Fighty gladiator thunderdome June 15, 2010 12:32 AM   Subscribe

This FPP's typical and relatively successful feminism discussion devolved into a mano a mano between DNye and myself. I admittedly took his bait and engaged; my bad. This led to DNye's epic 3,600 word comment (plus addendum and corrections). I'm trying to disengage in that topic 1 2 as I try to avoid pissing matches these days. He wants to keep on fightin' 1 2 so I'm asking him to bring it here.

Broader issues: one-on-one battles, ad hominems, snark, derailing, ego, male ego, feminist guys rescuing, the value of editing and offline drafts of long comments.
posted by msalt to Etiquette/Policy at 12:32 AM (221 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite

take a deep breath and count to eleven.
posted by philip-random at 12:43 AM on June 15, 2010


DNye, the Science Prolix Guy
posted by scody at 12:47 AM on June 15, 2010


The FPP was made on June 6. Since June 11, apart from your and DNye's contributions, there have been 6 other comments made by 5 other members. You're obviously, and understandably, worked up about it, but if you really want to disengage then do so, or continue it there. I don't see how dragging it into MeTa serves any real purpose.
posted by Elmore at 1:15 AM on June 15, 2010 [2 favorites]


I don't see anything but heated on-topic discussion there, it isn't derailing anyone else's discussions.
posted by atrazine at 1:34 AM on June 15, 2010 [2 favorites]


   ∩_____∩
   | ノ     ヽ
  /  ●    ● | クマ──!!
  |    ( _●_)  ミ
 彡、    |∪|  、`\
/ __  ヽノ /´>  )
(___)   / (_/
 |       /
 |  /\ \
 | /   ) )
 ∪    (  \
       \_)
Safety Bear will sort this all out.
posted by killdevil at 1:55 AM on June 15, 2010 [10 favorites]


Holy crap. The attrition method of last-wordery.

tl;dnye
posted by pracowity at 2:14 AM on June 15, 2010 [3 favorites]


Broader issues: one-on-one battles, ad hominems, snark, derailing, ego, male ego, feminist guys rescuing, the value of editing and offline drafts of long comments.

Also overuse of bold button, male ego, overuse of bold button, male ego, overuse of bold button, blah blah woof woof embarrassing oneself by pointing out stupid pointless argument that no one was reading until you brought it up, male ego, overuse of bold button, too much time on your hands, male ego blah blah woof woof male ego, overuse of bold button and your point is ?
posted by y2karl at 2:22 AM on June 15, 2010 [8 favorites]


Did you just tattle to all of metafilter? Or is there going to be a fight for me to watch here?

Tell me, so I know whether to get my mom to pick me up or tell her I'll "take the bus home".
posted by hal_c_on at 2:23 AM on June 15, 2010 [6 favorites]


Wow. I just read that. You can make all the references to gladiators in a sarcastic way that you want...but the fact still remains that there is a fight here for no other reason than to have a fight...and it seems like you're kinda responsible for part of it.

Just leave the thread. Here practice here. I know you want to write mean things to me now, but just ignore it, and don't enter this thread again.

That'll be that, and its the only thing you can do when you want to disengage from a fight.

So lets see you do it here...if you REALLY don't want to engage in metaviolence.

metaviolence.
posted by hal_c_on at 2:29 AM on June 15, 2010


If you want to disengage, simply not replying works wonders. Not many people are going to be reading that far down in an older thread, and even fewer are going to make it more than a paragraph into such long meandering posts. Honestly, saying "hey, memail me or take it up in MeTa if there is a bigger problem" would have disengaged much more effectively than the somewhat escalatory wording of this MeTa.

I think that that poster's dissonance and issues speak for themselves. Laughing at him won't help, nor will some kind of midnight pile-on.

Like it says below the preview panel below, everyone needs a hug.
posted by Forktine at 2:36 AM on June 15, 2010


I'm trying to disengage in that topic 1 2 as I try to avoid pissing matches these days.

Yes, sorry to be the nth person to point this out but as far as that goes:
starting this thread = FAIL.
posted by Catch at 2:39 AM on June 15, 2010


I learned today that the comment field is too big. It doesn't need to be Twitter short, but 20,000 characters is too much. And leading and all that bold and small is too hard to read. Or maybe I need to switch to a more professional black type on white background.
posted by birdherder at 2:40 AM on June 15, 2010 [1 favorite]


If you want to disengage, simply not replying works wonders.

Um, yeah, this. Just close the browser and walk away. Yeah, you'll still feel steamed and probably wake up in the middle of the night thinking of all the things you could have said and why it sucks that he said that and arg how dare he! But that only goes away given time and continuing to not reply, going back for another shot prolongs your feeling irked more than anything. Plus it's pretty clear the other guy has way too much invested, it's not a fight you'll ever win. Let him have the last word and move on with something more interesting.

Up until this thread it was pretty clear who was the nutbar in this situation (that comment, wow) (also, hint: not msalt), why ruin that impression by containing the fight here?
posted by shelleycat at 2:48 AM on June 15, 2010 [6 favorites]


I'm trying not to comment in this thread.
posted by doublehappy at 2:49 AM on June 15, 2010 [3 favorites]


containing? continuing!
posted by shelleycat at 2:49 AM on June 15, 2010


People up at night in NZ, represent!
posted by hal_c_on at 2:55 AM on June 15, 2010


People up at night in NZ, represent!

Brother!
posted by Catch at 3:00 AM on June 15, 2010


starting this thread = female ego.

(If we're going to be throwing gendered labels on behaviour we don't like, msalt.)

People up at night in NZ, represent!

You can get an amen, indeed.
posted by rodgerd at 3:10 AM on June 15, 2010


You lot should be getting ready to watch the football.

On-topic: that thread doesn't look terrible to me, on either side (though I've only skimmed it). I could do without the excessive bold and length, but worse things happen on Metafilter. As others have said, if you want to walk away - just walk away.
posted by Infinite Jest at 3:33 AM on June 15, 2010


starting this thread = female ego.

Are you calling msalt a woman?
posted by pracowity at 3:36 AM on June 15, 2010


Rodgerd: "starting this thread = female ego."?

What? 'Splain, plz?
posted by taz at 3:46 AM on June 15, 2010


Thanks for trying to engage him, msalt. You did well keeping your cool, but yeah, dude is kind of a lost cause—too enamored with hearing himself type against strawmen—for this thread to do much good.
posted by and hosted from Uranus at 4:03 AM on June 15, 2010 [1 favorite]


Yeah, sorry about that. Cold light of day, it does look pretty lengthy.

Part of this, I think, is cultural differences - 3,600 words (I didn't count them, but that seems perfectly credible) doesn't seem like that long to me, especially if about half of that is direct quotation (those are the bits in bold, for people who just want to skim), and doesn't take that long to write, but then I just got done with a 200-page document written around basically a single message so my sights are probably a little bent. I'm coming from a culture where you support and reference, often at length. If that's not an approach for Metafilter, I'll need to adapt.

In the same wise, generally, when discussing a sensitive topic I'll try to cover every point the other party has made, in case they feel that their valid point has been ignored (which can shade into a Super Tunnel Vision ejector seat button press). In this case, that involved a lot of referencing of other places - the sites linked to in the OP, other discussions of harassment on Metafilter and so on. I thought that by treating Msalt's points seriously and explaining in detail why I disagreed with them I was being respectful to his stated conditions for dialogue - providing the sincerity that he demanded as a condition of conversation. Clearly, I got that wrong.

I do find the argument he is advancing a profoundly unpleasant one, especially when it flies in the face not just of the expert literature but also women's statements, advice and requests in the "Hi. Whatcha reading?" thread, the MetaTalk thread going on from that thread and elsewhere. Nonetheless, I think I stayed ontopic, covering only the arguments he was making and the way he was making them, albeit clearly at far too great a length. Since it was tl, he dr'ed, but there wasn't a derail - just a lot (a lot a lot, as it turned out) of close reading. Although I have helped to derail the post the post about England vs USA into a general World Cup discussion so, you know, sorry about that. I've tried to summarise my objections more compactly at the end of the thread, although there is still some quotage, so there's no point in getting into it here.

tl;dr - some people got too involved in an argument on the Internet. MetaTalk is not, as far as I understand, an appropriate place to continue that. Apologies to anyone who'd like the time they spent wading through that megapost back - FWIW, you weren't the intended audience.
posted by DNye at 4:04 AM on June 15, 2010 [2 favorites]


#66
Digging without a shovel is quite impractical. Even with a
shovel progress is unlikely.
posted by flabdablet at 4:12 AM on June 15, 2010


I never when have known about this if you hadn't posted it to MetaTalk. Now that you have though, it's still pretty easy to ignore.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 4:24 AM on June 15, 2010 [5 favorites]


MetaFilter: epic 3,600 word comment (plus addendum and corrections)
posted by DU at 4:29 AM on June 15, 2010


If only there was some internal mail solution to a problem between two users...
posted by Hiker at 4:34 AM on June 15, 2010 [2 favorites]


DNye, it's my understand that in fact this kind of wanking is exactly what MetaTalk is for. I say this as someone who tends to be pretty verbose when engaged too.
posted by kalessin at 4:37 AM on June 15, 2010


I honestly don't even know what you guys were supposed to be arguing about.
posted by delmoi at 4:50 AM on June 15, 2010 [1 favorite]


Christ. Full disclosure: I couldn't read through that thread because all the overreacting/armchair-diagnosing women who experience street harrassment as being omgcrazy, and the "what about the men?"-ing, and the mansplaining was actually physically painful for me to read. I know that there were good and thoughtful and productive comments, but I also know that I only have the energy to keep having this conversation with people on metafilter so many times over and over again. That thread was not one of those times. But I read as much of it as I could. Then I went back and read the argument you linked to.

Were the argument less personalized, I would actually feel differently about this, like this was a chance to further discussion on the issue. But it's just become a fight between the two of you and there's very little room for anyone else to contribute anything meaningful. If you want to stop, just stop - both of you.
posted by ellehumour at 4:52 AM on June 15, 2010 [10 favorites]


i suppose a lot of people live for it, but i'm not impressed when people monopolize threads. why don't you two just get a room?
posted by msconduct at 4:54 AM on June 15, 2010


---FWIW, you weren't the intended audience---

That characteristic ought to cause you to delete rather than post a comment.
posted by peacay at 4:55 AM on June 15, 2010 [3 favorites]


msalt, you did this to me too. We were having a discussion about sexism after most had left the thread, and you went weird and started talking about things devolving and didn't want to continue the discussion. Wasn't an argument or fighty or gladiator...y

If you don't want to respond to someone once things get down to the nitty grit, then stop replying. You will not get the last word. You should probably get to being okay with that. The thread is there for discussion. If there's a discussion going on, there's nothing wrong with it continuing. If you want to bow out, bow out. Just stop responding. I think it is helpful to have these types of in-thread discussions continue in-thread. It provides information and helps advance lines of thought in these topics. People do read the posts down there.
posted by cashman at 5:00 AM on June 15, 2010 [4 favorites]


Peacay: I can only apologise again. I didn't expect this to go to Metatalk - that is, I expected that only people already keenly interested in talking about street harassment and strategies for responding to it would read it. Mea C.
posted by DNye at 5:11 AM on June 15, 2010


I get really tired of guys jumping into and trying to dominate threads which discuss womens issues. I'm starting to find it a bit worrying.
posted by sgt.serenity at 5:15 AM on June 15, 2010 [11 favorites]


It IS a bit worrying, definitely. It's like we don't really get it and can't shut up. Oh wait.
posted by kalessin at 5:28 AM on June 15, 2010


It was still in my recent activity but I'd pretty much stopped reading.

Which is a terrible explanation for why I'm commenting in this thread.
posted by rtha at 5:45 AM on June 15, 2010



I get really tired of guys jumping into and trying to dominate threads which discuss womens issues. I'm starting to find it a bit worrying.

posted by sgt.serenity at 7:15 AM on June 15 [1 favorite +] [!]

i think you have something there. my wife was talking about some feminist issue here was taking a conservative view. i had to ask her 'who's the feminist here?' ... and after a pause we both realized that i was more of a feminist then she was.
posted by lester's sock puppet at 5:57 AM on June 15, 2010


I get really tired of guys jumping into and trying to dominate threads which discuss womens issues.

See also: Metafilter discussions of race, nationality, and any FPP focusing on a country other than the U.S.
posted by stinkycheese at 6:03 AM on June 15, 2010 [4 favorites]


Christ. Full disclosure: I couldn't read through that thread because all the ... was actually physically painful for me to read.

I'm sorry reading those terrible men caused you physical pain. How dare they share such bad, thoughtless and unproductive comments. Obviously, there's not a single thought expressed in the whole lot; they exist only to hurt you.
posted by and hosted from Uranus at 6:13 AM on June 15, 2010 [1 favorite]


That thread is everything that's most ludicrous about the internet tied up in a bow.
posted by octobersurprise at 6:20 AM on June 15, 2010 [1 favorite]


3,600 words (I didn't count them, but that seems perfectly credible) doesn't seem like that long to me, especially if about half of that is direct quotation (those are the bits in bold, for people who just want to skim), and doesn't take that long to write, but then I just got done with a 200-page document written around basically a single message so my sights are probably a little bent.

OK, how about this as a frame of reference: when I was in college, a standard, medium-length paper would be around 2,000 words. You posted a single comment to Metafilter that was almost twice that long. (I didn't read it and I'm not complaining; I'm just saying, that's really long.)
posted by Jaltcoh at 6:23 AM on June 15, 2010


The internet does not suffer from an excess of lengthy comments.
posted by vapidave at 6:31 AM on June 15, 2010 [2 favorites]


msalt: what did you expect to get out of this metatalk thread? When you find yourself in a hole, step 1 is to stop digging.
posted by empath at 6:34 AM on June 15, 2010


It is good if we are attacked by the enemy, since it proves that we have drawn a clear line of demarcation between the enemy and ourselves. It is still better if the enemy attacks us wildly and paints us as utterly black and without a single virtue; it demonstrates that we have not only drawn a clear line of demarcation between the enemy and ourselves but achieved a great deal in our work.
posted by Abiezer at 6:35 AM on June 15, 2010 [2 favorites]


I get really tired of guys jumping into and trying to dominate threads which discuss womens issues.

Well, metafilter is full of people who have opinions on everything and its also mostly men (I thinK). It's bound to happen.
posted by empath at 6:36 AM on June 15, 2010


I have that thread in Recent Activity but stopped reading a while ago. Part of the reason was I thought that DNye was just emphasizing a lot of his own ideas and too much bold makes my eyes glaze over.

Dude, most of use italics or blockquote for that purpose. Use bold for your own words that you want to emphasize, and use it sparingly.
posted by grouse at 6:37 AM on June 15, 2010


The most unfortunate thing about that thread is that it ended with two guys swinging their bean-plating, academic dicks at each other to the exclusion of anyone else's voices.

The problem with episodes of Boys on the Blue is that self-described gladiator-style combat is not how most women are culturally indoctrinated to communicate, and these clashes have the unfortunate an unintended consequence of effectively silencing a proportion of the participating audience.

Bravo.
posted by DarlingBri at 6:38 AM on June 15, 2010 [18 favorites]


Only 3600 words? Count your blessings. You could have gotten into a fight with Rory...
posted by Ian A.T. at 6:38 AM on June 15, 2010 [4 favorites]


3,600 words? That's like the longest catcall in history.
posted by Elmore at 6:38 AM on June 15, 2010 [4 favorites]


I think in general, people don't like to be told that their personal experiences aren't valid and their opinions are irrelevant, and that was happening on both sides of the discussion.
posted by empath at 6:40 AM on June 15, 2010


That 3,600 word comment kind of reminded me of the Architect's speech in the second Matrix film for some reason.
posted by EndsOfInvention at 6:40 AM on June 15, 2010


Man, who came up with the idea of using bold to signify quotation? It's the worst idea ever.
posted by delmoi at 6:42 AM on June 15, 2010 [3 favorites]


It's the worst idea ever.

(repeated for emphasis)
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 6:44 AM on June 15, 2010 [6 favorites]


DNye, quotation and citation are fine and good things but, yeah, length is something to take into account. A long comment isn't necessarily something to take notice of, and its certainly not an a priori violation, but the longer it gets the more it needs a second glance, and that big comment is definitely well into Needs Additional Glances territory. That's around the territory where either cutting down to the core ideas some or just taking the full thing to a blog post if you need to would probably make sense. Or taking it to email, especially if you're really just arguing with one specific person.

msalt, starting a metatalk thread to make a home for an argument you want to stop having is honestly pretty counterproductive. Either keep talking to DNye in the thread, stop talking to DNye in the thread, or encourage DNye to move it to email; all of those are better strategies than this sort of thing. Take responsibility for letting it go if letting it go is what you want to do; DNye doesn't have a gun to your head.

Also, this sort of rider on a metatalk post:

Broader issues: one-on-one battles, ad hominems, snark, derailing, ego, male ego, feminist guys rescuing, the value of editing and offline drafts of long comments.

Isn't so helpful. If you want to talk specifically about one or more of those issues as something that needs a community discussion in metatalk, that's a-okay, but if so you need to actually address them substantially instead of just reeling them off and leaving folks to read a big thread just to pick up the context.
posted by cortex (staff) at 6:48 AM on June 15, 2010 [1 favorite]


And yeah, I saw this post, and skimmed his comments, thinking the bolded stuff was his own statements and got pretty confused. Reading the whole thing in context it makes a little more sense, but still doesn't strike me as worth reading.
posted by delmoi at 6:48 AM on June 15, 2010


I format all my quotes with bold, italic, underlined, small, strike-though, and blink, thusly:

It's the worst idea ever..
posted by EndsOfInvention at 6:50 AM on June 15, 2010 [2 favorites]


Effectively silencing? No. Nobody is stopping anyone else from typing, 'cept the mods and maybe some comment-length truncation in the code. If you believe that women are culturally indoctrinated to, ah, not engage in gladiator-style combat, still, nothing prevents you from either saying what you like in the fashion you like it or getting out your trident and net and going to town. Are you not entertained? Is this not why you are here?

You are free to act. No conservation of words principle exists, and the episodes of Boys and the Blue have taken up all of the available noise. By swapping the freedom to say what you like with the freedom from other people conversing, you've created an illusory scenario wherein others must be silenced for you to speak.

I sure hope that the world doesn't work like that.
posted by adipocere at 6:53 AM on June 15, 2010 [5 favorites]


I'm on the internet and I have an opinion!
posted by owtytrof at 6:54 AM on June 15, 2010 [2 favorites]


I think in general, people don't like to be told that their personal experiences aren't valid and their opinions are irrelevant, and that was happening on both sides of the discussion.

Yeah my brain shut down after 1/8 of that tit-for-tat, but from what I could tell they were both violently telling each other the same things about the same things, and getting really pissed off about it.
posted by shakespeherian at 6:55 AM on June 15, 2010 [1 favorite]


By swapping the freedom to say what you like with the freedom from other people conversing, you've created an illusory scenario wherein others must be silenced for you to speak.

I don't think anyone was trying to silence anyone. If you're at a cocktail party, and a couple of people are dominating the conversation, its rude. We don't have threaded conversations here, so it would be nice if people would take a step back and think about whether they should stop posting for a while to let other people talk.
posted by empath at 6:57 AM on June 15, 2010 [1 favorite]


One other thing. The insincerely apologetic, "My bad...for taking his bait"? Not so much.
posted by cribcage at 7:02 AM on June 15, 2010 [4 favorites]


Long posts are not necessarily bad. Tl;dr, but I don't see ad hominem attacks, name-calling or serious jackassery. Just some guy who's going a bit overboard debating. I agree that it's a shame when a post is derailed by some guy who wants to own discussions about gender, without listening to the other gender, but it's a resounding meh.
posted by theora55 at 7:09 AM on June 15, 2010


I'm sorry reading those terrible men caused you physical pain. How dare they share such bad, thoughtless and unproductive comments. Obviously, there's not a single thought expressed in the whole lot; they exist only to hurt you.

Is this some flatulent burst of failed sarcasm, or a tremendously asinine response based on that tired old take-particular-word-or-phrase-from-previous-comment-and-twist-to-make-OP-look-ridiculous schtick? Just curious.
posted by psychostorm at 7:11 AM on June 15, 2010 [3 favorites]


So... I'm confused. From what I understand we are encouraged to bring stuff to Metatalk when they devolve on other parts of the site... but when people actually DO this we get countless instances of "hey man, don't clutter up Metatalk with this shit". It's not like someone is compelling you to read or even have an option about every subject on MeTa, and it's not as if the Mods are afraid to close subjects here at their whim.

Yeah, I'm right there in offering suggestions on how to disengage, but it seems like this is exactly what MeTa is for.
posted by edgeways at 7:12 AM on June 15, 2010


I'm sorry reading those terrible men caused you physical pain. How dare they share such bad, thoughtless and unproductive comments. Obviously, there's not a single thought expressed in the whole lot; they exist only to hurt you.

We all communicate better when we don't exaggeratedly misrepresent others' positions to mock them. If what she said hurt your feelings, it's okay just to say that. Responding to someone's sincere feelings (even if you think they're overblown) with nasty sarcasm makes this place worse.

Well, metafilter is full of people who have opinions on everything and its also mostly men (I thinK). It's bound to happen.

And this. There doesn't need to be a feminist conspiracy to postulate that if there are two people arguing at the end of a thread they will be men. That said, it may be my confirmation bias or it may be true [and maybe I'll go back and check] that a large number of threads on women's issues, in MeFi and MeTa, do turn into two guys yelling at/wresting with each other. It would be nice to not do that, since it's a bad thing to happen in threads generally.

Disengaging is as easy as non-replying. The internet is full of marvels.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:18 AM on June 15, 2010 [13 favorites]


Disengaging is as easy as non-replying. The internet is full of marvels.

You can do anything ... anything at all.
posted by Damn That Television at 7:19 AM on June 15, 2010 [2 favorites]


It's not like someone is forcing you to hold a gun to cortex's head to make him force the men to stop exercising their free speech to give room to the people being forced to read the thread they have no interest in while I am forcing you to debate here.

Sheesh.
posted by Meatbomb at 7:23 AM on June 15, 2010 [1 favorite]


The smartest thing anyone ever said to me about internet slapfights is "you don't have to have the last word". We almost all fail to live up to this sometimes--I know I do--but it's a good thing to remember.
posted by immlass at 7:27 AM on June 15, 2010


You can do anything ... anything at all.

Now in HTML 5!
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:27 AM on June 15, 2010


There doesn't need to be a feminist conspiracy to postulate that if there are two people arguing at the end of a thread they will be men. That said, it may be my confirmation bias or it may be true [and maybe I'll go back and check] that a large number of threads on women's issues, in MeFi and MeTa, do turn into two guys yelling at/wresting with each other. It would be nice to not do that, since it's a bad thing to happen in threads generally.

What constitutes yelling? I had that (what I thought was a) discussion with msalt at the end of a thread. Unless there's name calling or shit-talking, I don't see what is wrong with a discussion that continues, provided there aren't like 15 back-and-forths in the space of an hour. Anybody can jump in at any time. And if the discussion is civil, I think that is helpful, and may provide linkable material later in time to avoid rehashes or advance the discussion past common sticking points. If this is occurring at the end of threads on women's issues, perhaps it is evidence of men who are familiar with the many sexist behaviors a number of guys exhibit, and the thought patterns behind them (perhaps having held them themselves), and their attempts to share the lessons they feel they've learned. Maybe that's a good thing and not a bad thing?
posted by cashman at 7:35 AM on June 15, 2010


I don't think anyone was trying to silence anyone. If you're at a cocktail party, and a couple of people are dominating the conversation, its rude.

When does one post have to shout over another to be heard? There is no text analogue to volume.

Well, ok, maybe indiscriminate use of bold.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 7:41 AM on June 15, 2010


When does one post have to shout over another to be heard? There is no text analogue to volume.

I dunno, I think when a handful of people are posting a lot of quick back-and-forth, a comment by someone just arriving to the thread is easy to overlook by other people reading, who at that point are seeing the thread more and more as a narrative of a specific conversation (or fight) between those handful of people. It is possible to be noisy in a thread, and it is possible to effectively drown out any other conversation.
posted by shakespeherian at 7:49 AM on June 15, 2010 [1 favorite]


There is no text analogue to volume.

Well if you make a multi-thousand word post and then mock people for not reading it, it sort of extends that metaphor. I get that people get really heated up, but at the point where you're spending thousands of words refuting someone else's post point by point, you maybe need to take it to email.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:49 AM on June 15, 2010 [2 favorites]


After reading the first dew dozen comments in that thread, I decided to keep out of it, out of a sense that the conversation wasn't really going anywhere productive.

The Schrödinger’s Rapist thread amazed me. I fully expected it wouldn't go at all well, and that muddgirl's first comment would be proved correct. Instead, it turned into a fascinating, educating discussion. I guess all threads can't be like that. But it's extremely nice when they do.
posted by zarq at 7:52 AM on June 15, 2010 [1 favorite]


When does one post have to shout over another to be heard? There is no text analogue to volume.

shakespeherian: I dunno, I think when a handful of people are posting a lot of quick back-and-forth, a comment by someone just arriving to the thread is easy to overlook by other people reading --


I'm sorry; this is between empath and me. Empath, you wretched cur. Respond!
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 7:58 AM on June 15, 2010


That game was really a joke...it wasn't any kind of statement or therapeutic modality. People were failing to recognize that and then proceeding to try to have a serious conversation. But, when you try to base a serious conversation on something that isn't so serious, the result usually isn't really all that worthwhile.
posted by Burhanistan at 8:06 AM on June 15, 2010


I'm sorry; this is between empath and me. Empath, you wretched cur. Respond!

I'll let you have the last word.
posted by empath at 8:33 AM on June 15, 2010


No, good sir. You -- I insist.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 8:35 AM on June 15, 2010


At first I was genuinely curious what this was all about, so I started to read DNye's epic saga of a comment. I just couldn't get past the formatting.
<blockquote>, let me show you it.
posted by ob1quixote at 8:37 AM on June 15, 2010


Words of wisdom from cashman -

If you don't want to respond to someone once things get down to the nitty grit, then stop replying. You will not get the last word. You should probably get to being okay with that.

Community does not work if we insist on getting the last word in on anything. It just doesn't. I have certainly found myself fumbling around in the ass-end of a few threads here, trying, trying, trying to make an ESSENTIAL point to a certain WRONG MeFite, but have inevitably found that just walking away is the only wisdom. And what's interesting is how often, once I do check out, someone else wanders in and picks up my point and BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO EMOTIONAL INVESTMENT, make it way better than I ever could have.

This is how community works.
posted by philip-random at 8:45 AM on June 15, 2010


nuh-uh
posted by Babblesort at 8:47 AM on June 15, 2010


jessamyn writes "That said, it may be my confirmation bias or it may be true [and maybe I'll go back and check] that a large number of threads on women's issues, in MeFi and MeTa, do turn into two guys yelling at/wresting with each other. "

I don't think this would in anyway be limited to threads on women's issues. A large number of threads in general are going to end this way because a large majority of comments in general are made by men.
posted by Mitheral at 8:48 AM on June 15, 2010


I have certainly found myself fumbling around in the ass-end of a few threads here

There's a joke in there somewhere. . .
posted by Think_Long at 8:58 AM on June 15, 2010


Responding to someone's sincere feelings (even if you think they're overblown) with nasty sarcasm makes this place worse.

Agreed, of course. I did not use my grownup words there. I usually try to do so and advocate for them. But, no, it wasn't because she hurt my feelings. At the time I just found sarcasm to be an efficient response to a notion I find ridiculous ("I read some mansplaining on metafilter and it caused me physical pain"). There's lots of mocking here and didn't feel my response was beyond what is normal for the room. I will try moar to take my time next time.
posted by and hosted from Uranus at 9:03 AM on June 15, 2010


Thanks, Grouse and ob1quixote, that's good advice, and will hopefully help me to look less like Timecube guy in the future. And thanks for your thoughts, Cortex - I'll keep them in mind in future. This thread is turning out to be really useful and educational for me.

Also, Jessamyn (and Darlingbri), that was sincerely something that concerned me as well - there being often little more than the width of an amarretto paper between sharing your thoughts and being Captain Mansplain. I think I felt more confident (too confident, as it turned out) in responding at length because Msalt was closing in specifically on the question of whether or not men should ever intervene when women around them are experiencing harassment - that is, it was to a greater than usual extent actually about the menz (bold for emphasis). I hope I didn't discourage anyone, man or woman, from speaking their mind, and I'm sorry if that happened. It's nice to see that people are now coming from this thread back to that one. I like to think I was neither wrestling nor yelling (although I was talking and quoting too much, and using the wrong markup, as it turns out), but I did find Msalt's views on harassment genuinely disturbing, and that must have affected my propriety inner ear. Which supports Phillip_random's point above, I guess.
posted by DNye at 9:08 AM on June 15, 2010


Can we get a "timecube guy" option on the contacts page?
posted by Think_Long at 9:21 AM on June 15, 2010


I didn't read the long comments, so could someone sum this up and tell me who is rooting for USA and who is rooting for Slovenia?
posted by found missing at 9:22 AM on June 15, 2010 [1 favorite]


This thread is turning out to be really useful and educational for me.

And I should be super clear, I don't think you did anything like "omg we need to ban that guy" wrong, but just that we-as-mods are used to a sort of baseline of how most people on the site interact with each other. Sometimes people go outside of that and if it's more than a standard deviation or two we have to do a quick assessment about whether it's someone who is sincerely interacting or whether it's a crazy or drunk person who is ramping up to detroy the site while we sleep. 90% of the time it's the former, but it always gets on our radar and so we've been thinking about it.

I appreciate that it's a subject you're passionate about and that you care enough to try to talk about it, so I didn't want to be pointing fingers in any way other than saying "oh hey that was unusual" and "might want to check what your goal is and see if you're meeting it."
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:23 AM on June 15, 2010


Man, who came up with the idea of using bold to signify quotation? It's the worst idea ever.

No, making quotes in blockquotes, all caps, then bold and three bigs is, as in:
WE WOULD

RATHER SPEAK

THAN BE HEARD.
I believe Robert Louis Stevenson said that.

Using bold may not be shouting but, man, it definitely is not using your inside voice.
posted by y2karl at 9:33 AM on June 15, 2010


Except bigs only work in preview, I come to find out. Oh, well, carry on....
posted by y2karl at 9:33 AM on June 15, 2010


I think zarq's spot-on. The Schrödinger’s Rapist thread was a great example of a mostly-good epic comment thread really doing a lot of good for a great number of people.

I think in contrast when it gets down to long and spammy fights between two individuals with almost no personal stake in the actual topic at hand, then those two people need to take it elsewhere because what they are doing is monopolizing the discussion and hijacking the thread.

Incidentally, I also think that there are reasonable arguments that long-spammy dialogs are"silencing" in the academic sense. There's a practical upper limit of text that people will read. If one extremely verbose author uses it all up, then that person is silencing other authors.
posted by kalessin at 9:35 AM on June 15, 2010


Man, I just love the "hit them with a wall of text" argumentation tactic. What's funny is that it's something that only ever works online. If somebody tried that in person, people would just look at them funny and walk away.
posted by Afroblanco at 9:36 AM on June 15, 2010 [1 favorite]


*points kalessin to the Page Down key* No.
posted by adipocere at 9:37 AM on June 15, 2010


i actually thought DNye's comments were perfectly fine, but probably would have been better in the context of a blog-based back-and-forth.

On mefi, it's usually better to just pick one thing and respond concisely to it. Usually if something needs to be responded to, and you don't do it, someone else will.
posted by empath at 9:38 AM on June 15, 2010 [1 favorite]


*points kalessin to the Page Down key* No.

Well, there are obvious difference between gapless shouting in real life and long commenting on the internet, but it's not entirely unfair to note that a long mano-a-mano exchange occupies in-thread real estate in a way that can lead to scrolling fatigue or otherwise discourage folks to try and interface with a conversation.

That's part of the reason we will sometimes nix a gigantic pullquote from a thread when someone adds that as a comment and instead recommend that the commenter just toss in a link to whatever it was.

It's a minor issue by and large—a venial sin at worst, certainly not cardinal—but it's not necessarily a "this doesn't matter at all" sort of thing either.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:44 AM on June 15, 2010


I wrote you a 3,600 word response, Cortex, but I ated it.
posted by davejay at 9:49 AM on June 15, 2010 [1 favorite]


Are you suffering from scroll fatigue? Do you find your mouse unwieldy and hard to control? Does the constant knuckle-bending force you to switch to your middle, or even index finger? DON'T live with a bad mouse, try our Lead Mice™ today. The bulky and non-aerodynamic shell of the Lead Mouse is designed to make you have to physically stand to operate it. 3 Mercury-filled interlocking wheels make it so you have to interlock your hands, brace yourself against something and push with considerable force to scroll down the page. You're not only working your biceps and triceps, you're working your abdominals, glutes, lats, pecs and calves. Order now and we'll include the Gigaboard, with 8x11 sized keys!
posted by cashman at 9:56 AM on June 15, 2010 [3 favorites]


I thought everything you said was interesting, DNye, and that the quality more than justified the length.

Good work.
posted by jamjam at 10:08 AM on June 15, 2010


I don't really see that exchange as problematic either, and I'm not sure what this call out is for.
posted by small_ruminant at 10:15 AM on June 15, 2010


Why does the scene of Ralphie beating the crap out of Scut Farkus come to mind when I read that FPP?
posted by ericb at 10:19 AM on June 15, 2010


This MetaTalk thread seems like a pretty stupid idea. If you want to stop arguing, the most straightforward way to "disengage" here would be to stop posting in that thread, and not start new threads where you can also argue.
posted by chunking express at 10:20 AM on June 15, 2010


Option: Just, like, stop or something?
posted by Sys Rq at 10:28 AM on June 15, 2010 [1 favorite]


Yeah, that thread was interesting until it just became two creepy "Nice Guys" practicing their high-school debate skills. Now that the World Impotency Pissing Olympics have bled over into the gray I can express how insufferable I find both the dialog and the interlocutors. Poor form, poor in practice and bad in theory. Surely one of you two has a wordpress blog you can masturbate into?
posted by fuq at 10:34 AM on June 15, 2010 [4 favorites]


I'm just here to mock the OP based on his (her) original post and pile on, ignoring any and all intervening commentary that may have completely changed the tone of the conversation.

YOU ARE BAD.
posted by GuyZero at 10:35 AM on June 15, 2010 [2 favorites]


"Well, metafilter is full of people who have opinions on everything and its also mostly men (I thinK)."

Is MeFi predominantly men (predominantly = 80% in my mind)?

Are there breakdowns by gender for:
* all metafilter users
* users active in the past week
* users active in the past month, etc
posted by artlung at 10:44 AM on June 15, 2010


Yeah, that thread was interesting until it just became two creepy "Nice Guys" practicing their high-school debate skills. Now that the World Impotency Pissing Olympics have bled over into the gray I can express how insufferable I find both the dialog and the interlocutors. Poor form, poor in practice and bad in theory. Surely one of you two has a wordpress blog you can masturbate into?

Sad. If only one of them had a vagina it could have been a legitimate debate.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 10:44 AM on June 15, 2010


Is MeFi predominantly men

Pretty sure it's majority but not predominantly. The last time we checked was a zillion years ago when we were collecting stats for Federated Media to give to their customers. That survey determined MeFi was 67% male. My ballpark estimate is 60/40 since I think AskMe may have more women and it balances out MeFi which I think of as more male. I wonder if that sort of thing can be gleaned form the infodump?
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:47 AM on June 15, 2010 [1 favorite]


tl;dr, but is there going to be a flameout? This seems like a good thread for a flameout and I haven't seen a good flameout for a while.

Can we get more of the cutting off of hands and the burning in tanks and less of this moderately civil discussion about feelings crap?

So, yeah, someone MeMail me if this becomes a flameout. k thx.
posted by eyeballkid at 10:52 AM on June 15, 2010 [1 favorite]


Looks like reported gender is not in the infodump. Looks like a person would have to scrape user pages for the Gender field (which can be used creatively), normalize that, probably throw out munged usernames, then run that list against the Comment Stats.
posted by artlung at 11:04 AM on June 15, 2010


Sad. If only one of them had a vagina it could have been a legitimate debate.

Indeed it would have been a legitimate debate because the debate is about a vagina-specific experience that neither of the commenters could possibly have any knowledge other than assumptions and second-hand anecdotes. It is like two people arguing over bicycles when neither of them had ever ridden a bike, or blind people arguing over the aesthetic merits of a banksy piece.

Also, I find DNye's writing to be overblown and bad to the point where I get angry just reading a sentence and some of the anger splashed on msalt. Actually, I appreciate many of msalt's points, and I really don't have anything against him. He even tastefully pointed out "Doesn't seem like the place for two guys to duke it out at great length, or really for anyone to get so personal. Feel free to MeMail me. Which is a great responce to inanity like DNye saying "That sound there? Ejector seat button being pressed. and then posting another of his screeds. So I guess I should:

Yeah, that thread was interesting until it just became two creepy "Nice Guys" DNye practicing their high-school debate skills. Now that the World Impotency Pissing Olympics PEOPLE ARE FIGHTING ON THE INTERNETS! OMG! have bled over into the gray I can express how insufferable I find both the dialog and the interlocutors. people who write overly long and rambling screeds in opaque language. Poor form, poor in practice and bad in theory. Surely one of you two has a wordpress blog you can masturbate into?HUG IT OUT YAY!

I fixed it for myself!
posted by fuq at 11:07 AM on June 15, 2010 [2 favorites]


I should say "hug it out" more.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 11:08 AM on June 15, 2010 [3 favorites]


tl;dr, but is there going to be a flameout?

If no one else wants to, I will.

And it's always and only me volunteering, you smug fucks! I wonder why that is?! GODDAMMIT SHIT
posted by shakespeherian at 11:08 AM on June 15, 2010


I wonder if that sort of thing can be gleaned form the infodump?

artlung is right, there's nothing in the dump that would tell that. I could take a look at some point, I had always meant to give the gender field a go (as much for the oddball variations as anything) but never really did it.

Obviously it's at best a sketch, since there's nothing enforcing use or honesty in that field even for those cases where someone chose to fill it out with a gender-parsable answer, and no way to measure for opt-in bias (do women avoid IDing themselves by gender more than men do, etc). But it might be fun.

We could consider doing some sort of in-house demographic survey some time I guess, though that seems like its own conversation for when we have the spare time and a reason to do so.
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:09 AM on June 15, 2010

tl;dr, but is there going to be a flameout? This seems like a good thread for a flameout and I haven't seen a good flameout for a while.
I just had a good flameout last week, on another board. Complete with "If you really loved me, you'd have been reading my blog this whole time, and my crazed ranting would be entirely clear." (I checked the blog. Not so much.)
posted by Karmakaze at 11:11 AM on June 15, 2010


msalt: what did you expect to get out of this metatalk thread?

It seemed to me that a bad 1 on 1 dynamic was derailing a good metafilter thread. My hope was to stop that, give the thread a chance to revive, move the derail to Metalk, and get a reality check for both of us. Despite all the flak I've gotten here (and that's my reality check), it seems to have worked out pretty much along those lines.

I tried all the things Cortex suggested; responding in that thread, not responding in that thread, and trying to take it to email; DNye kept posting long comments in thread regardless. Like edgeways said very succinctly, I thought this kind of situation was exactly what Metatalk was for. In retrospect, though, my last couple of responses to DNye should have been email only. But if I had done that, and not created this topic, I doubt the thread would have revived.
posted by msalt at 11:14 AM on June 15, 2010


And it's always and only me volunteering, you smug fucks! I wonder why that is?! GODDAMMIT SHIT

Yeah, but you never push the big red button. DO IT! PUSH THE BUTTON!
posted by eyeballkid at 11:16 AM on June 15, 2010


cortex, cool. I was just curious. It's intrusive to go looking at people's accounts closely to analyze for gender markers (flickr accounts, comments).

In my mind I always thought of MeFi as 50/50. A sample of smart from all over the world. Though given the English-only nature of the site, it will necessarily never be a perfect sample of the whole planet's population.
posted by artlung at 11:20 AM on June 15, 2010


It gets confusing when you have people like Marisa Stole The Precious Thing posing as a woman....

/hamburger
posted by agatha_magatha at 11:22 AM on June 15, 2010


Honestly, I'm not trying to bonk you on the head here but "not responding in that thread" isn't something you try. Like the little green fella says, it's do or do not; not responding only works if you keep not responding. Two to tango and all that.

And it's nice enough that thread is getting a little more discussion, but that's not really a good reason for a metatalk thread. Most threads tail off naturally after a couple days and that's normal and okay. Some threads tail off except for a couple stragglers, and that's okay as well if it doesn't somehow get weird or bad; as much as you two probably could have taken it to email a lot sooner, I don't think there was anything really bad going on in there that needed a redirect over here. "Take it to metatalk" is generally more for derailing exchanges getting in the way of the development of an otherwise active thread.

Anyway, not a great big deal in general, I don't think you were particularly out of line for trying to redirect what you perceived as a problematic thing to Metatalk. I just think it wasn't really necessary in this case and that to the degree that this is mostly framed around your personal argument with DNye it's making a public thing of what's not really a site problem in a way that isn't likely to be too productive.
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:24 AM on June 15, 2010


I still have no idea what this is all about. But I did have an excellent piece of apple pie.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 11:24 AM on June 15, 2010 [1 favorite]


Like the little green fella says

The Great Gazoo? I think he just said 'dum-dum' a lot.
posted by shakespeherian at 11:28 AM on June 15, 2010


Another angle -- I personally feel that topics turning into one-on-one slugfests tends to be a bad thing. (It maximizes ego and emotion, personalizes arguments, discourages others from contributing, etc.) But a lot of folks including mods seem to think it's fine. Might be worth discussing.
posted by msalt at 11:36 AM on June 15, 2010


But a lot of folks including mods seem to think it's fine. Might be worth discussing.

What? No we don't. We're trying to be polite here and acknowledging that sometimes people get caught up in the heat of the moment and start interacting with one other person to the exclusion of everyone else in the thread. Hey, it happens. That said, anything that is looking like a "slugfest" between two people in a thread is pretty much always a Bad Thing if it's gone a few rounds and no one's backing off, taking it to email or otherwise chilling out. There is a difference between behavior that isn't actionable and behavior that we think is fine.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 11:43 AM on June 15, 2010 [1 favorite]


I should say "hug it out" more.

YES
posted by The Devil Tesla at 12:16 PM on June 15, 2010


But a lot of folks including mods seem to think it's fine.

Where are you getting that a bunch of people in here think one-on-one slugfests are fine? I think most people feel discussions are fine. I don't see anybody advocating for slugfests.
posted by cashman at 12:16 PM on June 15, 2010


Slugfests are OK as long as you hug that shit out at the end. See Hagler v Hearns.
posted by Mister_A at 12:20 PM on June 15, 2010 [1 favorite]


It's too bad shakespeherian flamed out. I'll miss him.
posted by SpiffyRob at 12:23 PM on June 15, 2010 [1 favorite]


Yeah, to be clear, my take is that one-on-one chatting at the tail end of a dying thread is fine; one-on-one arguing is not great but is mostly an issue for those folks to figure out and maybe take to email if they really want to keep going. Crazy flipping out might be a matter for metatalk, but otherwise it's kind of in "people can do what they want, including being stubborn and maybe a little obnoxious, as long as they aren't causing a big problem" territory. Congenial chatting vs. arguing vs. slugfest vs. raging teardown shitfight: it's a spectrum.

Jessamyn's point that there's a lot of space between "100% fine" and "actionable" is the key distinction there. A lot of stuff on the site falls in that gap, in part because we try to take a pretty light touch to things around here and just kind of trust individual users to deal with most of their interactions themselves.
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:31 PM on June 15, 2010 [1 favorite]


@fuq: Well, I got into the ambit of Msalt's strong and no doubt sincere belief that it is irresponsible for men to intervene against harassment (unless they are friends of the harasser, and by that token not the sort of people who read Metafilter) - that happened here. The experience of being men and formulating a response as men to the harassment of women is something which we as men do have some experience of, although you're free to suggest it wasn't appropriate to discuss that in the thread - I think that comes from a question jamjam asked about intervention. Part of that is probably about whether it's a thread about women, a thread about feminism (both suggested by Msalt) or a thread about responding to street harassment - by making a Unity game or otherwise.

Anyway. In the course of working through that belief and its corollaries, I ended up tl (or very l and extremely badly formatted, depending on who you talk to). Which is I think where we came in here, pretty much. There doesn't seem to be a lot of will to carry on that discussion, the original FPP is being added to by other people, and I think I have pretty much ipso facto (the factum being the starting of this thread) said enough about it, but I am learning a lot about etiquette and formatting on Metafilter, which I'm finding useful. If the mods want to reformat or delete my big post, I'm fine with that. It's kind of embarrassing.

And on the plus side, I think you might have given eyeball kid a little bit of a flameout, at least? A bit of flaming, anyway.

@kalessin I see what you mean, and I take your point on board, although the exchanges between me and Msalt took up a very small portion of the page, and there were not that many of them over the course of 48 hours or so - it wasn't an every-fifteen-minutes tennis game. But I understand that if it starts to look like discussion tennis between two people, especially if it's two people whose style you find alienating, that is going to start burning your participation oxygen. I think it's pretty clear that a number of factors - my unfamiliarity with Metafilter, my poor grasp of Metafilter formatting, my desire to give Msalt a comprehensive answer to avoid being accused (again) of insincerity, indirectness or sarcasm, but also the strength of my disagreement with Msalt's positions on what harassment is and the role men have in fighting it - all conspired to lead to a post of counterproductive length and density.

That said, with all due respect to Jessamyn, I don't think I mocked Msalt for saying that it actually was tl and that he therefore dred, but rather for saying that it was tl, and then ring it, taking some bits of it out of their context and using them as a reason not to engage. However, we could have avoided a situation in which that happened, and that's something I hope to learn for next time. Some people in this thread were OK with it, but clearly that amount of length in a response is going to cause some problems for others, and should be avoided.

tl;dr Everybody needs a hug.
posted by DNye at 12:37 PM on June 15, 2010


Everybody needs a slug.
posted by cashman at 1:18 PM on June 15, 2010


3,600 words? That's like the longest catcall in history.

"Hey, baby! Allow me to detail how attractive I find you in a small thesis of my own devising, comprised of no fewer than twelve parts! Part the first..."
posted by Mr. Bad Example at 1:18 PM on June 15, 2010 [5 favorites]


eponysterical?</small?
posted by small_ruminant at 1:24 PM on June 15, 2010


oops
posted by small_ruminant at 1:25 PM on June 15, 2010


So many tags! So many exciting tags! And yet, how sweet bold is!
posted by DNye at 1:31 PM on June 15, 2010


"Hey, baby! Allow me to detail how attractive I find you in a small thesis of my own devising, comprised of no fewer than twelve parts! Part the first..."

I find that you, and I, in a hypothetical situation with romantic overtones would, given the proper alignment of our situational mental and physical whims, go quite well together should you wish it to be the case. I support this assertion with three actions: two audible (see: whistle chromatic slide up to whistle chromatic slide down; wolf hound growl “dog bark” in the vernacular), and one visible (see: pelvic rotation/ thrust). What say you to this notion? But first, let me further my thesis by providing additional examples of how I find your physical features and proximity to me on the street fitting to my taste.
posted by Think_Long at 1:33 PM on June 15, 2010 [6 favorites]


Meanwhile New Zealand awakes, and celebrates a draw against Slovakia.
posted by Catch at 1:36 PM on June 15, 2010


Of course I don't feel that "it is irresponsible for men to intervene against harassment" -- with or without any qualifiers. Just for the record. Hopefully that's obvious but I'm having trouble letting that assertion stand. I'm pretty certain that no one wants to see us debate the issue, but DNye I remain happy to MeMail at any length you like.
posted by msalt at 2:10 PM on June 15, 2010


Wow, even in a MeTa about... um... whatever this is about... you still can't get away from World Cup spoilers. I made it almost the whole day, too.
posted by nickmark at 2:26 PM on June 15, 2010


So many tags! So many exciting tags! And yet, how sweet bold is!

About that, DNye: When you're quoting someone's comment on MetaFilter, it is customary to set it in italics. Using bold for that purpose is confusing and weird and really frigging irritating.
posted by Sys Rq at 2:34 PM on June 15, 2010


I tried all the things Cortex suggested; responding in that thread, not responding in that thread, and trying to take it to email; DNye kept posting long comments in thread regardless.

So what if they keep responding? No really, why does it matter? Not getting the last word, no longer responding to the thread, that's done by letting go of the situation and not caring what the other person keeps doing. If they keep posting into an empty void it's pretty obvious to the rest of us and we'll roll our eyes I promise. The bit you don't get to do is shut someone else up, which seems to me what you actually wanted here.

Sometimes you've gotta let the other person just keep being wrong. I know it's hard, I certainly stew over stuff way more than I should, but it's the only way to stay sane.
posted by shelleycat at 2:55 PM on June 15, 2010


you still can't get away from World Cup spoilers.

Yeah that kind of bugged me, was not what I expected to find here. It's kind of jarring to see things dropped into random places like that. But I figure if I cared I'd have gotten up earlier and watched the game before work with my boyfriend (we're too old for middle of the night viewing so he taped it).
posted by shelleycat at 2:58 PM on June 15, 2010


For what it's worth, I got into a back and forth argument on another site this week about English muffins. (The other person is in the U.K. and basically said that English muffins don't exist because muffins in England don't look like that).

At least this was over something worthwhile, even if it did devolve into tl;dr.

When I realized I was being as stupid as they were, I just quit going back to the thread and deleted the email that they had replied.

ENGLISH MUFFINS ARE TOO A REAL THING IN AMERICA
posted by zinfandel at 3:18 PM on June 15, 2010 [1 favorite]


Oh, man - do we have to do this? New Zealand equalised! In the very last minute!

Nobody knows what you feel, Msalt. Only what you have said:

1. Harassment = catcalling or predation. Predation is mentioned once. No other form of harassment is mentioned.

2. Nobody catcalls when there are men they don't know present.
it has been often stated that men don't appreciate how often catcalling happens, because it rarely happens when men are present. Which matches my experience. but it means that men intervening isn't likely to be the big solution here.
This gets reframed a couple of times, but for the argument to work it has to be the case that if there is another man who is not a friend of the catcaller present, catcalling will not happen. I can disprove that as recently as the weekend before last, on Rupert Street in Soho. Women being catcalled by men who were not my friends. Of course, at no point have I suggested that men intervening is the big solution, and I have linked to advice for responding to street harassment for both men and women, but never mind.

3. Catcalling isn't about sex - it's about peer approval.
I would go further and say that catcalling isn't really aimed at the women, ultimately; it's about showing off or "being funny" for other guys, it's tribal (or in some cases, it's predation). That's why most catcallers (other than predators) obviously don't have any real interest in sex.
4. Men who know the men who catcall should tell them not to catcall. These people do not frequent Metafilter.
The friends of harassers are a different story. They don't need to "intervene" in the way you describe [nb. I still don't know what you're referencing here - presumably the advice low-risk, non-confrontational responses to harassment I link to here], because they are the audience in the first place. (ie in the archetypal construction site example, the other construction workers.) I think we agree that they should step up and say "Don't be such an asshole", or whatever. Do you understand the distinction? (Hint; they're not on Metafilter, or at least they don't speak up in these threads.)
5. Men who don't know the people who catcall should not do anything.
I completely agree that the friends of the catcaller are the ones who need to intervene, not stranger guys (which then becomes a macho confrontation.)
5a. Not that they could anyway, because nobody catcalls when there are men they don't know present (op.cit)
5b. If somehow a man is present when another man catcalls, they should not act on that, in case it creates a macho confrontation (op.cit)
5c. If a man considers intervening, they are the kind of feminist guy who rescues women.
Please consider this in all sincerity -- your very aggressive, even macho tone, is a problematic answer to sexism, and resembles somewhat the kind of feminist guy who rushes in to rescue the ladies.
5d. Rescuing is bad - you mention it more often than you mention pissing contests (unless we count when you tell cashman that you don't want a pissing contest with him/her) - twice in the thread and once here.
It's not all about men. And it's not all about men intervening to stop other men, or men on Metafilter challenging other men to intervene to stop other men. That's rescuing.
6. With all that in mind, since catcalling = harassment, people on Metafilter are not catcallers, people on Metafilter are not friends with catcallers and thus there will be no catcalling (and thus no harassment) around men who read Metafilter.
6a. Therefore, it is pointless and somewhat offensive to suggest that men on Metafilter should spend any time learning about non-confrontational, low-risk intervention techniques. Especially because, even if were possible for them to do so, it would lead to macho confrontation and would mark them out as rescuers.
So urging Mefite men to intervene is not going to have much effect. You seem to think the men of Metafilter are idly standing by during harassment. Why?
Oh, yeah, and there's the usual "what about the mens/the romance" bit:
you frame it derisively, but it can also be seem this way; one of the negative effects of catcalling is that it ruins the possibility of spontaneous meetings between men and women, which otherwise could be fun in some cases, whether romantic or just friendly
Hopefully it's clear that those are quotes. I guess I could have repeated what you have already said to you in an email, but that feels like it would be a bit weird. And, you know, before I even addressed you you had already said to me:
But your post seems more rhetorical and straw-manny, designed to mock at a higher level with a less-than-sincere statement of inability to eff, so I hesitate to take the bait. Feminism discussions here often devolve into sides-taking, and as a centrist and a man I have more than once felt pushed to join the unpopular asshole-boys "side". Not interested
(This before I said a word to you)

and
kind of as I suspected, your query wasn't sincere
and
you speak very indirectly and sarcastically
You've spent a lot of time telling me that I'm insincere, indirect, sarcastic, macho, making straw men, using ad hominems, later also derailing... this is the stuff you say in public, when you are presumably trying to show in public that you are the reasonable one. I genuinely don't think it would be very nice, necessarily, to hear what you would say to me if nobody was around.

That was probably about a thousand words, but almost all of them were someone else's, so it didn't take very long.
posted by DNye at 3:23 PM on June 15, 2010 [1 favorite]


It's a runaway carousel Bhavacakra! All they had to do was step off, but the whirling was so hypnotic.
posted by Burhanistan at 3:26 PM on June 15, 2010


Sys rq: That ... was... the ... joke. Much of this thread has been taken up by people explaining that they thought the bolded parts of my posts in the other thread were not quotes, but me emphasising thoughts of my own that I felt keenly, and thus that it looked at a skim like the ravings of a crazy person. I have taken this on board, and will hope not to have this problem in the future.
posted by DNye at 3:31 PM on June 15, 2010


Oh, man - do we have to do this?

No!

Really, seriously, truly, no, you do not need to do this. It's weird and, well, weird. You are acting like the guy in the bar the other night who kept leaning closer while telling me about his fucking exwife. I kept saying "that's cool dude" and backing away, but he kept talkingtalkingtalking until my eyes were well and truly glazed over. I stayed polite, because anyone that angry is just looking for a target, and I like that bar too much to get kicked out because some weirdo is dealing with his issues in public.

But we're not in a bar, you are (hopefully) not totally trashed, and you have a choice here. You don't need to throw words at the screen hoping two or three will stick. You know how they always say "don't be that dude"? You are being that dude. Chill out, go for a walk, and let it rest.
posted by Forktine at 3:32 PM on June 15, 2010 [7 favorites]


it looked at a skim like the ravings of a crazy person

There's a joke here, somewhere...
posted by Forktine at 3:34 PM on June 15, 2010


it looked at a skim like the ravings of a crazy person

yes it did thx for confirming
posted by found missing at 3:37 PM on June 15, 2010


Oh, man - do we have to do this?

No and yet you did anyway.
posted by shelleycat at 3:39 PM on June 15, 2010


I switched off NZ v Slovakia with about six minutes to go, Slovakia up 1-0.

Regardless of what the Kiwis might think, I will always maintain that their first ever World Cup goal was entirely due to me removing the jinx I put on teams simply by watching them.
posted by UbuRoivas at 3:40 PM on June 15, 2010 [1 favorite]


Also, what this thread needs is more vuvuzela.
posted by UbuRoivas at 3:40 PM on June 15, 2010 [5 favorites]


ENGLISH MUFFINS ARE TOO A REAL THING IN AMERICA

Just in case you need some affirmation, I eat at least one english muffin per day, often more. I am probably 25% breakfast cereal, 25% soup, 25% cheese/peanut butter and 25% english muffin, by volume.

DNye you seem like a decent person but the way to make it clear that you've undersootd that you're sort of flipping people out with the talks-too-much thing is to do less of it. Maybe you an msalt need to take this to email at this point, unless there's a site issue here I'm missing?
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 3:44 PM on June 15, 2010


DNye, are you interested in persuading people of something or in having the last word in an argument with some dude on the internet? If it's persuasion you're after, you should:
  1. Forget about the stupid argument, I'm not even sure what it's about, and I don't think anyone is paying close attention to it besides msalt.
  2. Be much more concise. That does not mean closing a needlessly long comment with a glib "tl;dr" summary that undercuts your own seriousness.
I have lost count of the number of times I have deleted entire paragraphs of MetaFilter comments because, on preview, I realized that they would actually distract from my point rather than add to it. It's a bit frustrating because now I don't have anything to do with all those written words, but satisfying if you realize that the point is not to spew a lot of unnecessary verbiage, but actually to convince people of something.
posted by grouse at 3:49 PM on June 15, 2010 [5 favorites]


Also, what this thread my life needs is more vuvuzela.
posted by Forktine at 3:51 PM on June 15, 2010


Mmm, have moved on to blueberry pie, hot damn this is good.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 3:56 PM on June 15, 2010


BRRRPPPZZZBBBRRSSZZZZZBBBRRPPPPZZZZZZBBRRRRRZZZZRRR!!!

sorry, what?!??
posted by UbuRoivas at 3:59 PM on June 15, 2010


ENGLISH MUFFINS ARE TOO A REAL THING IN AMERICA

Real in New Zealand as well. They even put a little Union Jack on the packaging.
posted by shelleycat at 4:08 PM on June 15, 2010


Metatalk: arguing about not arguing and not letting go of a thread about not letting go.
posted by Surfurrus at 4:09 PM on June 15, 2010 [1 favorite]


Wikipedia seems to think English Muffins are a real thing even in England, where they are simply called "muffins." What they call actual muffins is anyone's guess.
posted by Sys Rq at 4:13 PM on June 15, 2010


Sys Rq: Also muffins. We understand what kind of muffin is required from context, usually depending on whether or not we are having breakfast.

Jessamyn: I'm not wild about email because, as I said above, msalt has already said some pretty unpleasant and unevidenced things about me in this and the previous public threads, and in my experience the relative privacy of email tends to be a permission slip for more of that kind of unpleasantness, once begun. Don't worry, though - I don't have a further interest in this discussion, and I am unlikely to talk as much if I'm not being accused preemptively of insincerity and straw-manning - especially if I know, as I now do, that sustained continuous prose is more offensive to sensibilities around here than I'd previously understood.

So, thanks for the feedback. It's useful to get the measure of a community's interests and tastes, and this has been very helpful for that, and for tagging advice. I think I have what I need, now, so I can go and talk about football, which seems altogether less likely to have anyone setting sincerity bars to entry, or reading bewilderment as anger.

(For reference, I am bewildered by Robert Green's goalkeeping, but not so far angry about it)

Goodnight, all, and thank you.
posted by DNye at 4:18 PM on June 15, 2010 [1 favorite]


ENGLISH MUFFINS ARE TOO A REAL THING IN AMERICA

And just yesterday: English Muffin-maker guards `nooks and crannies'.
posted by ericb at 4:25 PM on June 15, 2010


but - muffins and english muffins are both breakfast food.

i mean, "get me a muffing to put my egg on" - totally context clue filled. however - "get me a muffin to spread butter on" - which one am i talking about? fuck it, bring both just in case!
posted by nadawi at 4:27 PM on June 15, 2010


in trying to explain the english muffin situation in this thread i said "...about whether or not english muffins exist..." and he responded with "they're not like the tooth fairy - i can go to the store and get you an english muffin right now!"

so, there you have it -

english muffins, not like the tooth fairy.
posted by nadawi at 4:29 PM on June 15, 2010


Spoilers?
Sorry if that's true for some, but come on, the match finished about 1am NZ time! Hours before I posted that.
posted by Catch at 4:43 PM on June 15, 2010


The match started at 6:30 AM my time; I recorded it for watching with a drink tonight.

But yeah, if I cared, I'd have gotten up earlier and watched the game before work.

Or in my case, been more diligent about the internet blackout and not checked MeTa in the last half hour of work. No hard feelings, just surprised. I mostly was just curious if Andy Barron got any playing time, as he used to play for my local team.
posted by nickmark at 5:05 PM on June 15, 2010


Sys Rq: Also muffins.

I'm confused.
posted by zinfandel at 5:05 PM on June 15, 2010


Ok, nevermind. I just drove home in a convertible with the top down in the rain, I'm not usually that oblivious.
posted by zinfandel at 5:07 PM on June 15, 2010


Don't even get me started on "biscuits."
posted by Sys Rq at 5:18 PM on June 15, 2010 [1 favorite]


just to be clear, I'm not the only one who clicked the "remove thread from recent activity" button once it became clear msalt and Dnye were going at it for a while, right?
posted by shmegegge at 5:30 PM on June 15, 2010


I'm only allowed one of those per day and I used it on the polyamory thread [though you sure did try to save it]
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 5:33 PM on June 15, 2010


Man, I was hoping this would get good, or at least entertaining, while I was at work. At least I'm back on EQCA for gay marriage, as ACLU has been a slog lately, with everyone wanting to yell at me about how SB1070 is necessary because their great aunt was totally murdered by illegals ("There they go, taking American jobs again.")
posted by klangklangston at 5:49 PM on June 15, 2010


The best way to eat a biscuit is with a sausage patty and strawberry jam in the middle.
posted by zinfandel at 5:51 PM on June 15, 2010


There is a facet that was addressed occasionally in that particular thread and is a recurring theme here that I find worrisome. Namely that men need to step aside when women are expressing their opinions even when the matter involves both men and women.
I'm not advocating one or another participant or philosophy nor am I indicting one or another participant or philosophy. I just don't think it's a useful strategy.
And I'm glad I'm married.

Sorry for the reseriousing.

Toasty sourdough English muffins with peanut butter in the morning.
And biscuits with sausage gravy when you are camping.

OP: Strawberry jam in the middle of whom?
posted by vapidave at 6:40 PM on June 15, 2010


> I thought everything you said was interesting, DNye, and that the quality more than justified the length.

I did too, except for the length part—I tried, but just couldn't hack my way through the longer comments. But my takeaway was that msalt was (seemingly willfully) misunderstanding DNye, who despite his verbosity was generally polite and good-natured, and pointlessly insulting him, and I think this post is passive-aggressive and dumb.

I'm glad you're here, DNye, and (now that you've taken valid criticisms on board) I expect you to be a valuable contributor.
posted by languagehat at 6:46 PM on June 15, 2010


just don't let on whether or not Andy Barron got any playing time in the NZ v Slovakia match.
posted by UbuRoivas at 6:55 PM on June 15, 2010


There is a facet that was addressed occasionally in that particular thread and is a recurring theme here that I find worrisome. Namely that men need to step aside when women are expressing their opinions even when the matter involves both men and women.

I have a hunch that the actual argument -- or at least the train of thought -- may be a bit more nuanced than that. To wit:

It's one thing to be a man and to weigh in with one's own opinion about BEING a man in this situation: "My buddy does thus-and-such and I always had the feeling it was kind of creepy." It's another thing to be a man and to weigh in with one's opinion about HOW THE WOMEN feel: "Seriously, guys, take it from me -- women don't go for this crap. Because they like blah blah blah...."

It's a subtle thing -- one which, I'll grant, others may still turn up their noses at -- but the difference, for me, is that the former is a case of "this is my opinion about my OWN gender's perspective" and the latter is a case of "this is my opinion about BOTH my AND your genders' perspective." I have no problem with hearing a man's perspective, but if he starts to presume what MY perspective on the situation is, that's where I start to get all, "say WHAT?"
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:08 PM on June 15, 2010


I'm not really sure that anybody can speak for an entire gender's perspective.

You see this point made often enough by women in the developing world who object to first world feminists presuming to speak on their behalf.
posted by UbuRoivas at 7:30 PM on June 15, 2010


I'm not really sure that anybody can speak for an entire gender's perspective.

That's kind of the point I was getting at, actually -- that despite what would seem to be an obvious fact, a lot of people still try to do precisely that. Which makes those few men who try to do so for WOMEN to be even more ridiculous.

And for the record, I also agree with you about developing world/first world disagreements about feminism (I'm pretty squarely in the "feminism is a big tent" camp).
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:39 PM on June 15, 2010


almost all of them were someone else's, so it didn't take very long

No one gives a shit how quickly and naturally you write your unreadable fucking posts.
posted by fleacircus at 7:54 PM on June 15, 2010 [3 favorites]


OP: Strawberry jam in the middle of whom?

James Dean!

It's one thing to be a man and to weigh in with one's own opinion about BEING a man in this situation: "My buddy does thus-and-such and I always had the feeling it was kind of creepy." It's another thing to be a man and to weigh in with one's opinion about HOW THE WOMEN feel: "Seriously, guys, take it from me -- women don't go for this crap. Because they like blah blah blah...."

I think that's it exactly. And, further, it's a fine line between explaining how a woman feels to someone else, and explaining it to her. And while I know people here on Metafilter wouldn't do that, we've all had it done to us elsewhere and might be a little sensitive on the subject. (Although to be fair, having someone explain your feelings to you is something that older people of both genders do to younger people, not just a man to woman thing.)
posted by zinfandel at 7:55 PM on June 15, 2010


I agree with you EmpressCallipygos. I just hope that discussions don't tend toward dismissive. Of course people are going to relate to their own experiences and some of that is to be expected but too much* is when these discussions turn towards defensive, binary and useless.

*Not sure where that line is though I've seen it crossed from both sides.
posted by vapidave at 8:18 PM on June 15, 2010


I just came to say that 1) English muffins are totally real and totally a delicious super food 2) If you ever want to impress someone, make your own English muffins. Most people have never even considered English muffins as something you can cook in your own home. I use this smitten kitchen recipe and it is as easy as it is delicious.
posted by fermezporte at 8:43 PM on June 15, 2010 [2 favorites]


Indeed it would have been a legitimate debate because the debate is about a vagina-specific experience that neither of the commenters could possibly have any knowledge other than assumptions and second-hand anecdotes.

We can have our very own MetaHouseofSaud, where the men are off in one room discussing only those things which are biologically theirs, and the women are in another room discussing only those things which are biologically theirs! It's progress!
posted by rodgerd at 8:48 PM on June 15, 2010 [2 favorites]


But my takeaway was that msalt was (seemingly willfully) misunderstanding DNye, who despite his verbosity was generally polite and good-natured,

I can't say I'd agree with that- if you didn't read through the longer comments (and I don't blame you) you might not have seen it, but DNye called msalt "cowardly" and "a wuss, or a term like it". And reading that whole thing, I don't think they were actually even disagreeing on much of anything, but both seemed intent on putting the worst interpretation possible on what the other was saying- the willful misunderstanding thing seemed like a two-way street, to me, and my overall impression of that whole exchange was pretty much that it amounted to a dick-waving contest, which, considering what the thread was about, was an unfortunate turn of events. At least msalt tried to get it out of the thread after a certain point, though I don't know if this Metatalk thread was the best way of handling things.

I think the lesson from all this, if there is one, is that knowing when to let something go, when not to speak, is (along with being a valuable social skill in general) especially critical in this kind of discussion. Humility, IMO, may well be the single most important quality to cultivate for a man who seeks to be a feminist ally. (Though I have to say, "ally" is a term I kind of hate these days because way too often I've seen self-proclaimed "allies" use their "ally" status to justify behavior on their part that might best be called antinomian.) I think both msalt and DNye would have done much better for themselves, for the thread, and in some infinitesimal way for the cause of feminism itself if either one of them had pulled back and been content that they'd said their piece at the beginning of that exchange, rather than take over the discussion as they did. As it is, I'm worried I'm going against my own advice in even posting this, and so I think I'll just stop here...
posted by a louis wain cat at 9:01 PM on June 15, 2010


I'm not too keen on english muffins. But several years ago, the main english muffin company also had available something called an australian muffin (or something like that) and it was amazing. So wonderful. The best sort of nooks and crannies imaginable.

I haven't seen them in about six years, though. It makes me sad.
posted by meese at 10:47 PM on June 15, 2010


That'd be right. Export all the Australian muffins & leave us only with a country full of muffin tops.
posted by UbuRoivas at 10:59 PM on June 15, 2010


...australian muffin...

I'm sure there's a joke in there somewhere and they're going to take away my NZ passport for not thinking of it.
posted by shelleycat at 11:09 PM on June 15, 2010


Oh... Yeah. Thanks for the warning.

I don't think I'll be trying to Google for those now.
posted by meese at 11:16 PM on June 15, 2010


you still can't get away from World Cup spoilers.

Sorry, that was probably my fault for mentioning the game up the top of the thread. Sorry, I was psyched up about watching it.

And UbuRoivas: thanks for removing the jinx. If you could just bring yourself not to watch any of our matches in the RWC, too, that would be much appreciated.
posted by Infinite Jest at 1:43 AM on June 16, 2010


I could probably do that easily enough by only watching from the semi-finals onwards...
posted by UbuRoivas at 1:45 AM on June 16, 2010


^ That ^ I like.
posted by vapidave at 1:58 AM on June 16, 2010


Man...

I realise I'm essentially proving your second point, a louis wain cat, but it saddens me to hear the canard perpetuated that Msalt and I fundamentally agree, and were just deliberately misunderstanding each other, because it suggests that people reading Metafilter actually cannot follow sequential prose at all - not long, sustained prose, but three or four paragraphs of prose in a row.

It was made very clear very early in the thread that Msalt and I disagree on a fundamental issue relating to responses to street harassment. I believe that it is appropriate in certain circumstances for men who do not know the harasser to intervene in street harassment, following roughly the principles outlined here. I say that here.

Msalt responded that he does not believe it is appropriate for men who do not know the harasser to intervene in street harassment. That is stated here.

No value judgement here, just a statement of fact. There is a fundamental difference, laid out very clearly, before any long posts. Central point of disagreement. Relevant to thread on responses to street harassment, inside and outside the video game Hey Baby. Msalt may now wish to argue that he did not mean to say
I completely agree that the friends of the catcaller are the ones who need to intervene, not stranger guys (which then becomes a macho confrontation.)
but all I had to go on is what he said.

It's not worth addressing the cowardly/wuss derail at length - it was an attempt at an honest response to the more offensive to me, because apparently bad-faith, statement:
Your last two paragraphs are full of implication and snarky suggestion that anyone who disagrees with you must be a harasser, a wuss, or emotionally stunted at best. Wow. You seem to miss the point that women might actually like to have conversations with men they meet in public.
If it turns out that actually the problem is not that Msalt was seeking to misrepresent, but that after a couple of paragraphs people just start skimming for key words and making up the rest, as appears to be the message emerging in this thread, then that's obviously a different matter - and it means I was showing both too much faith and not enough faith, IYSWIM, but this all happens before any punishingly long posts.
posted by DNye at 3:00 AM on June 16, 2010


I could probably do that easily enough by only watching from the semi-finals onwards...

As a backup strategy, if NZ finally stop choking, I recommend simply claiming it as your own victory, anyway. [I mean, I know the English think Andy Murray is Scottish when he loses and British when he wins, but this is kinda ridiculous, no?]
posted by Infinite Jest at 3:27 AM on June 16, 2010


... problem ... paragraphs ... skimming ... key words ... punishingly long posts.

Nearly 200 posts and no one has learnt nuffin.

(Get your FIFA 2010 'Australasia' merchandise here! )
posted by Catch at 3:51 AM on June 16, 2010


Sign me up! I'm totally barracking for Australasia!

(we do say 'barracking' here in Australasia, don't we, hey bro?)
posted by UbuRoivas at 4:23 AM on June 16, 2010


How to Silence Vuvuzela Horns in World Cup Broadcasts.
posted by gman at 4:31 AM on June 16, 2010


shelleycat writes "Real in New Zealand as well. They even put a little Union Jack on the packaging."

That's because they are actually made in England.
posted by Mitheral at 7:53 AM on June 16, 2010


> No one gives a shit how quickly and naturally you write your unreadable fucking posts.

What a shitty thing to say. Grow up.
posted by languagehat at 9:04 AM on June 16, 2010 [1 favorite]


I can't hear the words "Muffin Top" without thinking of this... really, just the word "muffin" will do it.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 9:18 AM on June 16, 2010


That's because they are actually made in England.

Nah, our English muffins are made by one of the local bakers. I can't remember which one, probably Quality Bakers or Tip Top. There are several flavours and the 'English' flavour has a Union Jack. Why would you import fresh bread products all the way round the world?
posted by shelleycat at 2:19 PM on June 16, 2010


Because that's exactly the kind of fare that convicts are used to! Haha!!

Hang on...
posted by UbuRoivas at 4:55 PM on June 16, 2010


Wow, I hate this argument, sub-argument, side argument, etc, etc..

Don't cat-call at women on the street. Ever.

It's that simple.
posted by marimeko at 6:21 PM on June 16, 2010 [2 favorites]


shelleycat writes "Why would you import fresh bread products all the way round the world?"

To construct a lame joke.

Also I'm not sure English Muffin means the same thing here as it does there. English muffin is a flat bun bread; the English part doesn't have anything to do with the flavour. One can buy a wide variety of flavours from blueberry thru chocolate and poppy seed English Muffins.
posted by Mitheral at 6:42 PM on June 16, 2010


I'm surprised you don't call them English bagels. Do you normally smear them all over with cream cheese, too?

But yeh, assuming NZ is the same as Australia, we only ever had the "flat bun bread" variety, until companies started flogging oversized rough cupcakes as "muffins".

The "English muffins" normally come in plain, wholemeal, and fruit - ie raisins & the kinds of unidentifiable preserved niblets of fruit that you get in mince pies. The fruit ones are especially tasty with loads of melted rich creamery butter & a subtle scrape of Vegemite.
posted by UbuRoivas at 7:34 PM on June 16, 2010


I'm surprised you don't call them English bagels.

Bagels have holes in them. And are dense. And, you know, bagely. (and yeah, I'm really bad at spotting lame jokes just in case this was another one!)

Mitheral they are the same thing, the 'English' ones are just the plain flavour (the others are fruit flavoured or cheese or wholemeal or whatever and I'd probably call them all English muffins if I ever had to describe them out loud). I'm guessing because it's not good marketing to label them as plain. They are vaguely sourdough-ish but I'm pretty sure it's fake flavouring because the ones I buy aren't really a high quality product.
posted by shelleycat at 7:42 PM on June 16, 2010


Merely pointing out that they seem to have directly transferred the bagel varieties over to muffins. Not sure about chocolate bagels, though. Do they exist? They could be quite tasty with Nutella & icecream, but the icecream would need to be frozen quite hard, or else it would just squish out the sides.
posted by UbuRoivas at 9:56 PM on June 16, 2010


Not sure about chocolate bagels, though. Do they exist?

Yes. And they are awesome. If you're ever in the right part of New Zealand this is the place to get them.
posted by shelleycat at 10:55 PM on June 16, 2010


The bagel chain Noah's in the US has pretty decent chocolate chip bagels. But kosher places can't.
posted by msalt at 11:13 PM on June 16, 2010


The bagel chain Noah's in the US has pretty decent chocolate chip bagels. But kosher places can't.

YHWH hates chocolate? And deliciousness?
posted by grapefruitmoon at 3:35 AM on June 17, 2010


Msalt, why not?

I can't remember for sure if Einstein Bros., makes Chocolate Chip bagels,but I thought they did.
posted by zarq at 3:53 AM on June 17, 2010


why not?

I'm not exactly sure -- that's what Kettleman Bagels in Portland told me. I'm guessing something to do with the milk in chocolate. My wife used to work at a "dairy bar" in Manhattan, a restaurant designed to serve all the things with dairy products that, say, a meaty kosher deli isn't supposed to. But I'm sure someone better versed in kashrut can explain.
posted by msalt at 9:10 AM on June 17, 2010


Or maybe the guy at Kettleman just didn't have any chocolate chip bagels and was shining this goy on.
posted by msalt at 9:11 AM on June 17, 2010


Chocolate chip bagels are an abomination. So are things that are not kosher.
posted by grouse at 1:30 PM on June 17, 2010


A tasty, tasty abomination. Please $DEITY help me sin again.
posted by Mitheral at 1:34 PM on June 17, 2010


YHWH hates chocolate? And deliciousness?

For values of deliciousness that equal bacon, yes.
posted by UbuRoivas at 2:23 PM on June 17, 2010


Chocolate chip bagels are an abomination.

I've never had one. But I'll try anything once. :)

So are things that are not kosher.

You haven't lived until you've eaten thickly sliced liverwurst and muenster cheese on rye bread with tomato, lettuce and mustard. Or prosciutto, mozzarella, homemade pesto and sundried tomato on... well, anything. Hell, it even makes a good pizza.
posted by zarq at 3:42 PM on June 17, 2010


I'm guessing something to do with the milk in chocolate.

They need to be sourcing better-quality chocolate chips (or solid chocolate, if they want to take the time to chunk it themselves). Proper dark chocolate has no dairy in it.

I am not a chocoholic. I will gladly swap my chocolate dessert for your fruit dessert, sight unseen. How am I the one standing up for chocolate-chip bagels?

Oh, right. I'm a Californian. It's not heresy for me.

posted by Lexica at 9:54 PM on June 17, 2010


Does someone have a graph that plots comment length against age of thread?
posted by doublehappy at 9:25 PM on June 19, 2010


No
posted by Sys Rq at 9:41 PM on June 19, 2010


Will this do?
posted by UbuRoivas at 3:10 AM on June 20, 2010


« Older Humber and Lolita Meetup Tomorrow   |   Perez, Child Porn, or Celeb Culture - What's the... Newer »

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