employee's Insurance Company to treat pressure from Tea Partiers as anything but a badge of honor and proof it's on the right track?

Tea Partiers don't want there to be any government employees in the first place, for God's sake-- oh, except for the military and umpteen layers of police to protect the property they've looted.
posted by jamjam at 2:03 PM on April 21, 2010


And they're incredibly nutritious if anything that's a compliment.
posted by Allan Gordon at 2:04 PM on April 21, 2010


So if you live with someone who has literally never seen a cockroach before and they're going to get a book and one the size of small cat just motherfucking flies out toward his face, please resist the urge to point and laugh. Trust me.
posted by The Whelk at 2:07 PM on April 21, 2010 [6 favorites]


otherwise you're the person putting down Borax at 3 in the morning
posted by The Whelk at 2:08 PM on April 21, 2010 [2 favorites]


Depends on the book. Because if they just went to get something by Kafka, I'm going to laugh, and that's all there is to it.
posted by Astro Zombie at 2:08 PM on April 21, 2010 [14 favorites]


Don't cockroaches survive nuclear blasts?
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies


No. Not the blast, but some of the radiation and fallout. They aren't alone among insects in this capability, many ecdysozoans can do this.
posted by kuujjuarapik at 2:08 PM on April 21, 2010


This is the wrong call to out, I think.
posted by klangklangston at 2:10 PM on April 21, 2010


Everyone's been wrong on the Internet at least once.
posted by anniecat at 2:12 PM on April 21, 2010


How come this nonsense gets a free pass while in-thread callouts get deleted without a word?

Oh, and to answer your question, another question: have you ever read the site's guidelines? Because your answer is right there:

Comments should not be directed at other members of the site -- remember to stick to the subject and issues raised by the post, not the person who made it or others that commented on it.

So yeah, that's why.
posted by infinitywaltz at 2:16 PM on April 21, 2010


Maybe it's finally time for an insurance company that calls itself GAYCO with a flaming pink lizard spokesman.

I'd sign up tomorrow.
posted by jamjam at 2:18 PM on April 21, 2010


No. Not the blast, but some of the radiation and fallout. They aren't alone among insects in this capability, many ecdysozoans can do this.

What a freakin' great word! I now want to get an ecdysozoan and name it Gozer the Ecdysozoan.
posted by ignignokt at 2:18 PM on April 21, 2010 [1 favorite]


In 'Wamp Wamp,' Malice says 'We deep like the Hutu, you cockroaches.'

It's not bleeped in the MTV version.
posted by box at 2:20 PM on April 21, 2010


Welcome back, boo_radley!

As for me, *slaps forehead,* D'oh!
posted by bearwife at 2:27 PM on April 21, 2010


I used to give roaches in the building I worked at the Orin Incandenza treatment.

Then I finished the book.
posted by SpiffyRob at 2:27 PM on April 21, 2010 [5 favorites]


Why "Bigotry" in the tags? over the political difference? prejorative use of insect names?
posted by ServSci at 2:27 PM on April 21, 2010


"douchebaggery" is a worse tag.
posted by Burhanistan at 2:29 PM on April 21, 2010


blazecock...i think you were totally ok in that. i don't see where the problem lay there.

cortex, "...but don't drop random drive-by turds in a thread like that." awesome.


"drive-by turds, y'all". sounds like a nice enough greeting.
posted by hal_c_on at 2:37 PM on April 21, 2010


Blazecock Pileon:These teabaggers overlap with the same bunch who don't want their names released for signing anti-gay petitions in Washington state and don't want their addresses in a Google map application for doing the same in California.

Astro Zombie: What part of "a factual statement" are you interpreting as "nonsense"?

I can't speak for the OP, but there's no reason to believe that there's an association between Freedomworks and Protect Marriage Washington. Your very interesting expose there just demonstrates that Protect Marriage Washington has some endorsers who also attend Tea Party rallies. The underlying assumption is that all Tea Party members are the same as the Republicans, and we know that's not true. There's a implicit argument here: "All Tea Parties are Repbulicans. All Republicans are anti-marriage bigots. All Tea Parties are anti-marriage bigots." I just don't think that's true, and I think it misses what's important about the Tea Party:
"
FreedomWorks also advocates a so-called flat income tax, free trade and personal Social Security retirement accounts whose investments would be controlled by workers. But more telling is what is not on its list of concerns — abortion, gay marriage and other social issues.
"

The Tea Party appears to be primarily a break between economic and social conservatives within the Republican Party, led by the economic conservatives with some especially vocal nativists. There is no reason to believe that there is significant crossover between the basically libertarian base of the Tea Party and the basically social conservative base of the antigay "Protect Marriage" groups. (The big exception is Utah, but the Tea Party is different from one state to another.) I speak as someone who disagrees with everything I've ever heard a speaker at a Tea Party endorse, though I have a few students in the Tea Party and from what I can tell they're all pro-gay-marriage libertarians. This guilt-by-nonexistent-association thing you're pushing fails.

The social and economic conservatives have long had only a tenuous bond within the Republican Party, and here we are watching that bond unravel. Yet some progressives, apparently including Blazecock Pileon, are so desperate to keep the enemy together now that we're winning that you're missing the benefit of that dissension. I think this is bad strategy: a cornered rat and all that. Let them tear each other apart for a change. Hopefully, a more honest party will emerge from the ashes.
posted by anotherpanacea at 2:39 PM on April 21, 2010 [9 favorites]


Why do people so often conflate First Amendment free speech issues and the non-legal debate over whether and when it is desirable for one private party to pressure another private party to retract previous speech, alter behavior, or disassociate themselves from the speaker?

Have you seen our public school system?!

Seriously have you? 'cause I don't think we have one.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 2:44 PM on April 21, 2010 [3 favorites]


anotherpanacea, the fact that FreedomWorks isn't stressing those social conservative issues by no means indicates that they hope for the bond between social and economic conservatives to unravel.
posted by ibmcginty at 2:45 PM on April 21, 2010


In 'Wamp Wamp,' Malice says 'We deep like the Hutu, you cockroaches.'

It's not bleeped in the MTV version.


"This video contains content from Vevo, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds."
wamp wamp wamp waaaaaamp.

Super Mash Bros' newest album has that song at the beginning, I can't help singing along and feel terrible for it.

In general, calling someone a cockroach is problematic or quite a bit worse, nowadays. Not that I think BP intended to make the link, of course.
posted by Lemurrhea at 2:52 PM on April 21, 2010


by no means indicates that they hope for the bond between social and economic conservatives to unravel.

I'm not sure what would count as evidence against this "by no means" claim you're making, but how about Dick Armey in 2006:
Now spending is out of control. Rather than rolling back government, we have a new $1.2 trillion Medicare prescription drug benefit, and non-defense discretionary spending is growing twice as fast as it had in the Clinton administration. Meanwhile, Social Security is collapsing while rogue nations are going nuclear and the Middle East is more combustible than ever. Yet Republican lawmakers have taken up such issues as flag burning, Terri Schiavo and same-sex marriage.

They're fooling only themselves.
Armey's public position is that social issues only marginalize and distract the Republicans from the important and principled conservatism of their Goldwater/Reagan coalition. That seems like a case for actual libertarianism. Do you have any evidence that his public position is at odds with his private position? Is Armey a closet homophobe? (That's an interesting position for a Republican to keep in the closet, I think you'll agree.) I'm no libertarian, but I'd rather have a two-party system of Democrats v. Libertarians, than Democrats v. Nativists or Democrats v. Christian Dominionists, personally. It's a better, more meaningful conversation.
posted by anotherpanacea at 2:53 PM on April 21, 2010 [2 favorites]


FreedomWorks also advocates a so-called flat income tax,

More money in their own pockets, less money for poor people.

free trade

More money in their own pockets, fewer jobs for poor people.

and personal Social Security retirement accounts

More money in their own pockets, less social security for poor people.

But more telling is what is not on its list of concerns — abortion, gay marriage and other social issues.

Is "not starving to death when you're old and poor" a social issue?
posted by Combustible Edison Lighthouse at 2:55 PM on April 21, 2010 [5 favorites]


anotherpanacea, I seriously question your contention that the Tea Party folks are mostly libertarian, or for that matter that there is any really big gap between them and the social conservatives making outrageous claims about their fears of Washington gay rights activists. For one thing, the Tea Party folks describe themselves as extremely conservative, and for that matter as more socially conservative on some issues than most Republicans. And just who do you think was yelling anti gay slurs at Barney Frank and anti black slurs at African American congresspeople over HCR?
posted by bearwife at 2:58 PM on April 21, 2010 [2 favorites]


It's not so much that it's accurate that there's overlap. It's that it's such a disingenuous statement to make. Let's think of the various groups we that overlap with the Democrats: LaRouchers, Green Party Activists, PETA, a whole slew of Eco-Terrorists, George Wallace, Robert Byrd and ex-KKK member.

Whatever you think about those fringe groups, the average Democrat does not have a whole lot in common with them. And that's okay because for the most part we govern from the center. Even beyond the two party system, part of political activism guarantees that you are going to be uniting with people with whom you disagree with on some fundamental issues.

Both my parents are Tea Party activists. Blame it on a love of Glenn Beck. And while my dad is close to your typical right wing stereotype, my mom has been a Democrat from the womb. And neither are homophobic or racist, unless we want to get into the nitpicky oblivious white privilege that most people possess. I don't agree with most of their viewpoints on the subject, but I can be honest enough to know that their connection with the Tea Party is one purely out of concern for the fiscal gap. Oh, it's not unselfish. They're middle class with virtually no savings between them. If Social Security and Medicare go bust, they're royally fucked. As are an entire generation of folks.

But to proclaim the the fringes own the group is merely trying to kill a movement with bad PR. The movement encompasses a large amount of Independents and Democrats, which does more to quell far-right tendencies than promote it. If conservative financiers try to co-opt the group for social issues, they're going to implode.

Personally, my main concern with the group is that it's filled with low-information media speakers. Palin, Beck, Limbaugh. They aren't those who want to educate the populace, and I doubt they're capable of coming up with an intelligent way to preserve Social Security and Medicare while bringing spending in line with taxation. Which is too bad, because the fiscal gap is something that hurts liberal ideology every bit as much as any recession hurts free-market ideology. So it's something that could really use a movement.
posted by politikitty at 2:59 PM on April 21, 2010 [3 favorites]


I now want to get an ecdysozoan and name it Gozer the Ecdysozoan.

This guy had no friends, and decided he would buy a pet. So he went to the pet store and told the owner that he wanted to buy an unusual pet. After some discussion, he finally bought a centipede, which came in a little white box to use for his house. He took the box home, found a good location for the box, and decided he would start off by taking his new pet to the bar to have a drink. So he asked the centipede in the box "Would you like to go to the bar with me and have a beer?" But there was no answer from his new pet. This bothered him a bit, but he waited a few minutes and then asked him again, "How about going to the bar and having a drink with me?" But again, there was no answer from his new friend and pet. He waited a few minutes more, thinking about the situation, and decided to ask him one more time, this time putting his face against the centipede's house "Would you like to go to a bar and have a drink with me?" he shouted. "I heard you the first time! I'm just putting on my shoes." said the centipede
posted by kuujjuarapik at 2:59 PM on April 21, 2010 [18 favorites]


The failure of others to play according to your rules is a feature of this site, not a bug.

Tiny data point: I tend to agree with him politically, but BP's relentless, humorless vituperation is a major reason that I come by less often these days.
Not that I imagine anyone gives a shit. But I can't possibly be the only one.
posted by CunningLinguist at 2:59 PM on April 21, 2010 [9 favorites]


I think this callout is just. I think it's great BP is using a retro Scarface insult, but he needs to get with the times.

The official insult for MetaFilter is now: shitass.

Learn it.

Live it.

Love it.
posted by P.o.B. at 3:02 PM on April 21, 2010 [3 favorites]


I just came in here to say that my father-in-law has migrated from a luddite Republican to an internet-connected Teabagger, and I'm not sure which of those two transitions happened first. Thanks to this transition, my wife and I and his wife now mock him openly for his views, versus just disagreeing with most of them previously. Meanwhile, he is fully convinced that Obama's election is part of a global Socialist conspiracy.

Interesting note about that: he's a tax accountant, and he claims that he both doesn't understand all of the new rules coming fast-and-furious from this administration, and is absolutely certain these new rules are a terrible idea that will bankrupt the country and all of us individually. We fear what we do not understand.
posted by davejay at 3:05 PM on April 21, 2010




I read a bit of this thread earlier, and then I took a valuable, life-sustaining nap while listening to Stars of the Lid and Their Refinement of the Decline. I adore that album and suggest that if you do not have it you need to add its dreamy, melancholic grandeur to your musical library.

I thought that once I took a nap I would be less cranky about how incredibly sensitive some people are to having their pet opinions hung out for mockery, but alas this happy eventuality did not occur.

I seriously wonder if on sites whereon there is a preponderance of people who are fond of the Tea Party folk, there dwell also people who are not fond of the Tea Party folk, this second class of internet citizens fighting a lonely rearguard action against the valorization of the Tea Party for the betterment in their eyes of their contested internetian demesne. If so, I salute those folk and their Quixotism, but must wish that they were aware how very sad it seems to beat ever onward toward that green light in a futile attempt to shift opinions on such a divisive topic.

tl;dr - no one at this stage of the enjoyable game is going to suddenly change their opinions on the Tea Party, no matter what anyone says.
posted by winna at 3:07 PM on April 21, 2010 [1 favorite]


anotherpanacea, I seriously question your contention that the Tea Party folks are mostly libertarian...

For more on the demographic, political, etc. make-up of the Teabaggers, check out these recent FPP's 1 || 2.

Excerpt...

Meet The Tea Party
"Turns out that the 'tea party' movement sweeping the nation is disproportionately composed of individuals who have higher-than-average incomes. It’s also disproportionately composed of men. And disproportionately composed of white people. And disproportionately composed of self-identified conservatives. And disproportionately composed of self-identified Republicans."
Who are the Tea Party activists?
"Activists in the Tea Party movement tend to be male, rural, upscale, and overwhelmingly conservative, according to a new national poll.

A CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey [PDF] released Wednesday also indicates that Tea Party activists would vote overwhelmingly Republican in a two-party race for Congress.

...According to the survey, roughly 11 percent of all Americans say they have actively supported the Tea Party movement, either by donating money, attending a rally, or taking some other active step to support the movement. Of this core group of Tea Party activists, 6 of 10 are male and half live in rural areas.

...The poll indicates that about 24 percent of the public generally favors the Tea Party movement but has not taken any actions such as donating money or attending a rally. Adding in the 11 percent who say they are active, a total of 35 percent could be described as Tea Party supporters. That larger group is also predominantly male, higher-income, and conservative."
Tea Party Demographics: White, Republican, Older Male with Money
"Bloomberg gives a bit more detail in its more current analysis and observes more than 90 percent of Tea Party backers say the U.S. is moving more toward socialism than capitalism, while 70% want more government involvement in job creation. In other words, they don't want the government interfering except in certain designated areas, as they also were found by majorities to want Social Security to remain under government control and didn't see the Veterans Administration as socialism.

...What Bloomberg observes from the poll is this: 'Tea Party supporters are likely to be older, white and male. Forty percent are age 55 and over, compared with 32 percent of all poll respondents; just 22 percent are under the age of 35, 79 percent are white, and 61 percent are men. Many are also Christian fundamentalists, with 44 percent identifying themselves as 'born-again,' compared with 33 percent of all respondents.'"
posted by ericb at 3:07 PM on April 21, 2010 [2 favorites]


The official insult for MetaFilter is now: shitass [nsfw]
posted by davejay at 3:10 PM on April 21, 2010


posted by CunningLinguist I can't possibly be the only one.

You aren't.
posted by mattdidthat at 3:15 PM on April 21, 2010


CunningLinguist: Nope, you aren't the only one.
posted by aspo at 3:24 PM on April 21, 2010


Will no one shed a tear for the REAL Tea Party?
posted by blue_beetle at 3:25 PM on April 21, 2010


I'll pretty much always associate a tea party with preschool aged girls pretending to pour tea for their teddy bear at a kid sized table--it's kind of an odd image that pops up whenever one of the teabaggers is frothing at the mouth about socialism or whatever.
posted by Burhanistan at 3:28 PM on April 21, 2010 [2 favorites]


I remember when tea parties usually brought Susie Derkins to mind.

Also, Madagascar Hissing Cockroaches are way cooler than your average cockroach.
posted by Wuggie Norple at 3:34 PM on April 21, 2010


Will no one shed a tear for the REAL Tea Party?

I imagine a bunch of non- middle-aged American dudes being extremely disappointed when their CDs they ordered off of SamGoody.com arrive in the mail.
posted by GuyZero at 3:36 PM on April 21, 2010


Thank you for this callout. I have been very busy today, and would otherwise have missed the opportunity to favorite BP's comment. Also, I now have the chance to favorite yet another wonderful comment by perennial favorite, Astro Zombie. Also: Everyone needs a bug.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 3:38 PM on April 21, 2010 [6 favorites]


So........if a person calls a teabagger hotline and leaves what is a less-than-supportive message, they will use the clues to your identity to have you fired from your job. And this is because...they support the Constitution, which enshrines the freedom of speech. I'm sorry y'all, but I think my brain just broke.

Hey, now. Whoa, there. The Constitution only guarantees Freedom of Speech via the First Amendment, which every good Constitutionalist knows is a Progressivist perversion of the Founding Fathers' Holy Document.
posted by Sys Rq at 3:42 PM on April 21, 2010


Maybe I didn't pick the best place for a callout. The mods called me on that, and I concede the point.

But I still stand by the reason for my callout: Blazecock Pileon is an ass. He's a troll. Pure and simple. I had hoped this would be self-evident, but I apparently misjudged my audience rather severely.

Which is rather silly of me. Most MeFites like the sort of bile he's peddling. In short, you can basically say whatever you like about someone as long as they're religious and/or conservative.

Well I'm going to be the one to say that this is not okay.

And with that, I'm basically done. I don't really expect much to change here. On the whole, I think the mods do a wonderful job. But I want it on record that I think this user is a detriment to the site who severely degrades the quality of every conversation in which he participates. I know I'm not the only one who thinks that, and on behalf of those not willing to endure the scorn, mockery, and ridicule one can expect for saying such things, I'll say it again:

Blazecock Pileon is an ass.
posted by valkyryn at 3:44 PM on April 21, 2010 [9 favorites]


Well I'm glad that on careful consideration you've chosen to be mature about this.

Oh wait.
posted by Nothing... and like it at 3:46 PM on April 21, 2010 [2 favorites]


So valkyryn, you think namecalling will get you anywhere? Disrespectful is a term I would rather use.
posted by wheelieman at 3:47 PM on April 21, 2010


Aaaaaand...scene.
posted by infinitywaltz at 3:50 PM on April 21, 2010 [1 favorite]


Blazecock Pileon was correct in his statement in that thread. What he said was true, and valkyryn's comment in the thread wasn't constructive.

But however wrong valkyryn might be over there, he's completely right here about BP's posting habits. Just because a troll sometimes says something you agree with doesn't make him any less of a disingenuous, dishonest troll. Almost everything BP posts is fighty to an extreme, and he won't engage when people try to have an honest dialogue, preferring to change the subject and start throwing around insults and martyrdom. The best thing that can happen to a thread BP is in is for his posts to go ignored by everybody, and that happens rarely enough that the threadshitting becomes incredibly tiresome. Look at "any Apple thread" for a shining example of it.
posted by kafziel at 3:52 PM on April 21, 2010 [12 favorites]


You know what else is full of cockroaches?

New York City.
posted by qvantamon at 3:53 PM on April 21, 2010


You know what else is full of cockroaches?

This delicious sandwich I'm eating right now?
posted by infinitywaltz at 3:57 PM on April 21, 2010 [2 favorites]


No, those are just cockroach eggs. Nice in a salad.
posted by kuujjuarapik at 3:58 PM on April 21, 2010


So I don't necessarily agree with BP but this whole thing where people are somehow required to engage is fundamentally misguided. If I want to post in a movie thread that Ishtar is the best film ever and never justify it and just keep saying it over and over, so what? Just move on people. Why the fuck do you have to get all Jehovah's Witness about things here?
posted by GuyZero at 3:58 PM on April 21, 2010


In short, you can basically say whatever you like about someone as long as they're religious

Oh, hey, what do you know: looks like the subtext of this callout isn't so sub anymore! Surprise!

I'm OK with calling out trollish behavior when it happens, but this wasn't it... and whether or not BP is "a detriment to the site" and "degrades the quality of every conversation in which he participates" has nothing to do with an ideological test. If your problem with BP is that he doesn't like religion or conservatism -- and it oh-so-clearly is, because you sure don't seem to have a problem with personal insults and/or rabble-rousing yourself -- then too damn bad. He doesn't have to conform to your opinions on these issues.

You want an echo chamber, go yell in your bathtub.
posted by vorfeed at 3:59 PM on April 21, 2010 [7 favorites]


Also, just so no one thinks I'm all anti-Jehovah Witness - well, I am but only in so far as I don't like people proselytizing door-to-door. My point is that no one is required to accept your beliefs just as you're not required to accept anyone else's beliefs, even if you think your beliefs are really, really much better.
posted by GuyZero at 4:01 PM on April 21, 2010


Jeez, valkyryn, I normally really value your comments, so what is the story here? BP's statement was in a thread about Tea Partiers successfully pressuring Geico into not using a well known voice actor who has appeared before on their ads. He responded to another comment about their apparent hypocrisy by pointing out that Tea Partiers overlap with the social conservatives who are claiming they will be harassed and threatened if the rest of us Washington citizens find out they signed off on anti-gay petitions, and that they hence "want consequence-free speech for themselves but not those they direct their hate campaigns against." Here's the story on what BP is referring to.

So, why is this a basis to call BP an ass or say he is a detriment to the site who severely degrades the quality of every conversation in which he participates? I'll leave to one side that your own tone in this thread is abusive. On the merits, what's wrong with BP's comment?

I get the feeling that you've got some major displaced anger over some other BP contribution, as do a few other folks on this thread. Whether that is warranted or not I cannot say -- I generally enjoy BP's comments but I can't find the time to read all of MetaFilter -- but this particular callout is very hard to understand or support.
posted by bearwife at 4:03 PM on April 21, 2010 [8 favorites]


Hey valkyryn, I've had my runins with BP as well.

But here's the thing: these general referenda on people don't ever actually accomplish anything. They just make people mad, or confused, or jokey, or whatever, but they never actually do anything. No one ever ends up apologizing for everything they've ever written on Metafilter because of a callout.

It might be a good time to take a walk.
posted by roll truck roll at 4:04 PM on April 21, 2010 [1 favorite]


I'm sorry for everything I've ever written on Metafilter.
posted by Doublewhiskeycokenoice at 4:07 PM on April 21, 2010 [4 favorites]


You take that back!
posted by albrecht at 4:11 PM on April 21, 2010




I'm kind of sad at how devalued the term "troll" has become. Used to be that term actually meant something. I One used to have to really work for that designation.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 4:13 PM on April 21, 2010 [3 favorites]


Crap. My strikeout failed. Must have been one 'a them html trolls done it. Fuckin' bugs.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 4:14 PM on April 21, 2010


How come this nonsense gets a free pass

Seems perfectly above board to me.
posted by Artw at 4:16 PM on April 21, 2010


In short, you can basically say whatever you like about someone as long as they're religious and/or conservative.

I may be way off the mark here, but I didn't read the cockroach 'insult' as a stab at their conservatism or their religiosity. It's at their behaviour: trying to scurry away and hide when any light is shone on them. Y'know, like cockroaches do.
posted by CKmtl at 4:17 PM on April 21, 2010 [2 favorites]


Blazecock Pileon is one of a number of people on the site who can be a real pain in the butt at times despite generally being a pretty good contributor the rest of the time. It's not entirely a fixable problem, unfortunately, but from the mod end we try to talk to folks when there's recurring problems and encourage them to find some way to keep the focus on the good contributions and try to avoid the negative stuff.

I've talked a little to BP about some specific stuff recently because I agree that there's some frustrating instincts he shows sometimes in the way he engages in arguments with other folks. But almost none of this stuff occurs in a vacuum, and I've talked to a couple other people as well for varying related reasons. In general I'd like to see a lot less of the multiplex negative interactions that go on with some small groups of mefites who for whatever reasons historical or temperamental or whatever have trouble not getting bitey or dismissive with each other. At this point I've asked a few different pairs of folks to pretty much pretend one another don't exist if that's what it takes to avoid rehashes of that stuff. It's working okay, not perfect but at least progress.

At the end of the day, I think it's more useful to try and either focus on making this place better or to try to be as specific and constructive as possible when you need to make a community discussion out of someone else's behavior. This callout was pretty poorly footed in that respect, yeah, which makes it harder to have a discussion that's not pretty distracted by the details of the metatalk post itself.
posted by cortex (staff) at 4:17 PM on April 21, 2010 [3 favorites]


BP tends to infuriate me with the tone of his comments, but Metafilter isn't my personal cocoon to be protected from things that annoy me.
posted by Falconetti at 4:22 PM on April 21, 2010 [5 favorites]


Jim DeMint (R-SC) Explains the Driving Force Behind the Tea Party: Theocracy

"Senator Jim DeMint: I think as this thing (the Tea Party movement) continues to roll you’re going to see a parallel spiritual revival that goes along with it.

David Brody: Just so I understand, when you say spiritual revival how are you terming that? What do you mean specifically as in “spiritual revival?

Senator Jim DeMint: Well, I think people are seeing this massive government growing and they’re realizing that it’s the government that’s hurting us and I think they’re turning back to God in effect is our salvation and government is not our salvation and in fact more and more people see government as the problem and so I think some have been drawn in over the years to a dependency relationship with government and as the Bible says you can’t have two masters and I think as people pull back from that they look more to God. It’s no coincidence that socialist Europe is post-Christian because the bigger the government gets the smaller God gets and vice-versa. The bigger God gets the smaller people want their government because they’re yearning for freedom."

An now you know... the rest of the story.
posted by netbros at 4:23 PM on April 21, 2010 [11 favorites]


Esther Williams? Yeah, that is so typical of the way you are constantly trying to ruin MetaFilter, Lutoslawski. Why don't you just go do that thing that we are not allowed to say anymore?

Everyone knows that the proper music for this thread is "It's Not Unusual", by Tom Jones. Esther Williams can wait around until Tuesday and then ride that thing over to that bad place where we send wrong thinkers.

And guess who she will meet there? That's right, Lutoslawski. She will meet you, and Stalin, and Adolf Hitler.
posted by Meatbomb at 4:37 PM on April 21, 2010 [2 favorites]


Thanks again, cortex. I generally do try to pretend he doesn't exist and shall in general continue to do so. Straw that broke the camel's back, I suppose.

I'll try to do better in the future with couching MeTalk posts.
posted by valkyryn at 4:39 PM on April 21, 2010


The irony of the title of this callout is truly astounding.
posted by DU at 4:41 PM on April 21, 2010 [3 favorites]


Everyone knows that the proper music for this thread is "It's Not Unusual", by Tom Jones.

That was going through my head the entire time I was reading the "bestiality is ok" thread, but I kept it to myself.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 4:45 PM on April 21, 2010 [5 favorites]


roll truck roll: No one ever ends up apologizing for everything they've ever written on Metafilter because of a callout.

It's been known to happen (though in this particular example it didn't take).

Durn Bronzefist: the "bestiality is ok" thread

Whaaaaaa?!
posted by Kattullus at 4:54 PM on April 21, 2010


MetaTalk: Multiplex Negative Interactions That Go
posted by Mister_A at 4:57 PM on April 21, 2010


BP's relentless, humorless vituperation is a major reason that I come by less often these days.

cortex pretty much explained the mod angle on this. We're aware this is a problem, we're trying to do some work on it via back-and-forth email. Your patience is appreciated.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 5:06 PM on April 21, 2010 [1 favorite]


BP seems like a good guy, and his heart is usually in the right place (except on Apple issues, where he is clearly under the demonic influence of the Steve Jobs RDF). But he definitely has a way of phrasing his opinions so that it reads like: "My opinion is The Truth, and anybody who disagrees with me must be either A) Insincere B) A Bad Person or C) Stupid."
posted by empath at 5:17 PM on April 21, 2010


Not that I don't do that sometimes/often, too.
posted by empath at 5:19 PM on April 21, 2010


I would be sad if BP weren't around on MetaFilter.
posted by KokuRyu at 5:22 PM on April 21, 2010 [14 favorites]


I read a bit of this thread earlier, and then I took a valuable, life-sustaining nap while listening to Stars of the Lid and Their Refinement of the Decline. I adore that album and suggest that if you do not have it you need to add its dreamy, melancholic grandeur to your musical library.

The one piece of true wisdom in this thread.
posted by Bookhouse at 5:36 PM on April 21, 2010


Kattullus: "It's been known to happen (though in this particular example it didn't take)."

Huh. That's kind of a bummer. I remember the thread in which kldickson left, but didn't know there was a prior history. I hope that she's found another place to improve her writing and arguing.
posted by roll truck roll at 5:55 PM on April 21, 2010


I would be sad if BP weren't around on MetaFilter.

I'll add to that and say that I would also be bummed out if valkyryn wasn't around. We'd miss out on some truly interesting and informative comments in religion threads like these, for example.
posted by Atom Eyes at 6:00 PM on April 21, 2010 [6 favorites]


Blazecock Pileon sent me a book and that's alright with me

you guys should seriously see this ester williams video
posted by The Whelk at 6:06 PM on April 21, 2010 [2 favorites]


Huh. That's kind of a bummer. I remember the thread in which kldickson left, but didn't know there was a prior history. I hope that she's found another place to improve her writing and arguing.

Perhaps she took the BND option and lurks among us. I'd like to think so, anyway.

Personally, I'm still trying to learn to follow the advice I gave her in that thread. :P
posted by zarq at 6:07 PM on April 21, 2010


For Meatbomb

Go in peace my brothers! Ack ack!
posted by The Whelk at 6:07 PM on April 21, 2010 [1 favorite]


I can't help but feel that this callout is disingenuous, and that what valkyryn really wants to do is not talk about BP, but to talk politics instead--and to defend the Tea Party. I realize I could be wrong about this. Am I wrong to read it this way?
posted by HP LaserJet P10006 at 6:08 PM on April 21, 2010


HP LaserJet P10006, actually, yeah, you are. I don't give two shits about the teabaggers.
posted by valkyryn at 6:16 PM on April 21, 2010


And so it goes...
posted by Crabby Appleton at 6:20 PM on April 21, 2010


Durn Bronzefist: the "bestiality is ok" thread

Whaaaaaa?!


I still have nightmares about that thread wherein half of MeFi confesses to various fursonas and meetups become places of yiffy terror.
posted by elizardbits at 6:22 PM on April 21, 2010 [1 favorite]


"shitass" makes no sense as an insult. It's like saying "foodmouth". Food. Mouth. It is what mouths are for. Shit is what asses are for. All asses have shit.

Urine-dick. Not an insult.

Now, "food-ass", that I could entertain as an insult. Food in your ass. "Food-dick". "urine-mouth". These make sense.
posted by Rumple at 6:24 PM on April 21, 2010


Blazecock Pileon is an ass.

this kind of thing negates any sincerity in the original callout, and i think it is more deserving of mod action than generic unpleasantness.

i think i'm among many here who are hungry for a clear, intelligent defense of whatever it is the tea party represents and how its ideals are or are not reflected in the anti-intellectual and xenophobic tendencies of its more vocal members. but the tea party does not seem to be clearly defined, to the extent that it is a mishmash of complainants. and it is starting to seem that they like it that way; such a fluid entity cannot be rationally debated. they are at any given point whatever one of its members say they are, and thus they conveniently deny being what any opponent says they are. if they insist on being a coalition and yet not clearly defining themselves, you can hardly fault those who devise their own labels.
posted by fallacy of the beard at 6:25 PM on April 21, 2010 [2 favorites]


BP is not a troll. It's clear to me that he believes passionately in a number of things and posts comments about them frequently and at length. But he believes what he says. Trolls don't.

Now, he might be a little abrasive on occasion, a little boorish and sometimes a broken record. But I would not describe him as a troll.
posted by Rumple at 6:27 PM on April 21, 2010 [9 favorites]


Oh Metafilter
posted by The Whelk at 6:31 PM on April 21, 2010


MetaFilter, fa'aipoipo afea?
posted by Kattullus at 6:54 PM on April 21, 2010


People, listen up! We have a chance here to embrace the future. Scientists have been feverishly working around the clock in order to bring us the latest in insult technology and it is with great pride I give you the most modern, the most up-to-date insult that has ever been created:

Shitroach

posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 7:19 PM on April 21, 2010 [12 favorites]


Let me try these out.

Up yours urinemouth!


Naahh, makes me sound like I'm five.

What'd you say shitroach!

Yeah, I can dig it. I'm going to put that one in my toolbag right next to jackhole.
posted by P.o.B. at 7:46 PM on April 21, 2010


Shitbird sounds better, plus you'll get some cred for using lingo from "The Wire".
posted by Burhanistan at 7:48 PM on April 21, 2010


Shitroach

Finely crafted, that. Worthy of Jim Lahey.
posted by Kinbote at 7:48 PM on April 21, 2010 [1 favorite]


Jackalopehole adds the cryptozoo insult difficulty factor
posted by Rumple at 7:49 PM on April 21, 2010


Chupacabracock
posted by Burhanistan at 7:51 PM on April 21, 2010 [1 favorite]


It's not so much that it's accurate that there's overlap. It's that it's such a disingenuous statement to make. Let's think of the various groups we that overlap with the Democrats: LaRouchers, Green Party Activists, PETA, a whole slew of Eco-Terrorists, George Wallace, Robert Byrd and ex-KKK member.

I voted for Byrd. At least he learns from his mistakes.
posted by irisclara at 7:52 PM on April 21, 2010


bat boy butt
posted by Burhanistan at 7:52 PM on April 21, 2010


sasquatch crotch
posted by Burhanistan at 7:53 PM on April 21, 2010


Sascrotch?
posted by miss-lapin at 8:08 PM on April 21, 2010 [5 favorites]


I haven't dug this out in a while...

People sometimes wonder how they should go about insulting people on MetaFilter. For elucidation I have boiled the matter into a simple and easy to use formula:

x+p+n+(a+b)+(a+b)+p+y+c+q

where

x is a username

p is ','

n is the pronoun 'you'

a is any of these insult prefixes: fuck-, ass-, shit-, republi-, douche-, micro-, dick-.

b is any of these insult suffixes, -fuck, -ass, -assed, -head, -headed, -can, -bag, -douche, -truck, -shit, -soft, -dick, -dicked.

y is the words 'why don't you'

c is one of the following: go hop up your own ass, pull your head out, sit on a lawnmower, poke yourself in the eye, go find inner peace on Free Republic, make like the wind and get bent, go cry about it to your mommy, strap yourself to the tail of a 747 and see where it takes you, die like the dog you are, fuck off and cry.

q is '?'

With this simple formula taped to your wall you should be able to construct such one-size-fits-all insults as:

Kattullus, you republidicked fuckfuck, why don't you die like the dog you are?

Kattullus, you microbag douchetruck, why don't you strap yourself to the tail of a 747 and see where it takes you?

I trust you can take it from there, dear MeFite, you dickassed asscan, why don't you go make like the wind and get bent?

[Warning: Side effects include: Merely typing someone elses username may lead you to spout invective uncontrollably, getting hit with a banhammer, being an insufferable ass, constructing sentences with double colons, losing your job and/or significant other because you spend all your time throwing insults at people who barely know you exist.]
posted by Kattullus at 8:10 PM on April 21, 2010 [9 favorites]


Kattallus, you blocked vas deferens, why don't you go eat a bucket of cocks?
posted by Rumple at 8:48 PM on April 21, 2010 [2 favorites]


Blazecock Pileon is an ass. He's a troll. Pure and simple.

No, he isn't. It's mostly a case of:

I may completely agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death other people's rights to claim you kinda said it like a jerk.
posted by Cyrano at 9:05 PM on April 21, 2010



In short, you can basically say whatever you like about someone as long as they're religious and/or conservative.

Based on this callout, that is not true. This is one of the more unfortunate sides of the "Limbaugh Conservatives"- the idea that they are a trod upon minority. All the while making hay out of constantly saying whatever they want about anyone that displeases them.
posted by gjc at 9:08 PM on April 21, 2010 [4 favorites]


Also, a shitass is someone not smart enough to wipe their own ass competently.
posted by gjc at 9:08 PM on April 21, 2010


That's "Person of Mudbutt" on this site, buster.
posted by Rumple at 9:11 PM on April 21, 2010 [2 favorites]


So seriously, Metatalk is specifically for Callouts?

I did not know this.

I wish I had someone to callout..

ValkoSipuliSuola - I call you out for eating all the sloppy joes last night!
posted by Lord_Pall at 9:14 PM on April 21, 2010 [1 favorite]


I call YOU out for eating all the macaroni & cheese!
posted by ValkoSipuliSuola at 9:30 PM on April 21, 2010 [1 favorite]


"shitass" makes no sense as an insult. It's like saying "foodmouth". Food. Mouth. It is what mouths are for. Shit is what asses are for. All asses have shit.

Rumpole, you are a genius and exactly clever enough to write an award winning UK sitcom. From a voiceover on PEEP SHOW:

Mark: (Need time to think. How can I buy some time? Contract TB? But where from? No badgers. Try to get beaten up? I could say he's got a... fat head. Call him a jizz-cock. It's not actually an insult, all cocks are jizz-cocks really; bit like calling him a piss-kidney.)
posted by moxiedoll at 9:33 PM on April 21, 2010 [4 favorites]


Shitbird from The Wire? As Kinbote rightly points out, that one belongs to Jim Lahey from Trailer Park Boys. Some of his other scatalogical neologisms include: shitmoths (which start from shitlarvae, morph into shittapillars, then emerge as adults), shit puppets, and of course, shitweeds and shitapples.
posted by beelzbubba at 9:56 PM on April 21, 2010


Also, a shitass is someone not smart enough to wipe their own ass competently.

In my wife's family's central Indiana dialect, a shitass is a child, usually one thought not to be old enough to be completely potty-trained. My wife grew up thinking that shitass was analogous to child. Hilarity ensued.
posted by beelzbubba at 10:02 PM on April 21, 2010


Blazecock Pileon is an ass. He's a troll. Pure and simple.

He's simple Pileon. and a Pure Blazecock. and ass is troll



I hope that makes a little more sense.
posted by philip-random at 10:04 PM on April 21, 2010


oh metafilter...
posted by The Whelk at 10:11 PM on April 21, 2010


Kattullus: "a simple and easy to use formula:

x+p+n+(a+b)+(a+b)+p+y+c+q
"

or you could let javascript do it for you:
javascript:(function(){function%20rnd(insults){var%20len=insults.length;var%20idx=Math.floor(Math.random()*len);return%20insults[idx];};document.mefi.comment.value=document.mefi.comment.value+",%20you%20"+rnd(["fuck-","ass-","shit-","republi-","douche-","micro-","dick-"])+rnd(["fuck","ass","assed","head","headed","can","bag","douche","truck","shit","soft","dick","dicked"])+"%20why%20don't%20you%20"+rnd(["go%20hop%20up%20your%20own%20ass","%20pull%20your%20head%20out","%20sit%20on%20a%20lawnmower","%20poke%20yourself%20in%20the%20eye","%20go%20find%20inner%20peace%20on%20Free%20Republic","%20make%20like%20the%20wind%20and%20get%20bent","%20go%20cry%20about%20it%20to%20your%20mommy","%20strap%20yourself%20to%20the%20tail%20of%20a%20747%20and%20see%20where%20it%20takes%20you","%20die%20like%20the%20dog%20you%20are","%20fuck%20off%20and%20cry"])+"?";})();
put that in a bookmark, in the "location" field, and have fun! (yes, I just concocted that, I had been meaning to brush up on my javascript so it looked like a fun exercise).
posted by idiopath at 10:22 PM on April 21, 2010 [2 favorites]


oh, and I should have demonstrated:
Kattulus, you micro-dick why don't you strap yourself to the tail of a 747 and see where it takes you?
posted by idiopath at 10:23 PM on April 21, 2010 [1 favorite]


oh metafilter...

So, are you going to do that in every single thread on the site?
posted by Burhanistan at 10:27 PM on April 21, 2010


CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING
posted by The Whelk at 10:32 PM on April 21, 2010


I'll give you $100 if you dress as a Smurf.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 10:42 PM on April 21, 2010 [1 favorite]


Which Smurf? And it's extra if you're going to be Gargamel.
posted by Burhanistan at 11:29 PM on April 21, 2010 [2 favorites]


dudes this
posted by The Whelk at 11:35 PM on April 21, 2010


and I so do not have a garamel outfit on hand.
posted by The Whelk at 11:36 PM on April 21, 2010


beelzbubba said: In my wife's family's central Indiana dialect, a shitass is a child, usually one thought not to be old enough to be completely potty-trained.

Same thing in my husband's family (rural Central Kansas). He and his siblings have more than once teasingly chided their mom about their childhood memories of her calling them "you little shitasses" when she was angry with them.

Yeah, not the healthiest family dynamic, but mine is/was much, much worse, and they're all pretty much sane and productive, so there ya go.
posted by amyms at 11:54 PM on April 21, 2010


It's possible that, due to technical interventions between my usual display screen and Metafilter servers, that I don't appreciate, fully, the contributions of Blazecock Pileon on this site. Perhaps, if he/she voluntarily sat on his/her hands, 5 out of 6 times he/she had the urge to post to Metafilter domains, his/her contributions would be, by a process of semantic distillation or intellectual concentration, 5 times, or more, of greater and broader value. No regular user of the Metafilter.com domains can doubt, in the least, Blazecock Pileon's enthusiam for posting to same. But, Blazecock Pileon apparently has some trouble letting discussion develop, and that hurts a discusssion site, overall. So, if the mods are in contact with Blazecock Pileon, and it seems to them that some behavior modification under that user nic is forthcoming, great.

In which case, I too, might be sorry to see Blazecock Pileon banhammered.
posted by paulsc at 12:05 AM on April 22, 2010 [1 favorite]


It can't be Smurfette, because we established the other day that the -ette suffix is derogatory.

The Smurf formerly known as Smurfette is now just Smurf.
posted by UbuRoivas at 12:08 AM on April 22, 2010


This thread settles it. Conservatives are fucking whiny, victimized assholes who fancy themselves vikings.

More subjectively, why hasn't this thread been closed? You've basically got a call-out that the bitchy OP has admitted was a mistake. It's unfair to leave up the anti-BP flypaper, dontcha think?
posted by bardic at 12:10 AM on April 22, 2010 [2 favorites]


I'm sorry for everything you ever wrote on MetaFilter.

I am kidding
posted by WalterMitty at 12:58 AM on April 22, 2010


Good point bardic, I'll close this up.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 2:18 AM on April 22, 2010


Shit, left the keys in the smurf costume.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 2:21 AM on April 22, 2010 [1 favorite]


Man, valkyryn , you really don't come off well here.

Blazecock states his (acerbic, take-no-prisoners) opinion about something without personally attacking anyone here, you personally attack him, you call him out for being a "hater", you get little support for your call out, but someone parenthetically mentions BP annoys her, so you jump on that tiny bandwagon riding it for all it's worth and use it to personally attack BP by calling him and ass and a troll.

"Ass" is subjective and you're welcome to your opinion, but it's ad hominem."Troll" is just wrong -- a troll says what he doesn't believe, to rile up and provoke a response; BP I think sincerely believes, as his unrelenting stridency on certain subjects suggests.

So, to me, it looks like you just don't like BP (which is your right), and that you were looking to pick a fighjt with him, in the original thread, in making this call out, and in your attack on him in this call out. Which is not what the blue or metatalk are for: you don't have a specific grievance here -- you just have a grudge.

Really, valkyryn, you've done yourself no favors here.
posted by orthogonality at 4:07 AM on April 22, 2010 [1 favorite]


Use of the word 'troll' on Metafilter holds about as much weight for me as Fox calling someone a terrorist.
posted by gman at 4:28 AM on April 22, 2010 [4 favorites]


paulsc I think your post really looks like a timecube parody, at least the first half of it. I was a little disappointed that it turned out not to be
posted by Hello, Revelers! I am Captain Lavender! at 4:52 AM on April 22, 2010 [2 favorites]


Perhaps, if he/she voluntarily sat on his/her hands, 5 out of 6 times he/she had the urge to post to Metafilter domains, his/her contributions would be, by a process of semantic distillation or intellectual concentration, 5 times, or more, of greater and broader value.
posted by paulsc


"fuck you, especially, in every non-naturally-lubricated-orifice-you-posses, you worthless, opportunistic bottom-feeder."
posted by gman at 5:04 AM on April 22, 2010 [2 favorites]


Like most modern trolls, BP has eschewed the eating of billy goats due to their scarcity in the wild. The truly modern trolls are fond of commuter bicyclists which are easily snatched up from bike paths on highway overpasses or near rail trestles. Although usually a bit stringy, commuter cyclists can be quite tender after a long braising and served au jus and accompanied by a light shitroach geleé. Always remember to remove the helmet before preparation.
posted by kuujjuarapik at 5:09 AM on April 22, 2010 [3 favorites]


Ugh! It smells like someone shat themselves after eating a Rhetoric 101 textbook in here, and then used pages from a Toastmasters binder to imperfectly clean themselves up. What the hell?
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 5:16 AM on April 22, 2010 [2 favorites]


idiopath: put that in a bookmark, in the "location" field, and have fun! (yes, I just concocted that, I had been meaning to brush up on my javascript so it looked like a fun exercise).

Hey, that's awesome, idiopath, you fuckheaded republidouche, why don't you poke yourself in the eye?

I tidied up the code a little bit and added the second insult randomizer. Here's the insult generator now:
javascript:(function(){function%20rnd(insults){var%20len=insults.length;var%20idx=Math.floor(Math.random()*len);return%20insults[idx];};document.mefi.comment.value=document.mefi.comment.value+",%20you%20"+rnd(["fuck","ass","shit","republi","douche","micro","dick"])+rnd(["fuck","ass","assed","head","headed","can","bag","douche","truck","shit","soft","dick","dicked"])+"%20"+rnd(["fuck","ass","shit","republi","douche","micro","dick"])+rnd(["fuck","ass","assed","head","headed","can","bag","douche","truck","shit","soft","dick","dicked"])+",%20why%20don't%20you"+rnd(["go%20hop%20up%20your%20own%20ass","%20pull%20your%20head%20out","%20sit%20on%20a%20lawnmower","%20poke%20yourself%20in%20the%20eye","%20go%20find%20inner%20peace%20on%20Free%20Republic","%20make%20like%20the%20wind%20and%20get%20bent","%20go%20cry%20about%20it%20to%20your%20mommy","%20strap%20yourself%20to%20the%20tail%20of%20a%20747%20and%20see%20where%20it%20takes%20you","%20die%20like%20the%20dog%20you%20are","%20fuck%20off%20and%20cry"])+"?";})();

posted by Kattullus at 5:22 AM on April 22, 2010 [1 favorite]


Like most modern trolls, BP has eschewed the eating of billy goats...

You probably already know that definition of an online 'troll' has nothing to do with a monster who hides under a bridge, waiting to challenge (and hopefully eat) passing 'Billy Goats Gruff.'

The "phrase is itself derived from the fishing technique of slowly dragging a lure or baited hook from a moving boat, waiting for fish to strike, a technique known as trolling."
posted by ericb at 6:18 AM on April 22, 2010


What a stupid fucking callout this was.

Entertaining thread, though!
posted by flapjax at midnite at 6:36 AM on April 22, 2010


I too, might be sorry to see Blazecock Pileon banhammered.

Apropos, I'm certain that I'd be sorry to you banhammered, Paul, because I look forward to the day you best your last flip-out. Like the day of judgment, I know it's coming, but I know neither the time nor the day.
posted by octobersurprise at 7:16 AM on April 22, 2010 [1 favorite]


Thanks for the reminder on that one, gman. That comment pissed me off to no end when it was originally posted, and was a fairly hilarious reminder that perhaps people who live in glass houses...
posted by bitter-girl.com at 7:24 AM on April 22, 2010


Smurf shitass would resemble a painting by Rothko.
posted by Rumple at 7:26 AM on April 22, 2010


Cranberry: I'll get you for that link, Katullus. Shudder.

This is just to say
MUSHROOM MUSHROOM
posted by kittyprecious at 7:41 AM on April 22, 2010


People sometimes wonder how they should go about insulting people on MetaFilter.

Has not been my experience—people seem to be pretty confident in their chosen approach—but I did like the formula.
posted by theredpen at 8:10 AM on April 22, 2010


"Shitbird sounds better, plus you'll get some cred for using lingo from "The Wire"."

"Shitbird" was a favorite expression of my old boss Steeeeeve, he of he sable briefs. It was my understanding that it ultimately came from jail argot.
posted by klangklangston at 8:25 AM on April 22, 2010


Yeah, the writers of "The Wire" did lots of research on slang usage in Baltimore and environs. Although, now that I think about it, I'm not sure if more than one character used that term (the bald cop who lost the camera and later became a PI for the dirty lawyer).
posted by Burhanistan at 8:29 AM on April 22, 2010


I seem to recall Carver using the term quite frequently as well.
posted by Hello, Revelers! I am Captain Lavender! at 8:49 AM on April 22, 2010


So you're saying that a troll can't troll? Also from your link: "The verb "troll" originates from Old French "troller", a hunting term. The noun "troll", however, comes from the Old Norse word for a mythological monster"

And look, you caught me! That's some clever trolling.
posted by kuujjuarapik at 8:56 AM on April 22, 2010


it ultimately came from jail argot.

Based on my dad's use of the word (to whom a "shitbird" was a likable, but irritating and probably untrustworthy person), I always assumed it was Korean War-era military slang. My mom may still occasionally muse over an old, lost acquaintance they knew and say "I wonder what ever happened to old shitbird?"
posted by octobersurprise at 9:07 AM on April 22, 2010


Although, now that I think about it, I'm not sure if more than one character used that term (the bald cop who lost the camera and later became a PI for the dirty lawyer).

Herc, Carver, and Valchek used it a lot.
posted by ignignokt at 9:17 AM on April 22, 2010


I knew a rather rough person from a podunk town in college who would speak of his hunting exploits. He would talk about "killing shitbirds" when they couldn't find actual game to kill. I suppose they thought it was fine to just kill flocks of blackbirds or crows simply because they had the guns and no oversight and no small amount of blood lust. I also literally kicked that guy out of my dorm room when he freaked out and couldn't hold his smoke.
posted by Burhanistan at 9:19 AM on April 22, 2010


Conservatives are fucking whiny, victimized assholes who fancy themselves vikings.

I can see this as a bumper-sticker.
posted by philip-random at 9:23 AM on April 22, 2010


did someone say cockroaches?
posted by madamjujujive at 10:01 AM on April 22, 2010 [1 favorite]


Damn. The dictionary of online slang goes from shit-beard (the growth of hairs in between buttocks) to shit bricks. I wish I had a better source than this. I tried the OED etymology section, to no avail. Hope me internets!
posted by beelzbubba at 11:13 AM on April 22, 2010


Really, valkyryn, you've done yourself no favors here.

orthogonality is right, valkyryn, you really haven't done yourself any favors here. Of course, that's because MetaFilter is a place where the majority has no regard whatsoever for the truth. And it's hard to imagine why you would want to do yourself any favors in such a place.

See you at the next BP callout. They come around pretty regularly, but the outcome is always the same.
posted by Crabby Appleton at 11:22 AM on April 22, 2010


Shit-sack. A Classical Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue. Capt. Francis Grose, 1811.
posted by kuujjuarapik at 11:42 AM on April 22, 2010


shitehawk!
posted by Abiezer at 12:19 PM on April 22, 2010


what I wore to the president's speech - detail


wait what where we talking about?
posted by The Whelk at 12:21 PM on April 22, 2010 [2 favorites]


You looked smurfing sharp!
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 12:41 PM on April 22, 2010


Calling people cockroaches is a vile, vile thing to do. The term was intentionally derogatory and is in fact a quite racist term. But that's beside the point. Calling other members of Metafilter "sick" for having differing political opinions was wrong of BP. It breaks the guidelines and his comment should have been deleted.
posted by thesmophoron at 1:19 PM on April 22, 2010


The smophoron, I have seen that alluded to a couple of times but I've honestly never heard it used that way - can you expand on that a little, or maybe link me somewhere? (Apologies if someone did above and I've just missed it.)
posted by restless_nomad at 1:43 PM on April 22, 2010


To be fair, he said the "sick part of it", not "you specific Metafilter users are sick." One could argue that the statements are inclusive of each other. But, meh.

You're all sick!

But that's ok.
posted by Burhanistan at 1:50 PM on April 22, 2010


I've never heard 'cockroach' used as a racist term. Please explain.
posted by kuujjuarapik at 1:56 PM on April 22, 2010


Urban Dictionary, definition 10 for cockroach (slur on Hispanics). Definition 1 is also racist, but in a different way.
posted by Kattullus at 2:00 PM on April 22, 2010


Huh. I am enlightened. And glad I don't move in the sort of circles in which that sort of language is used.
posted by restless_nomad at 2:05 PM on April 22, 2010


I'd say that this means that cockroach can, in certain contexts, be a racist term, not that it is inherently racist. I sincerely doubt BP meant that Tea Party members are illegal Hispanic immigrants.
posted by Astro Zombie at 2:08 PM on April 22, 2010 [1 favorite]


Tea Party members are illegal Hispanic immigrants

AH HA!!!

Wait...
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 2:09 PM on April 22, 2010


10 votes on Urban Dictionary. That's it? That's the proof?
posted by kuujjuarapik at 2:11 PM on April 22, 2010


Up until now, no one was claiming that he used it as a racist term. I called it out in the original thread as a dehumanizing pejorative, but racism was not a factor at all.
posted by Burhanistan at 2:13 PM on April 22, 2010


...and that race WAS THE HUMAN RACE! THE END.
posted by Artw at 2:15 PM on April 22, 2010


I touched it, and it was a monster made our of cockroaches. Glass cockroaches.
posted by Astro Zombie at 2:25 PM on April 22, 2010 [1 favorite]


is in fact a quite racist term

Since Astro Zombie so handily disassembled valkyryn's original argument, there is not much gained from commenting further on the particulars of that.

I would note, however, that I have never, once, ever seen or heard of the term "cockroach" having any racist component to it whatsoever, and, therefore, to ascribe racist motivations on my part from this comment requires such a leap of bad faith that it only underscores how ridiculous this call-out is.

I had assumed common knowledge that cockroaches hide away from the scrutiny of light, and within the context of those whose hypocritical anti-free-speech views I was criticizing, this seemed a succinct and accurate metaphor for their own actions, when confronted with the consequences of their own style of political manipulation.

I hesitate even to say this much, but it is gratifying that most of the community correctly sees this call-out as factually unfounded and grudge-based. I appreciate the fairness, support and defense on my behalf. Thank you.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:25 PM on April 22, 2010


You can look up just about any word on Urban Dictionary and find a racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise offensive definition. It'd almost make a good drinking game.

Puppy: (Slang) A very attractive girl who attracts guys by whining.

Kitten: A younger women who goes after older men, the opposite of cougar.

Cheesecake: When you walk around a mall with your friends and you see a ridiculously nice female approaching.

Rake: A term primarily used by those of the Asian race. Usually used to prove one's gayness. Usually exclaimed in a high pitched voice annoying to all. Meaning to be of exceedingly awesomeness to the user of the aforementioned word.

Hamster: An acronym used to describe a young female who has one or more meaningless jobs. These jobs typically start with the letters H,A,M,S,T,E and R, but on some occasions may also fall outside of specified range. Said job(s) may also be the woman's elected long term vocation. Most popular HAMSTER jobs include but are not limited to the following:

H = hairstylist, hostess
A = actress, assistant
M = model, musician
S = stripper, secretary
T = technician (nail,skin, etc.), teller
E = entertainer, exotic dancer
R = receptionist, runaway

To clarify, some of these jobs can indeed be legitimate (actress, model), however a HAMSTER will falsely classify herself as one. This is an attempt to pose and create a sense of self worth that otherwise should not exist.
posted by CKmtl at 2:39 PM on April 22, 2010 [1 favorite]


I'm not 100% sure but I thought the German Kafer (cockroach) was used pretty extensively as a pejorative slur for blacks and/or Jews and that in South Africa it's basically synonymous with "nigger". But this is third-hand knowledge and might be wrong.
posted by GuyZero at 2:48 PM on April 22, 2010


It's readily discoverable. Kaffir is taken from the Arabic for "infidel".
posted by Burhanistan at 2:52 PM on April 22, 2010


It's readily discoverable if you spell it right in the first place. Although your reference doesn't seem to indicate that the use of the word in SA has anything to do with German which is bad news for my theory.
posted by GuyZero at 3:26 PM on April 22, 2010


Also, isn't the Dutch language used in South Africa? So 'cockroach' in Dutch would be 'kakkerlak'. That's a far cry from Keffir or Kafer.
posted by kuujjuarapik at 3:32 PM on April 22, 2010


Someone with better German knowledge will probably come along, but käfer seems to be slang for young women.
posted by Burhanistan at 3:36 PM on April 22, 2010


The word Kaffir have may come from German Käfer, meaning bug. The leaves of the Kaffir Lime do bear a slight resemblance to an insect.

The Oxford Companion to Food (ISBN 0-19-211579-0) recommends avoiding the name kaffir lime and instead using makrud lime because kaffir is a white Afrikaner pejorative for blacks meaning "infidel", from the Arabic "kafir" that Portugese explorers used for the native Africans. Kafir was from the Semitic K-F-R meaning "to cover."
posted by gman at 3:37 PM on April 22, 2010


(and means beetle)
posted by Burhanistan at 3:37 PM on April 22, 2010


But I want it on record that I think this user is a detriment to the site

I think you should get it notarized.
posted by fourcheesemac at 4:25 PM on April 22, 2010 [3 favorites]


I think that calling people cockroaches, rats or other types of vermin is problematic not primarily because of racism, but because it's eliminationist rhetoric and implies that they should be exterminated.
posted by empath at 4:39 PM on April 22, 2010 [3 favorites]


No. Not the blast, but some of the radiation and fallout. They aren't alone among insects in this capability, many ecdysozoans can do this.
What a freakin' great word!

Indeed, and it raises the question: Can Ecdysozoans survive on Eyjafjallajökull?
posted by Anything at 4:42 PM on April 22, 2010


I don't see that I ascribed any intent to BP to be racist. All I noted was that, historically, when the word has been applied to humans, it has been a racist term, perhaps most notably during the mid-90s Rwandan genocide as a term for ethnic Tutsis.

The reason the term was used by the Hutu extremists and others, of course, was just as empath said: calling someone a 'cockroach' dehumanizes them and suggests that it might be proper for them to be exterminated.
posted by thesmophoron at 7:02 PM on April 22, 2010


The first association my brain makes with the word "cockroach" is also with the Rwandan genocide (but that was my senior thesis topic, so ymmv). I didn't even know it was also a racist term for Hispanics - thanks* Urban Dictionary! I certainly didn't assume it had such nasty intent in BP's comment, but it's definitely a word that feels ooky to me, as much as I hates me some Tea Party.


*For nothing, ugh.
posted by naoko at 8:13 PM on April 22, 2010


I expected more talk about my button.
posted by The Whelk at 8:23 PM on April 22, 2010


Thanks, Thesmophoron (and sorry for borking your name above.) That was the reference that I felt like I wasn't catching.
posted by restless_nomad at 8:44 PM on April 22, 2010


Just a data point: On The Cosby Show the son Theo had a (black) friend that was always and only referred to as "cockroach" so if it is racist as applies to black people it must be a recent non-US development.
posted by vapidave at 9:25 PM on April 22, 2010


Ah, Theo's friend Cockroach. Following the template set for in "Leave it to Beaver", every TV family's kids need a bad apple friend to shed light on how they (the starring family) were such good people. It's Cold War propaganda plain and simple.
posted by Burhanistan at 9:37 PM on April 22, 2010 [1 favorite]


Roach, three more tangos on those roof tops! Clear them out, will ya?
posted by qvantamon at 9:50 PM on April 22, 2010 [1 favorite]


As pointless and stupid as this call-out was (Why is it still open? I thought bullshit call-outs usually got quashed pretty quickly?) it is a positive sign that Mefi's litmus test for outrage is a hell of a lot lower than it used to be.

"Cockroach" as offensive and potentially racist?

You younglings need to look through some of the epic Metatalk threads from three to five years ago.

Not that I miss those.

Well, maybe a little bit. Douchenozzles.
posted by bardic at 10:01 PM on April 22, 2010 [1 favorite]


"fuck you, especially, in every non-naturally-lubricated-orifice-you-posses, you worthless, opportunistic bottom-feeder."
posted by gman at 8:04 AM on April 22

Fair enough, gman, but if I'm to be hoist on my own petard, at least it should be a relevant petard, don't you think? Because, if Google be the master of us all, in any circumstance, aren't we ever, any of us, just the worst out of context quote any of the rest of us are willing to post?

"I'd be willing to use my quota to post the latest callout thread so this one can get back on topic."
posted by gman at 9:35 PM on March 3, 2009

Or, are you still looking to play sixcolors, too, for lulz?
posted by paulsc at 11:56 PM on April 22, 2010


Roach, three more tangos on those roof tops! Clear them out, will ya?

Tango down
posted by thesmophoron at 12:32 AM on April 23, 2010


BP's relentless, humorless vituperation is a major reason that I come by less often these days.

cortex pretty much explained the mod angle on this. We're aware this is a problem, we're trying to do some work on it via back-and-forth email. Your patience is appreciated.


I, too, have significantly dialed back my enthusiasm and interest due to BP's incessant and willfully destructive derailments (in particular, the fighty thread, and the blood donation thread). That being said, I also think that since then BP has significantly cleaned up his act wrt his hotbutton topics, and I'm grateful for all the efforts towards this. One ironic & unfortunate thing about massive flame-posts is that they're usually counterproductive to the poster's intentions -- while they certainly demand attention, the cost is degradation of the forum, and a general deprecation of the poster's credibility. Even when the flamboyance draws out useful or interesting points, the bile involved makes the topic unpalatable so many members of the audience lose interest in even considering the topic again.

But to get back off-topic, what's the story with Welk's detail? (Good looking button; I infer it's wrt gay marriage rights, (is that right?) but I haven't seen on before.. Site? Designer? Cool stories?
posted by Tuesday After Lunch at 12:33 AM on April 23, 2010 [2 favorites]


HOISTED BY MY OWN PETARD!
posted by thesmophoron at 12:34 AM on April 23, 2010


Cockroach is a term used by Queenslanders to refer to New South Welsh(wo)men over here in Australia, because they come from south of the border. So that's one obvious link to some kind of obvious thing. I've never actually heard anyone use it in a truly disparaging way, it's mostly associated with that sporting shite that everyone seems so fond of. Banter and jocularity, you know.

Some people just piss you off. Best keep your hands off the keyboard unless you can confine yourself to refuting their statements, not their character. Not really going to do you much good, however much your spleen is demanding a vent.
posted by h00py at 12:49 AM on April 23, 2010


And, by the by, gman, as of the April 17, 2010 infodump-all.zip, "paulsc" still appears, unmasked, in

usernames.txt (associates my Metafilter nic with my user number, for anyone willing to download and expand infodump-all.zip)

and my userID appears still, unmasked, in a number of other infodump-all.zip files, despite my standing request that such be masked in infodump*, and assurance by other users of infodump that such a munge was technically feasible in its preparation, and not particularly detrimental to the overall uses of infodump. You might want to factor that into your quote of me here, or not, as you wish, gman.

But practically, I expect nothing else from the "folks" that run this site. I've never had a single "back channel" conversation with any of them, pro or con, even as per my original infodump munge request, or even the quote you've posted here. Zip, zero, nada, nothing; no comment, no attempt at dialog, nothing beyond the vagaries posted to Metatalk threads, and then never actioned. I've emailed them, occasionally, on other topics, without any expectation of response, and true to expectation, have received none, via MeMail or standard e-mail.

I've concluded that no worthwhile discussion is possible with the Metafilter administrators, and that they're going to do whatever they like with the site, and with the user information they collect. I'm a tiny bug on their big windshield, who can contribute or not, as I like, within narrow boundaries of site propriety, and so, I think, are you, gman.

Thus, I answer few RelationshipFilter questions in AskMe, these days, and believe, tongue in cheek, that all AskMe questions about American culture and legal ramifications require an American lawyer to tell the poster that they need an American lawyer. I think any health concern raised on the AskMe site, that doesn't immediately succumb to aspirin or positive thought energy in the North American geographic realm, requires the immediate paid consultation of licensed medical doctors. I've learned, by reading AskMe, that anybody with a temporary shortage of friends, and a surfeit of temporary emotional response, should seek "counseling," and hope that their "condition" can respond to various medications, or to extensive talk therapy, or, perhaps, some short term, targeted behavioral suggestions.

As for the Blue, and the Grey, I'd be a fool to consider them anything but fool's ground. I read the Blue and the Grey to have some barnacles of my own, that might otherwise become comfortable, abraded. I never expect anything I post to either to be read fairly, or considered longer than it takes to construct a facile retort.

But, occasionally, on the darkest of waning Moon nights, in the weakest houses of the zodiac, I still try to read and respond as the dewy eyed innocent I once was, when ASCII characters still represented real humans, whenever I direct my browser to the Blue, the Green, or the Grey. Because, whatever new day or not this might be for me, it's probably user #120659 or greater's first day, here. And, I wouldn't want them to think badly of all of us, before they've really got their feet wet...

I think it might really help the site if the very enthusiastic Blazecock Pileon remembered the newbies, too. Don't you?
posted by paulsc at 1:37 AM on April 23, 2010 [1 favorite]


BP's incessant and willfully destructive derailments (in particular, the fighty thread, and the blood donation thread).

Regarding the blood donation thread, in point of fact:

• There was very polite and on-topic disagreement with an opinion expressed there and I provided cited numbers to explain my own.

• I was then accused of making up the import of those numbers, which in fact came directly from the CDC's own reports. I then issued one more polite follow-up and left the thread.

• At no point was I ever "fighty".

People can check all of this for themselves.

In fact, here is each of the sole six comments I made in this hundred-plus comment thread:

Comment 1:

I don't know that it is ethical to lie. I do think it is unethical for the Red Cross to be homophobic, given the HIV infections are mostly coming from other groups, and have been for a while.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:08 PM on February 27 [4 favorites +] [!]


Comment 2:

That link suggests the ARC would still equate the risk profile of any act of sex between two males with IV drug use with dirty needles, which is a comparison not supported by science or reason.

You don't have to agree with me, but the ARC conducts itself in a homophobic manner. It's up to individuals to decide whether to be a part of that regime of dishonesty.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:40 AM on February 28 [1 favorite +] [!]


Comment 3:

The fact is that the FDA does not collect blood.

The fact also remains that the ARC does not question the policy decision to identify the blood of all gay donors as a public health risk.

In light of those facts, one can create an ethical case for telling the ARC where to go. In any case, I apologize for contributing to this derail.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:07 AM on February 28 [+] [!]


Comment 4:

The proportions of new HIV infections in the US in 2007 were almost equally split between MSM and heterosexuals/IV drug users. Of this split, heterosexuals are about 40% of the total, with MSM at 50% and IV drug users about 10%. IV drug users cannot donate blood, so we can focus on the gay/straight divide, for purposes of argument. Further, we can look at HIV infection incidence for women, and note that heterosexual women as a group are almost exclusively represented. When you count new infections for men and women, about 31% of those infections result from heterosexual behavior.

The distinction between HIV incidence rates by sexual orientation seems not nearly as stark as it once was.

Gay people should have the full array of civil rights granted to heterosexuals, including the right to marry, but no one has the right to donate blood.

Of course. But there is a clear stigma against gay people that is a holdover from the early 1980s, when AIDS was considered a "gay cancer". In the sense that the ARC is a party to that odious line of thinking, it still is. Prospective donors should know that.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 4:59 AM on February 28 [1 favorite +] [!]


Comment 5:

The numbers I calculated were taken directly from the CDC's web site. In various parts of the world, women and heterosexuals represent most new HIV infections.

No act of sex is zero-risk. But there is no distinction made by policy makers between sexual behaviors of various risks, if you are male and happen to have sex with another male — if you're gay or MSM, you're automatically labeled a disease carrier.

If you are straight, an automatic discrimination is made that allows you to donate because you are heterosexual (with a few exceptions) despite there being in the United States almost as much of a risk of HIV infection if your heterosexual activities are high-risk.

And this gets to the crux of Anon's question, in that a lot of people have sex, but some people have less risky sex than others, regardless of genders of partners. The existing policy doesn't attempt to address that reality. Fair-minded people can be allowed to consider whether the policy is moral or logical when it does not address certain important realities.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:59 PM on February 28 [1 favorite +] [!]


Comment 6:

The issue of terminology — "gay" vs "MSM" — is a distinction that is important in other social contexts but not so relevant to the issue of discrimination. Either way, if you're a man, and you sleep with someone of the same gender, you are automatically treated as a carrier of HIV, despite the relative risks of your sexual practices, whether you or society calls you "gay" or anything else.

Not as much thought is given to blood donors who are heterosexual, regardless of the relative risks of their sexual behaviors. No phlebotomist asks the prospective donor if he or she uses condoms with their opposite-sex partner or partners, for example — or at they hadn't, back when I used to give blood. Members of this group will be turned down for other non-sex-gender-based risk factors. Still, worldwide, heterosexuals are the greater source of new HIV infections by number; in the United States, less than half, but not by much.

The question is where the basis for a decision comes from: Is it coming from 1980s attitudes about the genders of the people involved in sexual behavior, or from the actual risk of their behaviors irrespective of genders in the year 2010?

Regardless of how you, personally, answer that question, I think at least asking it will get one closer to understanding why some (myself included) have come to the conclusion that this is now an issue of irrational discrimination, and act accordingly. I think it's worth asking. I do not give blood or donate to the Red Cross, though I would genuinely welcome to opportunity to do so again at some point in the future. Others have given other suggestions.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 4:55 PM on February 28 [1 favorite +] [!]


As boring as it might be to plow through a long comment filled with quotes, I am pulling them here because they wholly contradict your characterization of them, and so this calls into question your real motivation for piling on in this manner.

There is nothing about these six comments that is off-topic, attacks any user on Metafilter, is racist, calls for the extermination of a group of people, or that is otherwise offensive — other than your own offended feelings, for the simple reason that I did not share your opinion about the subject and had a factual basis for that disagreement.

This grudge-filled call-out is garbage.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:44 AM on April 23, 2010 [1 favorite]


"... You don't have to agree with me, but the ARC conducts itself in a homophobic manner. ..."

But of course, if I don't agree with you, and think the ARC doesn't conduct itself in a homophobic manner, doesn't that put us at the loggerheads of your rhetoric, BP? You can't impute motives and results to an organization, or its programs, beyond those they publicly state, and not be "fighty."

And I don't have to think much of the ARC, either. In my life, I've witnessed at least 6 natural disasters where the ARC has been on paid TV air asking for monetary donations within 24 hours of the phenomenon, at about a 100 mile perimeter of the main havoc. Color me not a big fan of the ARC, in terms of disaster management acumen, from what I've personally seen, or fund raising effectiveness/sensitivity. But all that is personal anecdote; it would be an unfounded stretch of my personal observations to say, flat out, that the ARC are heartless profiteers on the back of natural disaster, so, I can't. I can say I'll never give the bastards a thin Franklin Roosevelt dime.

See where the "fighty" jumps up?
posted by paulsc at 2:50 AM on April 23, 2010 [1 favorite]


You might want to factor that into your quote of me here, or not, as you wish, gman.

But practically, I expect nothing else from the "folks" that run this site.

posted by paulsc

when weighing your expectations of the mods on this site, you might want to take into account that in that same comment you told both cortex and mathowie off pretty hard.
posted by gman at 3:55 AM on April 23, 2010


I've emailed them, occasionally, on other topics, without any expectation of response, and true to expectation, have received none, via MeMail or standard e-mail.

You may want to check your filters. I've had a few back and forth email conversations with someone using your handle. None lately, to be sure.

BP, the fact that you commented six times in a thread that was basically asking a question about blood donation, getting further and further afield, was a problem. I'm aware that you don't like to leave questions unanswered and that there were other people having that conversation with you, but it was still a problem.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 4:04 AM on April 23, 2010


As for the Blue, and the Grey, I'd be a fool to consider them anything but fool's ground.
posted by paulsc at 3:37 AM on April 23 [+] [!]

And here you are. Didn't there used to be a paulsc on here who provided sage and even-handed advice? I only ever see comments from a cranky asshole with the same handle.
posted by jtron at 8:23 AM on April 23, 2010


and '"I'd be willing to use my quota to post the latest callout thread so this one can get back on topic."' is the best thing you could troll from gman's comment history? I'm sure dude's said a dozen dozen more contentious-seeming things. For shame, show some effort.
posted by jtron at 8:26 AM on April 23, 2010 [1 favorite]


and while I appreciate the annoyance of requesting the infodump munge and not (apparently) getting it, how much time and stress have you wasted on something that will almost definitely have zero effect on your life? it's a beautiful day here in Chicago, I can only assume it's better wherever you are. Go get some shave ice.
posted by jtron at 8:28 AM on April 23, 2010


But to get back off-topic, what's the story with Welk's detail?

I was going to go with my marriage equality pin but I couldn't find it so I went with a Lady gaga motif. So I wore a bit of Gaga fandom to an important speech about fiance industry reform.
posted by The Whelk at 8:32 AM on April 23, 2010


So I wore a bit of Gaga fandom to an important speech about fiance industry reform.

That only counts if Obama could see it from across the room.
posted by Burhanistan at 8:33 AM on April 23, 2010


The Whelk: "fiance industry reform"

Fiancé industry reform.
posted by idiopath at 8:42 AM on April 23, 2010 [1 favorite]


And, by the by, gman, as of the April 17, 2010 infodump-all.zip, "paulsc" still appears, unmasked, in usernames.txt

Of course it does. There is nothing to be gained from munging your userid in the actual usernames.txt file, and there is explicitly something to be gained from not sticking the munged id in there instead. If I included the munged id in that file, it would be trivial to associate it with your contributions in the rest of the files.

and my userID appears still, unmasked, in a number of other infodump-all.zip files

It did not at the time that I implemented and tested the munge feature. Please let me know where you're seeing this, I'll happily go back and make sure the code is functioning correctly. That feature has been in place since late last year, when I made my last coding/update pass at the Infodump.

Note that the string of numbers "19792" will still appear in the files as standalone strings and substrings, because post and comment and misc. row ids will by circumstance take that form. Please be sure you're not producing false positives by searching for that string and failing to account for the context.

I've never had a single "back channel" conversation with any of them, pro or con, even as per my original infodump munge request, or even the quote you've posted here. Zip, zero, nada, nothing; no comment, no attempt at dialog, nothing beyond the vagaries posted to Metatalk threads, and then never actioned.

You never bothered to once ask me about the status of the munging project; I had never given anything resembling a target date for implementation. I'm not sure why you were expecting me to write you notes about it, but I'm even less sure why you didn't bother to write me about it yourself to ask if you were feeling impatient. But this is old ground, gone over already back last year when you left that shitty freakout comment yelling at lewistate.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:51 AM on April 23, 2010 [1 favorite]


There is nothing about these six comments that is off-topic, attacks any user on Metafilter, is racist, calls for the extermination of a group of people, or that is otherwise offensive — other than your own offended feelings, for the simple reason that I did not share your opinion about the subject and had a factual basis for that disagreement.

I would disagree. While certainly it is on topic, non-attacking-of-MeFites, non-racist, non-genocidal, and so on, the point remains this: You, BP, have a bad habit of engaging in reductivist bad-faith naive attribution errors. In your mind it works something like this: ARC collects blood in America + American blood donation laws are discriminatory = ARC IS HOMOPHOBIC! There's no attempt by you to give anyone who disagrees with you the benefit of the doubt, ever. They are always "bigots" or "cockroaches" or worse. There's no attempt by you to consider situationist factors acting on anyone who disagrees with you ever. They are always agents of the most truculent evil, the source of all that is wrong with the world. Needless to say, that kind of response puts people on the defensive, even if they're only tangentially emotionally invested in the target of your wrath or its goals; as a result, substantive and productive and possibly mind-changing conversation is hampered.

On preview many hours later: what paulsc said.
posted by thesmophoron at 9:16 AM on April 23, 2010 [1 favorite]


"You can't impute motives and results to an organization, or its programs, beyond those they publicly state, and not be "fighty.""

Yes, you can. It's a matter of tone. Saying that white pride organizations here in America are actually racist and promote discrimination against minorities despite their stated aims of promoting white culture is not particularly fighty, nor inaccurate.

Likewise, calling your assertion daft isn't fighty—it's apt.

I really do enjoy a lot of your contributions, especially to AskMe and especially regarding DIY handiwork, but I have no problem thinking that you're totally full of shit on a lot of other stuff. (Further, I don't know anyone who wouldn't, when honesty appraising themselves, recognize that they've got significant knowledge on some things, but on plenty of others, their opinions are totally full of shit.)
posted by klangklangston at 9:16 AM on April 23, 2010


jessamyn> BP, the fact that you commented six times in a thread that was basically asking a question about blood donation, getting further and further afield, was a problem.

I hadn't seen the AskMe question until now, but now that I have, I really have a hard time seeing why BP's contributions were out of line.

The 6 times thing looks bad, sure, but the question was not a straightforward one about whether there was any way a gay man could openly donate blood, it was explicitly a question about whether it was ethical to flout the posted rules of blood donation. If the mods wanted to delete it for being chatfilter, I could buy it.

But they didn't. So there was a question about ethics, and people argued in the thread; six comments doesn't strike me as being ridiculous in that situation. And as for the second part, BP's answers weren't "getting further and further afield". They were all on point.

There's a separate question about whether it was reasonable for BP to go so far as to say the Red Cross was homophobic (as opposed to calling the policy homophobic); I can see both sides of that one. But if BP's contributions were "fighty", then a lot more AskMe questions need to be flagged as chatfilter and killed to prevent "fightiness".
posted by UrineSoakedRube at 10:04 AM on April 23, 2010 [3 favorites]


You can't impute motives and results to an organization, or its programs, beyond those they publicly state, and not be "fighty."

This is nonsense, pure and simple. Are we to take every "organization, or its programs" at face value? Is there no room for personal opinion, backed up by facts? If not, then everyone here had better stop calling the Tea Party "racist", as it publicly states it's just about taxes...

As I've said before, the idea that "fightiness" is primarily about ideas rather than the way they're expressed is much more of a problem than is "fightiness" itself. It seems to me that BP went out of his way to frame his blood-donation posts in a calm and reasonable manner. They were backed up with facts, and they were reasonably on-topic given the direction and topic of the thread. As far as I'm concerned, it is unreasonable to allow people to tell the OP "the policy is non-homophobic based on X evidence, therefore I think you shouldn't lie", yet disallow "the policy is homophobic based on Y evidence, therefore I think you should lie".

Opinions are not "fighty" just because you disagree with them.
posted by vorfeed at 11:33 AM on April 23, 2010 [3 favorites]


I hate Urban Dictionary with the fire of 1,000 suns because not only is there an entry for my first name, but it espouses a particularly obnoxious mispronunciation of it that I am subjected to on a daily basis and people do not need that particularly odious wrong idea to be reinforced.

The J is pronounced as Y, g-ddamnit. If you put a hard J in there you are DOING IT WRONG.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 11:50 AM on April 23, 2010


Alright, who left the punctuation cabinet unlocked again? C'mon, 'fess up. And as punishment, you can help paulsc return all of those commas he wasted to their proper shelves. NEATLY, please.

Conserve, people. It was JUST Earth Day, for fuck's sake.
posted by desuetude at 4:47 PM on April 23, 2010 [3 favorites]


It should be noted that what remains of the blood donation thread is a cleaned-up version. Many people were getting uncivil, angry, upset, and frankly, horrified by some of the postings and the direction the thread was taking. Most of the remaining evidence of the trainwreck it had become are in the subsequent MeTa, although a reasonably astute person could infer how badly things were going from the fact that Jessamyn reminded folks 3(?!) times that AskMe responses need to stay focused on answering the OP's question.

Those who are forensically inclined can explore that MeTa, but I think Jessamyn's post is accurate & succinct:

Honestly, I wish that thread had come to MeTa long before you left your comment rhiannon. Rarely do I have to make more than one pass through an AskMe thread that is having a rough time and I can't remember the time I've had to make three and still see people fighting with each other in the thread and ignoring the OPs question.
[ . . . ]
So, I'm sorry that this didn't go more smoothly, but as far as policies and their implementation go, this was pretty much textbook. I hope others will follow your lead and take their extended discussion about the Red Cross and the FDA and their blood bank policies here.
[emphasis added - TAL] I was pleasantly surprised to learn from that thread that their policy towards haiti has actually changed over time, perhaps this will too.

It's too bad that Blazecock Pileon feels that my comment was especially egregious, but since he and others feel that he's been the paradigm of a reasoned, polite, and always-correct contributor, who made no inappropriate contributions in the blood donation thread, he/they at least deserve to be better informed. So, here's a partial deconstruction of why I styled his contributions to the blood donation "incessant and willfully destructive derailments":

Comment 1: [ . . . ] I do think it is unethical for the Red Cross to be homophobic [ . . . ]

Until this point, all posts had been directly addressing the OP's question. This is the injection of a political position that you're intent of foisting into the AskMe. You could have initiated and pointed to a MeTa thread on this theme -- you've demonstrated 16 times that you know how to do this -- but you chose instead to hammer this theme in AskMe. You didn't address the OP's question; you didn't even bother to make some sort of link to the OP's question (like, "Because I think the RC is evil, I think your ethical obligations are...").

Comment 3: [ . . . ] In any case, I apologize for contributing to this derail.

So, you know that this is a derail. If you were sincere in your apology, you'd have directed further comments into a MeTa, or email (of course, you'd have to re-enable your Mefi Mail), or dropped it (or really, just about anything) rather than continue this tangent in the AskMe.

The other comments are variations on the theme:
BP: Flamboyant statement of position X.
Other: Detailed explanation of how statement is misleading.
BP: Gainsaying rhetorical trick, ignoring detailed explanation, and reasserting correctness of Flamboyant statement of position X.

Now, gainsaying rhetorical tricks can be entertaining as a skit, but when someone's actually trying to engage in a discussion, it's irritating, and often perceived as fighty.

There is nothing about these six comments that is off-topic, attacks any user on Metafilter, is racist, calls for the extermination of a group of people, or that is otherwise offensive - other than your own offended feelings, for the simple reason that I did not share your opinion about the subject and had a factual basis for that disagreement.

I still think your comments were off-topic; I hope my explanations were clear enough that you can understand how they might be seen as off-topic, even if you disagree. And, you have no idea what my opinion about the subject is -- by the time I'd formulated an opinion, the thread had pretty much crashed. {Fwiw, my opinion is that the OP shouldn't lie, because a very important part of his self-identification is that he's an ethical person.} As for any offended feelings I have/had, let's be clear: It's about intellectual dishonesty, and the hijacking/wreckage of a community forum I value.

This grudge-filled call-out is garbage.

If you think we have a grudge-thing going on, that's your problem. I'm not interested (ps. props to cortex for highlighting the value of FAMO, in several threads..)


pps. Did you know today's Friday, followed by a pretty good looking weekend?
posted by Tuesday After Lunch at 5:51 PM on April 23, 2010 [2 favorites]


I'm actually really interested in blood donation issues, the ethics of donating versus boycotting to send a message, it's something I've struggled with because I think it's important to donate blood but I think the policy is stupid and immoral... but please please please please let's not screen Rambo: Gay Blood Part II in this thread. It can only be worse than the original.
posted by Kattullus at 6:07 PM on April 23, 2010 [2 favorites]


It should be noted that what remains of the blood donation thread is a cleaned-up version.

None of my comments was "cleaned-up", deleted or edited. None were "rhetorical tricks".

Whatever you're trying to do here, please knock it off.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 7:28 PM on April 23, 2010


Tuesday After Lunch> It should be noted that what remains of the blood donation thread is a cleaned-up version.

Okay, then are you alleging that Blazecock Pileon, contrary to what Jessamyn said above, posted more than 6 times in that thread? If not, why is this relevant to a discussion about his behavior in the blood donation AskMe?

but since he and others feel that he's been the paradigm of a reasoned, polite, and always-correct contributor, who made no inappropriate contributions in the blood donation thread

And who are these "others" that you speak of?

Comment 1: [ . . . ] I do think it is unethical for the Red Cross to be homophobic [ . . . ]

Until this point, all posts had been directly addressing the OP's question. This is the injection of a political position that you're intent of foisting into the AskMe.


I took the time to read the entire AskMe thread just now, and I still don't see how this counts as an "injection".

The question (as MCMikeNamara points out) was one concerning ethics, and discussions about ethics are inevitably going to be wide-ranging (and therefore should fall on the wrong side of the chatfilter line, but that's my opinion). One can get into a huge meta-side-argument about whether inethical behavior of other actors can serve as the justification for one's own ordinarily inethical behavior, but it simply isn't unreasonable to mention the ethics of the policy and its enforcers in answering the question, and it doesn't count as not "directly addressing the OP's question".

So, you know that this is a derail. If you were sincere in your apology, you'd have directed further comments into a MeTa, or email (of course, you'd have to re-enable your Mefi Mail), or dropped it (or really, just about anything) rather than continue this tangent in the AskMe.

Yes, it was awful that Blazecock Pileon couldn't just let it go without arguing some more. Also along those lines ...

The other comments are variations on the theme:
BP: Flamboyant statement of position X.
Other: Detailed explanation of how statement is misleading.
BP: Gainsaying rhetorical trick, ignoring detailed explanation, and reasserting correctness of Flamboyant statement of position X.

Now, gainsaying rhetorical tricks can be entertaining as a skit, but when someone's actually trying to engage in a discussion, it's irritating, and often perceived as fighty.


... it's a shame that Blazecock Pileon can't keep from engaging in rhetorical tricks. Especially the "flamboyant" ones.
posted by UrineSoakedRube at 7:48 PM on April 23, 2010 [1 favorite]


Me> Okay, then are you alleging that Blazecock Pileon, contrary to what Jessamyn said above, posted more than 6 times in that thread?

Blazecock Pileon> None of my comments was "cleaned-up", deleted or edited.

I really need to remember to refresh comments before posting.
posted by UrineSoakedRube at 8:00 PM on April 23, 2010


None of my comments was "cleaned-up", deleted or edited.

I think you'll find Mr. Lunch claimed the thread, which BP's comments allegedly derailed, was cleaned up.
posted by Sys Rq at 8:10 PM on April 23, 2010 [1 favorite]


We deleted eleven comments from that thread, mostly before leaving a mod note to take it to MeTa, one was from BP but it was mostly just an aside, not something directly relevant to the topic but not a tangential fight either.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 5:44 AM on April 24, 2010 [1 favorite]


My favourite recent Blazecock moment of late was when I jokingly referred to him as the winner of the troll cup, for posting an inflammatory comment which I was sure he was taking the piss with (it turned out he wasn't, and he argued the point to death in classic style) - I got a little note from the mods telling me not to call him that, presumably because he emails them and complains on a regular basis. Then out of the blue on another thread he calls *me* a Troll, the big fucking hypocrite.

But yeah, sometimes he's quite fun when he's not being a dick, or making shit up, or randomly googling shit to back up fallacious arguments in areas he knows nothing about. Frankly I think he suffers from brain damage that makes him insufferable in certain areas, and he's unable to control it. But anyway, yeah, the site would be a little different without him.
posted by Artw at 7:50 AM on April 24, 2010 [1 favorite]


We've been telling multiple people not to call multiple people that, actually. "Troll" is this stupid, overloaded grenade of a word on the site, that accomplishes nothing other than putting people's shields up and derailing a conversation into an is-he-or-isn't-he thing. People can just make the effort to actually say something like "this aspect of your argument seems contradictory/inconsistent/whatever because..." instead, which will address their objection with a hell of a lot more accuracy and have a much better chance of keeping it an actual discussion.

If that's too much effort, just leave it alone. If your main reaction to another use is a desire to go after them, avoid them. You're contributing to the worst parts of this place otherwise.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:37 AM on April 24, 2010 [5 favorites]


I expected more talk about my button.

and here i was distracted by your total cuteness to even notice the button.
posted by fallacy of the beard at 8:40 AM on April 24, 2010


cortex - Well in that case and there was no behind the scense exchange on thatone I think Blazecock is slightly less of a tool.
posted by Artw at 8:44 AM on April 24, 2010


Wow. Your stats in the blood donation thread were correct. Then you claimed the stats meant something that they simply don't. It's like saying that because Washington is undeniably a real historical figure, the story about chopping down the cherry tree is equally undeniably true. If heterosexual sex produces an equal amount of infections to produced by men having sex with men, then either MSM is riskier than heterosexual sex, or gay men are getting it on about 20 times the rate of any straight couple. And lesbians never have sex. Ever.

Similarly Astro-Zombie's dissection of the Tea Party might have used correct facts. But they utterly failed to make your point. While the fringe conservatives might be desperately trying to translate Tea Party activism into votes, and they're throwing a lot of money into making it happen, demographics show that the Tea Party's loyal to that leadership is tenuous at best. Instead demographics show that they fail to have any real defining ties to each other outside worrying about the fiscal gap. Some want to tackle it via smaller government. Others via smarter government. So even on that one issue, as a movement they're mostly toothless and fill up puff pieces for more ad revenue.

That you can sit there with a straight face and say that you were vindicated in both that thread and this thread is hilarious. Simply because the community determined that your comments shouldn't be deleted and that you shouldn't be banned doesn't mean that you're right (taking the liberal position in a liberal community), and it doesn't mean that a hell of a lot of people say you're over-the-top fighty.

It shows that the way Metafilter handles politics is fundamentally flawed in the way that all high-information voters are fundamentally flawed. You grow up with an ideology handed down by demographics, and you find all the facts that agree with that ideology. Until one day you've successfully built a wall out of confirmation bias, and no longer need to check in with empiric evidence to make your case. And so high-information voters make up the core of any base. Meanwhile the undecideds, the people who actual drive policy, end up being low information voters who can admit they're not entirely sure what the answer is.

So you get high-information voters driven by ideology, and low-information voters driven by (slogan-derived twitter-sized) facts. And that's not exactly a division of labor that is going to lead to good political outcomes. High-information liberal voters should be asking "How do we create a blood exchange program that minimizes risk while respecting the personal decisions that people make in the way they lead their life?" It's not by lying to people while exchanging bodily fluids without a condom. High-information liberal voters should be asking "How can we properly fund a safety net without depressing economic growth and adding to the deficit?". I mean, health care reform that's going to expand coverage and wrangle in costs? Medicare is still going to grow at 6% a year, when we know that in the best of times we can't guarantee a 6% increase in GDP.

So we're stuck with the Tea Party because high-information liberal voters are worrying about signaling conservatism through questioning the long-term viability of our strategies.

And it's understandable. When I do it here, I'm derided for being against social safety nets and I'm lumped in as a conservative generally, despite the fact that my motives for questioning them is to improve them. And ultimately it's really sad for policy because we have a lot of big issues that could use more thought then whether the conservative or liberal talking points hold more weight. But politicians are stuck chasing the votes of low information voters, because high information voters are too costly to engage, and most were in their respective camps before they learned to vote. So they're more worried about how policies play in the media, not the actual nuts and bolts of the situation.
posted by politikitty at 9:28 AM on April 24, 2010 [2 favorites]


Meanwhile the undecideds, the people who actual drive policy, end up being low information voters who can admit they're not entirely sure what the answer is.

more like low-information voters who not only cannot admit they're not entirely sure what the answer is, but who cannot admit that they don't understand the question and yet stubbornly insist on offering a solution anyway.
posted by fallacy of the beard at 9:43 AM on April 24, 2010


It shows that the way Metafilter handles politics is fundamentally flawed

Ahh. Much better.
posted by Sys Rq at 10:34 AM on April 24, 2010


I'm quite sure that when a MeTa thread turns into an exercise in sharing "funny" unrelated stories cheerfully proclaiming what a [epithet] someone is, that this is Bad For Metafilter.
posted by desuetude at 10:59 AM on April 24, 2010


I mean seriously, name-calling?
posted by desuetude at 10:59 AM on April 24, 2010


"Instead demographics show that they fail to have any real defining ties to each other outside worrying about the fiscal gap. Some want to tackle it via smaller government. Others via smarter government. So even on that one issue, as a movement they're mostly toothless and fill up puff pieces for more ad revenue."

Well, no. The polling on the identity of Tea Party members has shown that they're disproportionately drawn from not only Republicans, but reactionary Republicans who have a higher approval rating of Bush than even regular non-Tea Party Republicans. Fivethirtyeight.com has done a pretty good job covering this as the data has come out, including having some pretty great discussions with the people who have done the studies. They do have real, defining ties to each other, even if not all of the members of the party share those ties; assuming that all descriptors of a group are individually accurate (or even need to be to describe the group) is making a fundamental mistake on how communities exist. Two simple counter-examples: There are conservatives on Metafilter, but Metafilter is a liberal and progressive community on the whole; One of my former neighbors was a black guy whose political beliefs aligned with the Democratic party, however he always voted straight-ticket Republican because the Republicans freed the slaves and his family had been from the South when the Dixiecrats ruled—he is explicitly an atypical Republican voter, but it's not therefore wrong to say that Republicans support the dismantlement of social services and the reduction of taxes.

Further, arguing that Metafilter political discussions are flawed because we're high information voters, and high information voters are flawed because they only take information that supports their ideology is begging the question twice.
posted by klangklangston at 11:08 AM on April 24, 2010 [3 favorites]


On multiple occasions in several threads, whenever I write something he does not agree with, Artw almost invariably responds with some kind of snide insult. Nine times out of ten, I usually ignore his baiting.

After one egregiously bad comment, I had enough. I did not respond to Artw's bait directly, but I emailed Cortex to ask something be done about it.

I only emailed once. I do not complain to the moderators on a "regular basis", but in fact I have been asked to contact them more frequently when Artw behaves badly. My mistake is in not asking the moderators for help more often, and so I have resolved to do this going forward.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:27 AM on April 24, 2010


Oh, so you are a hypocrite then. Thanks for clearing that up.
posted by Artw at 11:34 AM on April 24, 2010


I do not complain to the moderators on a "regular basis", but in fact I have been asked to contact them more frequently when Artw behaves badly.

This is not a very good characterization of what I've asked you to do, which is not to keep track of Artw's behavior but to try and opt for dropping us a contact mail instead of getting fighty in a thread, something you do too often and which is part of a pattern of problematic behavior around here.

Both you and Artw are part of that problem, and watching the two of you snipe at each other in a thread is annoying and distracting and I'd really like both of you to cut it out. If that means writing us a contact email instead of getting into it in a thread, do that.
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:23 PM on April 24, 2010 [1 favorite]


I wrote a contact email once about (aboot in Canadianese) a shirt I think and I never heard back. I just went and had a beer (per usual) and figured the mod inbox sucks.
posted by vapidave at 9:37 AM on April 25, 2010


We write back to every single email that seems to require a response. In fact when people write us asking us to fix a typo, we usually write back when we've done it. Sometimes if I think someone else is handling something, I'll skip a message. Mathowie's the shirt guy and he's usually pretty okay about responses also. Our inbox doesn't suck at all.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:45 AM on April 25, 2010


Yeah, vapiddave, I'm not finding anything to the contact form from my best guesses at email address or things like "shirt AND dave", I'm not sure what's up there. Definitely let Matt know about the shirt thing, supply may be tricky depending on what it is but if nothing else we can make sure to just get you a freebie next time shirts happen.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:55 AM on April 25, 2010


It was such a small matter that I only came to it months later thinking "Oh, yeah, I never heard back". I'm certain if I'd have written again there would have been a response and I didn't mean to impugn your responsiveness (I've written a few others and had barely clicked "send" before I received a response) and I'm certain you guys always respond. So, uh, Sorry. I considered that the exception that proves the rule.

I am also regretting the "inbox" quip. Seriously, anyone who is reading, write them. For no reason. They like it and are funny.
posted by vapidave at 12:44 PM on April 25, 2010


We've been telling multiple people not to call multiple people that, actually. "Troll" is this stupid, overloaded grenade of a word on the site, that accomplishes nothing other than putting people's shields up and derailing a conversation into an is-he-or-isn't-he thing. People can just make the effort to actually say something like "this aspect of your argument seems contradictory/inconsistent/whatever because..." instead, which will address their objection with a hell of a lot more accuracy and have a much better chance of keeping it an actual discussion.

If that's too much effort, just leave it alone. If your main reaction to another use is a desire to go after them, avoid them. You're contributing to the worst parts of this place otherwise.


i just want to second this. The most annoying thing people do here is accuse people of not being sincere or not actually having the opinion they claim to have. Something of the form: "You are just saying that because.." I think any sentiment that starts that was is gonna end in a personal back and forth because you've made it personal. It's obnoxious and unproductive.
posted by empath at 4:44 PM on April 25, 2010


I'm not necessarily eager to step on a soapbox or jump on a bandwagon, but I agree. I think this thing works best when we give each other the benefit of the doubt.
posted by box at 8:37 PM on April 25, 2010


It's obnoxious and unproductive.

I'd add that insinuating racist motives and ascribing desires to exterminate people is also something obnoxious and unproductive that has occurred more than a few times in this thread by people who seem dead-set on acting in bad faith. I am in total agreement with this philosophy and hope you choose not to be one of those few griefers.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:42 PM on April 25, 2010


It shows that the way Metafilter handles politics is fundamentally flawed

Ahh. Much better.
posted by Sys Rq at 10:34 AM on April 24


Free advice/advisory -- worth every penny you didn't pay for: BP does not like this editorial device used in disagreements with him.

How do I know this? Well, this is a disclosure point: BP & I had two exchanges in the blood donation thread -- one was deleted; both were this variance of the general form I outlined earlier:

BP: Flamboyant statement of position X.
Other: Detailed explanation of how statement is misleading.
BP: Gainsaying rhetorical trick, ignoring detailed explanation, and reasserting correctness of Flamboyant statement of position X.

me: Errors in your Flamboyant statement have already been pointed out
BP: Reassertion of complete correctness of Flamboyant statement of position X

In the first exchange, I referred to the fact that his claim had already been addressed by another poster by using a strike-through -- replacing RC with FDA -- and he responded with a "Please do not edit my statements. I am still completely correct" post. 'Fraid I was a bit terse in my second (the preserved) exchange. If it had been my choice which of the two exchanges to preserve, it would have been the first; if it had been my choice which of them to delete, it would be both. Neither of these are choices I have control over.

Of the choices I did/do have control over (ie. the important ones), if I had it to do over, I'd not made either post -- I'd flag BP's posts, opened a MeTa, and made a quick post to AskMe that the discussion of RC's policies, etc belonged there. After that, perhaps I'd have posted my take on the OP's dilemma. {One interesting and thought-prevoking actual answer offered was that the OP shouldn't lie, because that's a sort of retreat back into the closet he just came out of}.

I deeply regret allowing myself to be distracted, because the OP asked, in good faith, a difficult question, and deserved answers in equally good faith. (Although I do sometimes wish that anonymous would just DTMFA, get a lawyer, see a doctor/therapist/counselor, cut ties and move on, go for it, realize that they're not responsible for the choices of other adults.. But mostly, I wish that they would accept that although they're not nearly the special-snowflake they think, they really, truly are the Light of-this World.)

Oh, I also regret failing (having deleted) my first attempt at an FFP, and having my special-snowflake answer deleted, 'cause it's always disappointing when one fails, and nothing says Fail like a deletion. Otoh, one can learn from one's mistakes, and I'm pretty much of the school that if you're not making mistakes, you're not trying very hard..

ps. Speaking of trying hard, it would take less than 10% more effort for us to push the number of comments in this thread over 300. (Of course, that might be a mistake)
posted by Tuesday After Lunch at 8:23 AM on April 26, 2010


BP: Flamboyant statement of position X.

I am asking both of you to knock this off. And TAL, if you're not trying to be a total provocateur, please stop with the "flamboyant" stuff. I'm not sure if you're trying to be needling or just sloppy with language, but it's really borderline not-okay in the two-dimensional MeFi world.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:47 AM on April 26, 2010 [2 favorites]


BP does not like this editorial device

I really, truly could not possibly care any less, particularly as I wasn't using it against Blazecock Pileon in the first place.

Pssst! Your vendetta is showing.
posted by Sys Rq at 9:10 AM on April 26, 2010 [2 favorites]


Everytime I read something Blazecock Pileon writes that I think "ohh, well, uh, that's a little...strident," the immediate hyperbolic and personal reaction from a handful of people puts me right back on Blazecock's side.
posted by desuetude at 9:53 AM on April 26, 2010 [2 favorites]


I am not trying to be needling, and I am not intentionally being sloppy with language -- I chose the term "flamboyant" because it seemed the most neutral term to indicate that the statements are made with attention-grabbing language. I was deliberately trying to use a descriptive term that was not inherently a pejorative. "Provocative" comes close, but in this context suggests a deliberate intent to, well, provoke, an argument.

And, I absolutely was not trying to be provocatory, although evidently it comes across that way to some. My apologies.

ps. As I mentioned earlier, I'm not interested in some postulated grudge-thing with BP anyone. Fwiw, my motivation in the previous post was ~90% obsessive-elaboration-for-completeness-syndrome (evidenced, for example, by this very sentence), and ~10% admiration of the awesomeness of Rev. Gary Davis, David Bromberg, and Jorma Kaukonen.
posted by Tuesday After Lunch at 10:56 AM on April 26, 2010


I chose the term "flamboyant" because it seemed the most neutral term

This is a joke, yes? Or do you also think "drama queen" is a neutral term?
posted by Nothing... and like it at 11:05 AM on April 26, 2010


HAPPY BIRTHDAY CORTEX!
posted by Artw at 11:06 AM on April 26, 2010 [1 favorite]


I chose the term "flamboyant" because it seemed the most neutral term

This is a joke, yes? Or do you also think "drama queen" is a neutral term?
posted by Nothing... and like it at 11:05 AM on April 26


No, it is not a joke; I am/was not being disingenuous. I'm going to speculate that you're suggesting that "flamboyant" and "drama queen" are somehow tied to insulting gay/lesbian/trans+cis/etc groups. If anyone took it that way, I am mortified.
posted by Tuesday After Lunch at 11:42 AM on April 26, 2010


There's backstory that you don't know and seem to have inadvertently stepped in. I'll MeMail you.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 11:46 AM on April 26, 2010


I'd add that insinuating racist motives and ascribing desires to exterminate people

It's simply a fact that describing political opponents as vermin (rats/cockroaches) is eliminationist rhetoric that you will see closely associated with genocide. I don't think you want to kill tea partiers, but you should probably at least be aware of the implications of your words.
posted by empath at 1:00 PM on April 26, 2010


I'd add that insinuating racist motives and ascribing desires to exterminate people is also something obnoxious and unproductive that has occurred more than a few times in this thread by people who seem dead-set on acting in bad faith.

I wasn't ascribing that to you when I called out your statement in the original thread, nor was I at all acting in bad faith. I simply objected to using that term due to its heavy baggage.
posted by Burhanistan at 1:13 PM on April 26, 2010


You know who else used eliminationist rhetoric?

(PS: It's not who you think....)
posted by anotherpanacea at 1:13 PM on April 26, 2010


"We don't want to evolve," Beck shouted.

ROFLOLOMFGWTF
posted by Sys Rq at 1:31 PM on April 26, 2010


As I mentioned earlier, I'm not interested in some postulated grudge-thing

Dragging in the blood donation thread when I did nothing wrong there, in the first place, is grudgy. Dragging it up repeatedly is grudgy. I'll leave it to others to decide if you're lying or not.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:34 PM on April 26, 2010


My butt uses eliminationist rhetoric, from time to time.
posted by ignignokt at 3:20 PM on April 26, 2010


« Older We refuse, you effuse   |   Book Club - The American Novel Since 1945 -... Newer »

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