Mob-style takedown March 16, 2002 7:07 AM Subscribe
Take a trip with me down the Riviera (#1, #2, #3, #4), where no comment is complete without a little vicious personal invective.
Once again, as has often happened recently, someone who defends his views forcefully and articulately is being singled out because his style doesn't conform. Riviera is, I think, a journalist and he expresses himself well. I'd say his cantankerous style is friendly, in the sense that this is how English friends talk to each other. Americans as well, when you come to think of it.
Please let's not have the whole Inquisition thing that was mounted against fold_and_mutilate, n9 and Wulfgar! - only for apologies to be expressed later, when it finally sinks in he's just keen and takes MetaFilter seriously.
I know everyone hates this explanation but riviera expressing himself the way he does is a cultural thing; just as my seeming obsequious, smarmy and insincere. Honesty is refreshing and honesty means saying what you think in the way you think it should be said; whether you're snarky(American-style); pompous(English-style)or flowery(Latin-style).
Besides, I almost always agree with the guy! :)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 8:05 AM on March 16, 2002
Please let's not have the whole Inquisition thing that was mounted against fold_and_mutilate, n9 and Wulfgar! - only for apologies to be expressed later, when it finally sinks in he's just keen and takes MetaFilter seriously.
I know everyone hates this explanation but riviera expressing himself the way he does is a cultural thing; just as my seeming obsequious, smarmy and insincere. Honesty is refreshing and honesty means saying what you think in the way you think it should be said; whether you're snarky(American-style); pompous(English-style)or flowery(Latin-style).
Besides, I almost always agree with the guy! :)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 8:05 AM on March 16, 2002
Miguel, what part of:
Really, you're a pathetic and pompous figure, dhartung: you're not even good enough to be a proper warblogger.
did you not understand?
posted by machaus at 8:14 AM on March 16, 2002
Really, you're a pathetic and pompous figure, dhartung: you're not even good enough to be a proper warblogger.
did you not understand?
posted by machaus at 8:14 AM on March 16, 2002
It's possible to forcefully defend your views without taking a chunk out of someone else's hide, Miguel. There's nothing refreshing about showing up at a Web site and immediately describing someone you disagree with as a "pathetic and pompous figure," along with a dozen other strong personal insults Riviera has directed at others.
As for calling his behavior friendly, you generally have to be someone's friend before you can get away with shredding them in a political discussion. Calling a stranger a drooling idiot because you disagree with him isn't friendly by any stretch of the imagination.
posted by rcade at 8:24 AM on March 16, 2002
As for calling his behavior friendly, you generally have to be someone's friend before you can get away with shredding them in a political discussion. Calling a stranger a drooling idiot because you disagree with him isn't friendly by any stretch of the imagination.
posted by rcade at 8:24 AM on March 16, 2002
None of us wants to be singled out and ridiculed/attacked for simply expressing our opinion. I personally think Riviera has some refreshing points of view and his/her comments are always interesting but the trash talking takes away from their impact - they would be so much better received without the nah-nah-nah thrown in. The personal invective diminishes the post and the poster.
posted by iconomy at 8:33 AM on March 16, 2002
posted by iconomy at 8:33 AM on March 16, 2002
How come no one has mentioned me yet? lol
posted by JakeEXTREME at 8:34 AM on March 16, 2002
posted by JakeEXTREME at 8:34 AM on March 16, 2002
MetaFilter: Where You're Not Allowed to Hurt My Feelings.
Well, maybe not.
I was impressed with the obvious brain power behind riviera's comments, and I really, really want this new member to stick around. In general, I don't have a problem with an aggressive arguing style, within limits; I think people are reading a casually dismissive you're-all-wrong-and-therefore-stupid attitude into riviera's posts. I can't evaluate whether that attitude is there or not. I've known people who argue like this, and it's meant in the context of an argument. Not personally. Essentially, riviera is calling bullshit on a lot of our statements, which serves a valid purpose even if the style in which it is being done grates. I suspect, as we get to know this new member better, s/he will adapt to us and we will get used to him/her. (No gender information provided on member page or in comments, so I make no assumptions.)
A case can be made that riviera's too abrasive and aggressive, but, collectively, we're getting just too goddamn hyper-sensitive too. Chill.
I also think that a case can be made to disclose more information on member pages: a little less anonymity might make some of us a bit less aggressive. Especially now that some of our personal data is available to logged-in members only.
posted by mcwetboy at 8:40 AM on March 16, 2002
Well, maybe not.
I was impressed with the obvious brain power behind riviera's comments, and I really, really want this new member to stick around. In general, I don't have a problem with an aggressive arguing style, within limits; I think people are reading a casually dismissive you're-all-wrong-and-therefore-stupid attitude into riviera's posts. I can't evaluate whether that attitude is there or not. I've known people who argue like this, and it's meant in the context of an argument. Not personally. Essentially, riviera is calling bullshit on a lot of our statements, which serves a valid purpose even if the style in which it is being done grates. I suspect, as we get to know this new member better, s/he will adapt to us and we will get used to him/her. (No gender information provided on member page or in comments, so I make no assumptions.)
A case can be made that riviera's too abrasive and aggressive, but, collectively, we're getting just too goddamn hyper-sensitive too. Chill.
I also think that a case can be made to disclose more information on member pages: a little less anonymity might make some of us a bit less aggressive. Especially now that some of our personal data is available to logged-in members only.
posted by mcwetboy at 8:40 AM on March 16, 2002
rcade: It's possible to forcefully defend your views without taking a chunk out of someone else's hide ...
Here here [sp? Is it 'hear hear!'? I'm always waffling back and forth.]. As mcwetboy says, Riviera certainly seems capable of enriching the community with knowledgeable, well-structured (and referenced) arguments, but going that extra step over the line both undermines the clear-headedness of his posts, and increases the unfriendliness that can eventually become a real obstacle for discussion.
posted by Marquis at 8:44 AM on March 16, 2002
Here here [sp? Is it 'hear hear!'? I'm always waffling back and forth.]. As mcwetboy says, Riviera certainly seems capable of enriching the community with knowledgeable, well-structured (and referenced) arguments, but going that extra step over the line both undermines the clear-headedness of his posts, and increases the unfriendliness that can eventually become a real obstacle for discussion.
posted by Marquis at 8:44 AM on March 16, 2002
he posted a bit of an apology here.
I love his spunk and his smarts, but he did go personal in some of his attacks and that's the rub. Actually, the #1 link you posted rcade is a little over the line, attacking the person instead of the position, but the others, not so much. After seeing them admit they went a little nuts, I think they might cool out in future. If this person continues attacking posters instead of their posts, I'll contact them about it and tell them to reel it back in a bit.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 9:13 AM on March 16, 2002
I love his spunk and his smarts, but he did go personal in some of his attacks and that's the rub. Actually, the #1 link you posted rcade is a little over the line, attacking the person instead of the position, but the others, not so much. After seeing them admit they went a little nuts, I think they might cool out in future. If this person continues attacking posters instead of their posts, I'll contact them about it and tell them to reel it back in a bit.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 9:13 AM on March 16, 2002
All in all, I agree that we're way too sensitive around here, and the "blog nicely" meme has run its course, but this statement:
I like my experience of the web unsoiled by the rantings of a bunch of feverish, twitching nonentities, fuelled on the testosterone rush that comes from gulping down the protein-shake of each other's ejaculatory nonsense.
is, IMO, a half-step over the line. Be opinionated. Be aggressive. Argue your points without having to breaking each others' eggshell egos. But there's no need for stomach-turning vulgarity.
(s)he could have simply said "go suck a dick!" and been done with it....
posted by jpoulos at 9:18 AM on March 16, 2002
I like my experience of the web unsoiled by the rantings of a bunch of feverish, twitching nonentities, fuelled on the testosterone rush that comes from gulping down the protein-shake of each other's ejaculatory nonsense.
is, IMO, a half-step over the line. Be opinionated. Be aggressive. Argue your points without having to breaking each others' eggshell egos. But there's no need for stomach-turning vulgarity.
(s)he could have simply said "go suck a dick!" and been done with it....
posted by jpoulos at 9:18 AM on March 16, 2002
'I know everyone hates this explanation but riviera expressing himself the way he does is a cultural thing'
That's bollocks. Yeah, we banter, take the piss etc. but we don't just insult people for the sake of it. There is more to it than that. The general rule of thumb is that you can say anything, however insulting, as long as its funny. Riviera's posts don't fit that criteria. Also, as rcade points out, we only rip into people that we know very well. Now if Riviera was French, more specifically Parisian, then Miguel your cultural point might be valid. As things stand, his behaviour is nothing to do with culture. He has clearly just graduate from AOL trolling academy, and has come here to practice his trade.
posted by RobertLoch at 9:21 AM on March 16, 2002
That's bollocks. Yeah, we banter, take the piss etc. but we don't just insult people for the sake of it. There is more to it than that. The general rule of thumb is that you can say anything, however insulting, as long as its funny. Riviera's posts don't fit that criteria. Also, as rcade points out, we only rip into people that we know very well. Now if Riviera was French, more specifically Parisian, then Miguel your cultural point might be valid. As things stand, his behaviour is nothing to do with culture. He has clearly just graduate from AOL trolling academy, and has come here to practice his trade.
posted by RobertLoch at 9:21 AM on March 16, 2002
He has clearly just graduate from AOL trolling academy, and has come here to practice his trade.
Oh come now, do you actually think this guy is your average everyday troll? I'm reluctant to drop the hammer on the guy because I can tell this is a very intelligent person, but they're making bad decisions and simply going personal with their arguments. There's a giant difference between this person and someone that is a true troll, esp. of the AOL variety.
They're not on the same team, not even in the same league, not even in the same sport.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 9:35 AM on March 16, 2002
Oh come now, do you actually think this guy is your average everyday troll? I'm reluctant to drop the hammer on the guy because I can tell this is a very intelligent person, but they're making bad decisions and simply going personal with their arguments. There's a giant difference between this person and someone that is a true troll, esp. of the AOL variety.
They're not on the same team, not even in the same league, not even in the same sport.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 9:35 AM on March 16, 2002
perhaps someone who is obviously very intelligent,
when slicing people to bits--thats what a rapier wit is good for--seems more ruthless than a bully.
posted by th3ph17 at 9:56 AM on March 16, 2002
when slicing people to bits--thats what a rapier wit is good for--seems more ruthless than a bully.
posted by th3ph17 at 9:56 AM on March 16, 2002
I personally think that he's good entertainment, and certainly wouldn't want any hammer dropped on him. That said, he has definitely got trolling tendencies. Comment such as - 'So it's probably best if you stop reading The Sun for foreign news.' and - refering to someones mother - 'I'm sure she's proud of you. Just wash your typing fingers before you pay her a visit' are standard troll lines. Perhaps labeling him as ex AOL is a tad unfair, but he's certainly a veteran of one of the top academies. Fuckedcompany perhaps?
posted by RobertLoch at 9:58 AM on March 16, 2002
posted by RobertLoch at 9:58 AM on March 16, 2002
In 1897, Bierce went off to Washington where he worked for another of the Hearst papers -- "the entire capital ran for cover." He disapproved of "human institutions in general, including all forms of government, most laws and customs, and all contemporary literature"; as an editor he promised "war upon every man with a mission, and disesteem for titles of distinction"; he thought "human suffering to be contemplated with a merely curious interest, as one looks into an ant-hill."
posted by sheauga at 10:50 AM on March 16, 2002
posted by sheauga at 10:50 AM on March 16, 2002
What in the hell is the AOL Trolling Academy, for gosh shakes? That's a little inside for technopeasant me...
As for, a casually dismissive you're-all-wrong-and-therefore-stupid attitude, sheesh, why do the write-a-Bible handles dhartung and MidasMulligan come to mind? Oone must hope rodii's concise and incisive assessment of the latter quite deflated--for a nanosecond--that bombast. Did you know, by the way, that bombasts were those puffy shorts Elizabethan dandies wore with hose? And that some went so far as to inflate or stuff them? Hence the phrase bombastic... Or so I was told.
Well, it's a pretty thought at least and so applicable here sometimes.
posted by y2karl at 11:10 AM on March 16, 2002
As for, a casually dismissive you're-all-wrong-and-therefore-stupid attitude, sheesh, why do the write-a-Bible handles dhartung and MidasMulligan come to mind? Oone must hope rodii's concise and incisive assessment of the latter quite deflated--for a nanosecond--that bombast. Did you know, by the way, that bombasts were those puffy shorts Elizabethan dandies wore with hose? And that some went so far as to inflate or stuff them? Hence the phrase bombastic... Or so I was told.
Well, it's a pretty thought at least and so applicable here sometimes.
posted by y2karl at 11:10 AM on March 16, 2002
Riviera did quote Erasmus, folks, which leads me to believe that he (or she) has never used AOL. I also agree completely with his comments tying Orwell's warning against the loss of meaning in language to the Bush administration's purposeful lack of clarity in anything they say. Then, on the other hand, Riviera hurts his point saying
(Oh, and dhartung: wipe your mouth. You're drooling.)
Useless ad hominem. It doesn't matter how smart he is, a lack of respect for the other members will lead most people to just ignore him. After all, "learning without virtue is like pearls on a dunghill." - Cervantes
I say let him dig his own grave. If he contributes witty and insightful comments (example), people will listen, but if he is pedantic and arrogant, I for one will just ignore him. Most of what he said could have been dealt with in-thread. Instead we get to make a big to-do about nothing, possibly alienate a new member, and stare at our navels. Gotta love MetaTalk.
posted by insomnyuk at 11:18 AM on March 16, 2002
(Oh, and dhartung: wipe your mouth. You're drooling.)
Useless ad hominem. It doesn't matter how smart he is, a lack of respect for the other members will lead most people to just ignore him. After all, "learning without virtue is like pearls on a dunghill." - Cervantes
I say let him dig his own grave. If he contributes witty and insightful comments (example), people will listen, but if he is pedantic and arrogant, I for one will just ignore him. Most of what he said could have been dealt with in-thread. Instead we get to make a big to-do about nothing, possibly alienate a new member, and stare at our navels. Gotta love MetaTalk.
posted by insomnyuk at 11:18 AM on March 16, 2002
Jerry: ... I wanted to talk to you about Dr. Whatley. I have a suspicion that he's converted to Judaism just for the jokes.
Father: And this offends you as a Jewish person.
Jerry: No, it offends me as a comedian.
Riviera isn't exactly Ambrose Bierce. S/he doesn't strike me as particularly witty or humorous -- just sort of overbearing.
And while some of the posts are better, content-wise, than the norm, what effect do they have on the way others post? Is riviera's stuff more likely to a) ELEVATE the SUBSTANCE, or b) LOWER the TONE of what other people write?
posted by coelecanth at 11:36 AM on March 16, 2002
Father: And this offends you as a Jewish person.
Jerry: No, it offends me as a comedian.
Riviera isn't exactly Ambrose Bierce. S/he doesn't strike me as particularly witty or humorous -- just sort of overbearing.
And while some of the posts are better, content-wise, than the norm, what effect do they have on the way others post? Is riviera's stuff more likely to a) ELEVATE the SUBSTANCE, or b) LOWER the TONE of what other people write?
posted by coelecanth at 11:36 AM on March 16, 2002
Miguel, I rather resent you equating Englishness with overbearing snottiness, unless you are suggesting it is a class thing. I have to say I find some of his comments unneccessary and distinctly distasteful; its the slightly too pleased with himself "look at me" attitude that grates though.
Still, it takes all sorts and as has been pointed out, you dont have to read his comments.
posted by Fat Buddha at 11:55 AM on March 16, 2002
Still, it takes all sorts and as has been pointed out, you dont have to read his comments.
posted by Fat Buddha at 11:55 AM on March 16, 2002
'What in the hell is the AOL Trolling Academy'
The lowest form of message board presently know to man. Every thread on politics includes some childish name calling - 'Tory boy' is probably the most popular on AOL Politics UK, followed by 'You wet liberal pussy' or 'commie bastard' etc. etc. etc.
To be honest I've haven't been there for a long long time. I suppose that you could describe it as the place people hang out before they realise that sites like MetaFilter exist, and that AOL is not in fact the Internet.
posted by RobertLoch at 12:00 PM on March 16, 2002
The lowest form of message board presently know to man. Every thread on politics includes some childish name calling - 'Tory boy' is probably the most popular on AOL Politics UK, followed by 'You wet liberal pussy' or 'commie bastard' etc. etc. etc.
To be honest I've haven't been there for a long long time. I suppose that you could describe it as the place people hang out before they realise that sites like MetaFilter exist, and that AOL is not in fact the Internet.
posted by RobertLoch at 12:00 PM on March 16, 2002
the place people hang out before they realise that sites like MetaFilter exist
And you're not going to tell them. Are you?
(To be honest there was so much unpleasantness of this type coming from the more conservative wing after 9/11, I'm quite pleased to see someone coming in from the other side swinging implements of destruction.
Reincarnation?)
posted by Grangousier at 12:07 PM on March 16, 2002
And you're not going to tell them. Are you?
(To be honest there was so much unpleasantness of this type coming from the more conservative wing after 9/11, I'm quite pleased to see someone coming in from the other side swinging implements of destruction.
Reincarnation?)
posted by Grangousier at 12:07 PM on March 16, 2002
anyone think that maybe the issue isn't what he says, but how *you* let it bother you? or the fact that you even do?
a word can only be strong as the listener makes it.
posted by jcterminal at 12:15 PM on March 16, 2002
a word can only be strong as the listener makes it.
posted by jcterminal at 12:15 PM on March 16, 2002
Fat Buddha, I didn't equate Englishness with overbearing snottiness - though I gladly would do, if given the space. And by quoting English writers exclusively. But that wasn't what I was saying.
I was a student and then fellow of English universities(Manchester, St.Antony's and All Souls,Oxford) for ten years all told, my mother's English(and she is certainly overbearingly snotty, though all the more lovable for it)and I have a few friends who are English journalists.
Riviera's style is a noble example of the graduate student/ "embittered ex-hack" synthesis, of the socialist variety. "Embittered ex-hack" is a stock phrase(I think it's from Private Eye magazine)which is of itself ironic and affectionate - but this is how riviera defined himself.
That's how we speak to each other if we're students or hacks - specially if we're strangers. It's healthy piss-taking, cutting-down-to-size, downright prig-baiting, certainty-busting muckraking. It's fun and honest and should be taken in the right spirit. Not that it matters if it isn't.
The ejaculatory comment, jpoulos, is superbly written and er, milks, the masturbation metaphor for all it's worth(never deviating!) but all it means is he's calling us wankers, which we technically are, for fussing so much over everything with no real consequence . You have to be fairly aware of British culture to understand what "wankers"(or "piss artists" oop North)really means. There's an affectionate undertow - sometimes even perverse admiration - which is not covered by the use of "masturbator" in American culture.
Not that trying to explain helps at all... ;)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 12:18 PM on March 16, 2002
I was a student and then fellow of English universities(Manchester, St.Antony's and All Souls,Oxford) for ten years all told, my mother's English(and she is certainly overbearingly snotty, though all the more lovable for it)and I have a few friends who are English journalists.
Riviera's style is a noble example of the graduate student/ "embittered ex-hack" synthesis, of the socialist variety. "Embittered ex-hack" is a stock phrase(I think it's from Private Eye magazine)which is of itself ironic and affectionate - but this is how riviera defined himself.
That's how we speak to each other if we're students or hacks - specially if we're strangers. It's healthy piss-taking, cutting-down-to-size, downright prig-baiting, certainty-busting muckraking. It's fun and honest and should be taken in the right spirit. Not that it matters if it isn't.
The ejaculatory comment, jpoulos, is superbly written and er, milks, the masturbation metaphor for all it's worth(never deviating!) but all it means is he's calling us wankers, which we technically are, for fussing so much over everything with no real consequence . You have to be fairly aware of British culture to understand what "wankers"(or "piss artists" oop North)really means. There's an affectionate undertow - sometimes even perverse admiration - which is not covered by the use of "masturbator" in American culture.
Not that trying to explain helps at all... ;)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 12:18 PM on March 16, 2002
Miguel:
Once again, as has often happened recently, someone who defends his views forcefully and articulately is being singled out because his style doesn't conform.
if Riviera gets to express his viewpoints, then so do those who have an issue with it. in general, i find myself annoyed with those who clamor and bristle at those who "take others to metatalk." the very right to free speech one defends for those taken to task would be infringed upon if they were unable to do so. in the end, a metatalk thread doesn't mean too much -- certainly none but matt have much administrative power -- so i don't see the harm. unless the people bringing up the metatalk thread haven't much of a platform, but that's their problem.
posted by moz at 12:21 PM on March 16, 2002
Once again, as has often happened recently, someone who defends his views forcefully and articulately is being singled out because his style doesn't conform.
if Riviera gets to express his viewpoints, then so do those who have an issue with it. in general, i find myself annoyed with those who clamor and bristle at those who "take others to metatalk." the very right to free speech one defends for those taken to task would be infringed upon if they were unable to do so. in the end, a metatalk thread doesn't mean too much -- certainly none but matt have much administrative power -- so i don't see the harm. unless the people bringing up the metatalk thread haven't much of a platform, but that's their problem.
posted by moz at 12:21 PM on March 16, 2002
Sure, jcterminal, but isn't it easier to ask one person to ease up on personal attacks than to tell the other 13,850 to get thicker skin?
Besides, I think it's worth saying every once in a while that there's generally an atmosphere of mutual respect on MetaFilter. I don't know that this is clear to new participants who read threads on contentious issues. If Riviera thinks that the norm around here is to put up your dukes and come out swinging, I don't know that I'd blame him.
posted by rcade at 12:25 PM on March 16, 2002
Besides, I think it's worth saying every once in a while that there's generally an atmosphere of mutual respect on MetaFilter. I don't know that this is clear to new participants who read threads on contentious issues. If Riviera thinks that the norm around here is to put up your dukes and come out swinging, I don't know that I'd blame him.
posted by rcade at 12:25 PM on March 16, 2002
riviera expressing himself the way he does is a cultural thing; Miguel my friend, would you please share with us who Riviera really is? Since you are not the type of person to make up attributes/nationalities/professions/etc. of people you know nothing about, it's obvious you do know the mysterious Riviera.
posted by Mack Twain at 12:38 PM on March 16, 2002
posted by Mack Twain at 12:38 PM on March 16, 2002
Mack, I have no idea. Shit, that just shows what a presumptuous fellow I am. I think, from reading some of his comments, he's probably a left-leaning English male journalist. But I could be wrong - I frequently am. In my defense all I can say is that if I did know him - even from a single e-mail - I would certainly say so.
Oh - and thanks for making me imagine riviera as a fiery Ann Widdecombe figure now seething as she reads my wild guesses. ;)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 12:50 PM on March 16, 2002
Oh - and thanks for making me imagine riviera as a fiery Ann Widdecombe figure now seething as she reads my wild guesses. ;)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 12:50 PM on March 16, 2002
Miguel, I think you are describing a class thing. I agree that within English culture there is a tradition of trading insults as a sign of affection, I do it myself. Generally though, you would be fairly well acquainted with someone before you started it, and the underlying affection would be palpable. The sort of poisonous and belittling comments that have caused umbrage here though are pretty rare , in my hapless opinion.
In the working class circles that I have lived my life, I think Riviera would be inviting a smack in the mouth. It's not so much what he says as the sneering manner in which he says it; most people would find that unacceptable. Perhaps it's to do with middle class debating societies where style is valued over content. I concede that he appears to be a great (mass) debater. The ejaculatory comment is certainly better than anything I could attempt, but nevertheless, it does seem a trifle tortuous.
Generally I feel that if you wouldn't be prepared to say something to someones face, you really shouldn't say it at all.
rcade I think makes a great point. I have tried to explain on a football messageboard I frequent that we do not need to communicate soley by insults, and that when we do trade invective it would help if we could explain why we are doing it. I urge everyone to come here to demonstrate how fierce arguments can take place in a civil manner. Its a little oasis here really and I would prefer it to remain that way.
posted by Fat Buddha at 12:59 PM on March 16, 2002
In the working class circles that I have lived my life, I think Riviera would be inviting a smack in the mouth. It's not so much what he says as the sneering manner in which he says it; most people would find that unacceptable. Perhaps it's to do with middle class debating societies where style is valued over content. I concede that he appears to be a great (mass) debater. The ejaculatory comment is certainly better than anything I could attempt, but nevertheless, it does seem a trifle tortuous.
Generally I feel that if you wouldn't be prepared to say something to someones face, you really shouldn't say it at all.
rcade I think makes a great point. I have tried to explain on a football messageboard I frequent that we do not need to communicate soley by insults, and that when we do trade invective it would help if we could explain why we are doing it. I urge everyone to come here to demonstrate how fierce arguments can take place in a civil manner. Its a little oasis here really and I would prefer it to remain that way.
posted by Fat Buddha at 12:59 PM on March 16, 2002
MiguelCardoso - fold_and_mutilate has not received an apology from me, nor is he entitled to one.
And implying that he is "someone who defends his views forcefully and articulately" pushes the envelope of credulity.
posted by NortonDC at 1:32 PM on March 16, 2002
And implying that he is "someone who defends his views forcefully and articulately" pushes the envelope of credulity.
posted by NortonDC at 1:32 PM on March 16, 2002
Fat Buddha: Interesting points! GBS said something along the lines of "Everytime an Englishman opens his mouth another Englishman despises him."
You may be right, though not about class. All my friends at university were working class or lower middle class. The piss-taking is probably a Northern and Cockney thing as middle class or upper class Southerners other than Cockneys tend to put each other down with irony and understatement. You know, the "oh yes?" and "how interesting!" school. I don't like them at all. I much prefer Northerners. Aren't you a Geordie, anyway? Since when do Geordies defend genteel modes of expression?
Until riviera stops enjoying himself and comes clean - I just went back to read his stuff and he's very straightforward about himself - I venture he's also probably a working class Londoner or an ashamed-to-be-middle-class socialist bastard from the North. :)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 1:33 PM on March 16, 2002
You may be right, though not about class. All my friends at university were working class or lower middle class. The piss-taking is probably a Northern and Cockney thing as middle class or upper class Southerners other than Cockneys tend to put each other down with irony and understatement. You know, the "oh yes?" and "how interesting!" school. I don't like them at all. I much prefer Northerners. Aren't you a Geordie, anyway? Since when do Geordies defend genteel modes of expression?
Until riviera stops enjoying himself and comes clean - I just went back to read his stuff and he's very straightforward about himself - I venture he's also probably a working class Londoner or an ashamed-to-be-middle-class socialist bastard from the North. :)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 1:33 PM on March 16, 2002
"Besides, I think it's worth saying every once in a while that there's generally an atmosphere of mutual respect on MetaFilter. I don't know that this is clear to new participants who read threads on contentious issues. If Riviera thinks that the norm around here is to put up your dukes and come out swinging, I don't know that I'd blame him."
oh yeah, i think you're totally right, but i think if we go with the idea of positive reinforcement, it would probably be easier on everyone involved. ignore his attacks, praise only the good stuff, either he's gonna get irritated enough to explode into a hot ball of flame, causing his eviction, or he'll calm down and become a great contributor.
just a little growing pains i'm sure.
posted by jcterminal at 1:39 PM on March 16, 2002
oh yeah, i think you're totally right, but i think if we go with the idea of positive reinforcement, it would probably be easier on everyone involved. ignore his attacks, praise only the good stuff, either he's gonna get irritated enough to explode into a hot ball of flame, causing his eviction, or he'll calm down and become a great contributor.
just a little growing pains i'm sure.
posted by jcterminal at 1:39 PM on March 16, 2002
Riviera did apologize to me, so I'm fine with it, and he definitely seems like a guy (bloke?) worth having around.
But let's face facts: There is no rule on MeFi against personal attacks. Or, at best, it technically exists somewhere but is never enforced unless the person does it so often to so many people that he/she manages to have that one personality trait be his/her MeFi trademark. Otherwise, you can say the most viciously evil shit to anyone and nothing will be done about it. Except perhaps a MeTa thread that results in no action at all, except for having the thread hijacked so that further attacks can be made on the originally attacked person by more people that can't resist a chance to pile on the attacked person while he's down. Take it from someone that's been there DOZENS of times on MeFi.
posted by aaron at 2:06 PM on March 16, 2002
But let's face facts: There is no rule on MeFi against personal attacks. Or, at best, it technically exists somewhere but is never enforced unless the person does it so often to so many people that he/she manages to have that one personality trait be his/her MeFi trademark. Otherwise, you can say the most viciously evil shit to anyone and nothing will be done about it. Except perhaps a MeTa thread that results in no action at all, except for having the thread hijacked so that further attacks can be made on the originally attacked person by more people that can't resist a chance to pile on the attacked person while he's down. Take it from someone that's been there DOZENS of times on MeFi.
posted by aaron at 2:06 PM on March 16, 2002
Miguel, I really hate to be pedantic, but I think you will find that working class is a highly selective term. Most working class people I know really would never ever consider the possibility that they might go to universty. An accent does not define your class.
I have (remarkably given my skills with typing and grammar) spent a good seven years in the higher education system, albiet a lifetime ago. And I have to say, the type of badinage you describe didn't exist. Some kind of knowledge and respect comes first then banter.
I heartily disagree with your cockney statement. Of the people I met at university the least able to cope with their views being trifled with were cockneys and working class cockneys at that.
I happen to be a dyed in the wool brummie living in South Wales. Very far from being a Geordie, geographically anyway.
Contentious issue this and I am aware of being massively off topic.
posted by Fat Buddha at 2:23 PM on March 16, 2002
I have (remarkably given my skills with typing and grammar) spent a good seven years in the higher education system, albiet a lifetime ago. And I have to say, the type of badinage you describe didn't exist. Some kind of knowledge and respect comes first then banter.
I heartily disagree with your cockney statement. Of the people I met at university the least able to cope with their views being trifled with were cockneys and working class cockneys at that.
I happen to be a dyed in the wool brummie living in South Wales. Very far from being a Geordie, geographically anyway.
Contentious issue this and I am aware of being massively off topic.
posted by Fat Buddha at 2:23 PM on March 16, 2002
Excuse a foreigner's preconceptions then, FB. ;)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 2:27 PM on March 16, 2002
posted by MiguelCardoso at 2:27 PM on March 16, 2002
Irony, Miguel very good. Very sorry. As I said it's contentious.
posted by Fat Buddha at 2:45 PM on March 16, 2002
posted by Fat Buddha at 2:45 PM on March 16, 2002
"Otherwise, you can say the most viciously evil shit to anyone and nothing will be done about it."
well... it WAS funny. at least to everyone but whom it was refering too. that's why no one said anything.
;)
posted by jcterminal at 2:48 PM on March 16, 2002
well... it WAS funny. at least to everyone but whom it was refering too. that's why no one said anything.
;)
posted by jcterminal at 2:48 PM on March 16, 2002
Brummies are Northerners too, you know! Well, at least nowadays. As a life-long, affiliated Jasper Carrott fan and the sojourning boyfriend of a wonderful Birmingham girl, I resent your setting yourself off from the pack. But you do need to visit not to laugh. Hey, it's not our feckin' fault you're living in South Wales, FB! You should read Kingsley(and Martin)Amis on Cardiff - if you expect relentless satire, you'll be surprised.
I think England is more complicated than the whole world, no matter how well you think you know it and each Englishman is an island, because your governing passion is hating the very idea that you could be at all like someone else. You're sick bastards, that's for sure. The fact that you're also fascinating just about saves you...
posted by MiguelCardoso at 2:54 PM on March 16, 2002
I think England is more complicated than the whole world, no matter how well you think you know it and each Englishman is an island, because your governing passion is hating the very idea that you could be at all like someone else. You're sick bastards, that's for sure. The fact that you're also fascinating just about saves you...
posted by MiguelCardoso at 2:54 PM on March 16, 2002
jcterminal's rude hate speech, posted purely to inflict pain, is of course QED. And people wonder why so many good posters simply walk away.
posted by aaron at 2:58 PM on March 16, 2002
posted by aaron at 2:58 PM on March 16, 2002
Jcterminal - what's up? Hincandenza apologized and admitted it wasn't funny. Aaron, since he returned, has gone out of his way to be fair, cogent and tolerant. He's consistently set an example. What could be gained by your rude jeering and capital letters? And when you say "no one said anything", you're being economical with the truth. A lot of us commented. Including hincandenza himself.
What in the hell are you talking about?!
posted by MiguelCardoso at 3:11 PM on March 16, 2002
What in the hell are you talking about?!
posted by MiguelCardoso at 3:11 PM on March 16, 2002
Interesting that mathowie was willing to rake someone over the coals for what I saw as a relatively minor infraction (especially compared to riviera's comments) yet applauds rivera's 'spunk and smarts' while issuing the tenderest slap on the wrists. Whassup wit dat?
And I love Rivera's assumption that metaphorically accusing a man of fellatio is the worst insult imaginable. Not only calling someone a fag, but a passive fag. But hey, it's ok when coming from a apparent leftist, isn't it?
Don't accuse me of being mean. I'm just being 'spunky'.
posted by evanizer at 3:25 PM on March 16, 2002
And I love Rivera's assumption that metaphorically accusing a man of fellatio is the worst insult imaginable. Not only calling someone a fag, but a passive fag. But hey, it's ok when coming from a apparent leftist, isn't it?
Don't accuse me of being mean. I'm just being 'spunky'.
posted by evanizer at 3:25 PM on March 16, 2002
Miguel, Brummies are most certainly not northerners. They (we) are midlanders.
Jasper Carrott was last funny 35 years ago and he wasn't very funny then.
I have read Kingsley Amis and am aware of his superior attitude to a very provincial university. I have read Martin Amis too. A first class example of the intelligentsia acting hard. Scary individuals. Hahahahahahahahahh.
posted by Fat Buddha at 3:29 PM on March 16, 2002
Jasper Carrott was last funny 35 years ago and he wasn't very funny then.
I have read Kingsley Amis and am aware of his superior attitude to a very provincial university. I have read Martin Amis too. A first class example of the intelligentsia acting hard. Scary individuals. Hahahahahahahahahh.
posted by Fat Buddha at 3:29 PM on March 16, 2002
I guess Miguel is calling this an apology, but to me it reads more like "I'm sorry I let that troll get to me," which adds insult to injury.
I'm sorry we're revisiting that incident. I think it's one of MetaFilter's biggest lowlights, both in terms of hincandenza's loathsome post and the way several people used it as an excuse to claim that aaron had it coming.
posted by rcade at 3:30 PM on March 16, 2002
I'm sorry we're revisiting that incident. I think it's one of MetaFilter's biggest lowlights, both in terms of hincandenza's loathsome post and the way several people used it as an excuse to claim that aaron had it coming.
posted by rcade at 3:30 PM on March 16, 2002
Yes, and his "week or two off to think" turned out to be 2 1/2 days. The Jesse Jackson School of Contrition.
Since personal attacks are allowed, and even encouraged towards some, I suggest everyone on MeFi simply adopt this doctrine until and unless a rule is instituted to put an end to it: Zero tolerance. If you're personally attacked on MeFi, give it right back to them, in spades.
posted by aaron at 3:45 PM on March 16, 2002
Since personal attacks are allowed, and even encouraged towards some, I suggest everyone on MeFi simply adopt this doctrine until and unless a rule is instituted to put an end to it: Zero tolerance. If you're personally attacked on MeFi, give it right back to them, in spades.
posted by aaron at 3:45 PM on March 16, 2002
As a life-long, affiliated Jasper Carrott fan and the sojourning boyfriend of a wonderful Birmingham girl,
Miguel, man of many identities. Sometimes I think the whole "Miguel" hoax has gone too far. Does SchweppesGirl know?
[long rant about hincandenza/aaron thread expunged, except: (1) jcterminal, shame; and (2) a certain cryptic appreciation for some ironic resonances between the threads. What's next, ljromanoff reappearing under a pseudonym?]
posted by rodii at 3:46 PM on March 16, 2002
Miguel, man of many identities. Sometimes I think the whole "Miguel" hoax has gone too far. Does SchweppesGirl know?
[long rant about hincandenza/aaron thread expunged, except: (1) jcterminal, shame; and (2) a certain cryptic appreciation for some ironic resonances between the threads. What's next, ljromanoff reappearing under a pseudonym?]
posted by rodii at 3:46 PM on March 16, 2002
Oh, and also, (3) what Rogers said, and (4) everyone chill, please.
posted by rodii at 3:49 PM on March 16, 2002
posted by rodii at 3:49 PM on March 16, 2002
Hincandenza: such brutal ad hominem attacks are not only unnecessary and uncalled for but don't accomplish anything anyway
This is an apology by any standard.
And rodii: Hoax yourself! You're the same age as I am, so you know all about multiple identities. I married Schweppes Girl(how absurd this sounds)two years ago. I've been married twice before. Surely, no matter how hard one tries to be chaste and wait, our great age consents the occasional indiscretion?
posted by MiguelCardoso at 3:54 PM on March 16, 2002
This is an apology by any standard.
And rodii: Hoax yourself! You're the same age as I am, so you know all about multiple identities. I married Schweppes Girl(how absurd this sounds)two years ago. I've been married twice before. Surely, no matter how hard one tries to be chaste and wait, our great age consents the occasional indiscretion?
posted by MiguelCardoso at 3:54 PM on March 16, 2002
Btw, I love the way evanizer, being a painter, calls riviera rivera.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 3:58 PM on March 16, 2002
posted by MiguelCardoso at 3:58 PM on March 16, 2002
Definitely and proudly "erstwhile". Thanks, rodii. Like a hundred years ago and never again. With neither the desire, the patience or even the thought.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 4:53 PM on March 16, 2002
posted by MiguelCardoso at 4:53 PM on March 16, 2002
"jcterminal's rude hate speech, posted purely to inflict pain, is of course QED. And people wonder why so many good posters simply walk away."
being as *i* am the one who posted that comment, only *i* know why i did it. don't be such an egomaniac. it's not about causing *you* pain, it's about causing *everyone else* to laugh a little. so it was at your expense, so what? tommorow it'll be someone else's turn.
everyone is treated the same, it's the responses that differ. but then again, i already said that in this thread.
c'mon aaron, you seem to be a bright guy, take it with a grain of salt and lighten up. you're gonna have a stroke if you keep this up.
"Jcterminal - what's up? Hincandenza apologized and admitted it wasn't funny. Aaron, since he returned, has gone out of his way to be fair, cogent and tolerant. He's consistently set an example. What could be gained by your rude jeering and capital letters? And when you say "no one said anything", you're being economical with the truth. A lot of us commented. Including hincandenza himself.
What in the hell are you talking about?!"
geesh. either i need sensitivity training, or everyone else needs to go to clown school.
posted by jcterminal at 5:05 PM on March 16, 2002
being as *i* am the one who posted that comment, only *i* know why i did it. don't be such an egomaniac. it's not about causing *you* pain, it's about causing *everyone else* to laugh a little. so it was at your expense, so what? tommorow it'll be someone else's turn.
everyone is treated the same, it's the responses that differ. but then again, i already said that in this thread.
c'mon aaron, you seem to be a bright guy, take it with a grain of salt and lighten up. you're gonna have a stroke if you keep this up.
"Jcterminal - what's up? Hincandenza apologized and admitted it wasn't funny. Aaron, since he returned, has gone out of his way to be fair, cogent and tolerant. He's consistently set an example. What could be gained by your rude jeering and capital letters? And when you say "no one said anything", you're being economical with the truth. A lot of us commented. Including hincandenza himself.
What in the hell are you talking about?!"
geesh. either i need sensitivity training, or everyone else needs to go to clown school.
posted by jcterminal at 5:05 PM on March 16, 2002
Jc, with all due respect, I think your jokes have been a little tone deaf recently, in content and in timing. I reacted as I did because this was still fresh in my mind. And that was in a thread where you'd already had to restate that one of your posts was supposed to not be taken as seriously as it was.
It's often real hard to tell your intent lately, you know what I mean?
posted by aaron at 5:36 PM on March 16, 2002
It's often real hard to tell your intent lately, you know what I mean?
posted by aaron at 5:36 PM on March 16, 2002
oh. well. my bad. i apologize.
posted by jcterminal at 5:39 PM on March 16, 2002
posted by jcterminal at 5:39 PM on March 16, 2002
*Hugs all 'round.*
(And I just came in here to say how funny I thought y2karl's 'MosesMulligan' crack was.)
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:00 PM on March 16, 2002
(And I just came in here to say how funny I thought y2karl's 'MosesMulligan' crack was.)
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:00 PM on March 16, 2002
Miguel, it is quite possible that you've never actually met a real cockney (born within the sound of the Bow Bells)....Actually, it is also the case that most people that claim to be Geordies aren't the real thing (see white area). So many imposters, no wonder people get confused.
Anyhow, what's all this wanton generalisation about. I didn't realise that you were someone that boxed people in quite so readily. What I don't understand is how can you have an English mother and have such a bizarre view of England? This is just nonsensical:
'The piss-taking is probably a Northern and Cockney thing as middle class or upper class Southerners other than Cockneys tend to put each other down with irony and understatement.'
Where to start? Firstly, class has nothing to do with North or South, and secondly there are only about 8 cockneys left alive. Also, there is literally no one in the South that considers themself anything other than upper or middle class. Working class is a dying term. As for piss taking, it is like drinking - a national sport that transcends all classes and all areas. I mean look at British comedy for the last 30 years. 90% of it was made by posh, ex Cambridge, piss taking bastards. The only difference between southern and geordie humour is that it is almost impossible to understand any word that leaves a geordie mouth. Written down, it is identical.
posted by RobertLoch at 6:50 PM on March 16, 2002
Anyhow, what's all this wanton generalisation about. I didn't realise that you were someone that boxed people in quite so readily. What I don't understand is how can you have an English mother and have such a bizarre view of England? This is just nonsensical:
'The piss-taking is probably a Northern and Cockney thing as middle class or upper class Southerners other than Cockneys tend to put each other down with irony and understatement.'
Where to start? Firstly, class has nothing to do with North or South, and secondly there are only about 8 cockneys left alive. Also, there is literally no one in the South that considers themself anything other than upper or middle class. Working class is a dying term. As for piss taking, it is like drinking - a national sport that transcends all classes and all areas. I mean look at British comedy for the last 30 years. 90% of it was made by posh, ex Cambridge, piss taking bastards. The only difference between southern and geordie humour is that it is almost impossible to understand any word that leaves a geordie mouth. Written down, it is identical.
posted by RobertLoch at 6:50 PM on March 16, 2002
I feel obliged to say something here, although I'm not sure exactly what. I was mystified to be selected for especial attention in three of someone's first ten posts, particularly given that they were not only at a certain level of content-related disagreement, but also personal and provocatively distasteful at a level I hadn't seen in years (being a Usenet vet), included notional knowledge of my activities outside Metafilter, and yet this person was (and remains) entirely unknown to me. One might call this presumptuous in the meaning of 19th-century manners.
For one thing, I do recognize I've poked a few people sharply lately, with my only defense being that I confined my remarks to content of either the specific post or a set of posts made by the same person.
At the point where riviera baited me with a bright yellow cluster-bomb of astonishingly personal quality (quoted above, if you care to look) I decided this was a person best steered clear of. Any response at all would be unproductive.
If this be piss taking, then put me on record as saying that is a sport I would rather play only with people I otherwise know well, not strangers.
Finally, I will speak as someone who unreservedly supports the war in Afghanistan, and reservedly supports larger parts of the war on terrorism, someone who has found much of value in persons with whom I would politically have disagreed prior to 9/11, but someone who remains markedly liberal -- I have a lot more sympathy for aaron and ljromanoff than I used to. There's a political mean here, by which you should understand average value, that lies well left of center -- and even persons of more complex, less easily-defined politics such as Postroad and MidasMulligan have run afoul of social enforcement mechanisms, called trolls simply for expressing views at variance from that mean. (Heck, look at how the thread on Walzer devolved -- No, that label means X, not Y -- and that was self-criticism from within deep left field.) For my part, I only try when coming here to bring to MeFi a little of the more varied perspectives that I find outside of it, on the theory that variation is healthy.
Dear. I seem to have written a Bible. Perhaps y2karl can nap through the reading of the lesson and wake up when the choir starts up again. Really: my posts tend to be longer because a) I dislike threads full of snarky one-liners, b) I restrict my posting to where I can, in theory, offer the most.
posted by dhartung at 1:57 AM on March 17, 2002
For one thing, I do recognize I've poked a few people sharply lately, with my only defense being that I confined my remarks to content of either the specific post or a set of posts made by the same person.
At the point where riviera baited me with a bright yellow cluster-bomb of astonishingly personal quality (quoted above, if you care to look) I decided this was a person best steered clear of. Any response at all would be unproductive.
If this be piss taking, then put me on record as saying that is a sport I would rather play only with people I otherwise know well, not strangers.
Finally, I will speak as someone who unreservedly supports the war in Afghanistan, and reservedly supports larger parts of the war on terrorism, someone who has found much of value in persons with whom I would politically have disagreed prior to 9/11, but someone who remains markedly liberal -- I have a lot more sympathy for aaron and ljromanoff than I used to. There's a political mean here, by which you should understand average value, that lies well left of center -- and even persons of more complex, less easily-defined politics such as Postroad and MidasMulligan have run afoul of social enforcement mechanisms, called trolls simply for expressing views at variance from that mean. (Heck, look at how the thread on Walzer devolved -- No, that label means X, not Y -- and that was self-criticism from within deep left field.) For my part, I only try when coming here to bring to MeFi a little of the more varied perspectives that I find outside of it, on the theory that variation is healthy.
Dear. I seem to have written a Bible. Perhaps y2karl can nap through the reading of the lesson and wake up when the choir starts up again. Really: my posts tend to be longer because a) I dislike threads full of snarky one-liners, b) I restrict my posting to where I can, in theory, offer the most.
posted by dhartung at 1:57 AM on March 17, 2002
> And I love Rivera's assumption that metaphorically
> accusing a man of fellatio is the worst insult imaginable.
evanizer, I think you do not see (or you ignore) his intent. It's not that warbloggers metaphorically or literally suck cock (though I'm sure a lot of them do). It's that they live off one another's testosterone. Grunt grunt. Kill kill. Metaphorically. If it was expressed in a way that would rankle the homophobes among them, so much the better.
Riviera extends the pun with the "ejaculatory nonsense" remark -- sperm, but also exclamation -- and Matt (intentionally or not) echoes it in his "spunk" comment above. But no one, I suspect, meant any comment on actual fellatio or the ladies and gentlemen who practice it.
posted by pracowity at 3:26 AM on March 17, 2002
> accusing a man of fellatio is the worst insult imaginable.
evanizer, I think you do not see (or you ignore) his intent. It's not that warbloggers metaphorically or literally suck cock (though I'm sure a lot of them do). It's that they live off one another's testosterone. Grunt grunt. Kill kill. Metaphorically. If it was expressed in a way that would rankle the homophobes among them, so much the better.
Riviera extends the pun with the "ejaculatory nonsense" remark -- sperm, but also exclamation -- and Matt (intentionally or not) echoes it in his "spunk" comment above. But no one, I suspect, meant any comment on actual fellatio or the ladies and gentlemen who practice it.
posted by pracowity at 3:26 AM on March 17, 2002
A warblogger is a fairly recent phenomena of a blogger who's had one too many jingoism pills. An unapologetic supporter of all things War On Terrorism.
Usually Right wing a go-go.
Matt Welch is generally the goto definition of a warblogger.
posted by dong_resin at 5:55 AM on March 17, 2002
Usually Right wing a go-go.
Matt Welch is generally the goto definition of a warblogger.
posted by dong_resin at 5:55 AM on March 17, 2002
Perhaps y2karl can nap through the reading of the lesson and wake up when the choir starts up again.
Deutoronomy? Again? Oh, man... Zzzzzzzzz......
posted by y2karl at 7:27 AM on March 17, 2002
Deutoronomy? Again? Oh, man... Zzzzzzzzz......
posted by y2karl at 7:27 AM on March 17, 2002
I was mystified to be selected for especial attention in three of someone's first ten posts
I was thinking that was pretty odd, too. Riviera seems to be fairly knowledgable of the blogging community, and he professes strong distaste for at least the warbloggers, which could be the reason he went after you, dhartung. But he also made himself rather comfortable with MetaFilter rather fast, and I suspect that, if he's not someone we already know (perhaps under another name), he's at least a long-time lurker.
If only there were a way to know.
posted by mattpfeff at 10:55 AM on March 17, 2002
I was thinking that was pretty odd, too. Riviera seems to be fairly knowledgable of the blogging community, and he professes strong distaste for at least the warbloggers, which could be the reason he went after you, dhartung. But he also made himself rather comfortable with MetaFilter rather fast, and I suspect that, if he's not someone we already know (perhaps under another name), he's at least a long-time lurker.
If only there were a way to know.
posted by mattpfeff at 10:55 AM on March 17, 2002
dong_resin, could you BE any more polarizing? Considering we're in a thread about being a polarizing jerk? Not to mention that you're wrong on all three counts. (Which simply proves you've read few warblogs, and rarely. Kind of like riviera's dumb comment on Sgt. Stryker, who is not the Unabomber but a level-headed air force mechanic with even more caution on Iraq than myself, and who I believe votes mainly Democratic.)
The warblog community is largely but not exclusively people who a) began blogging after 9/11, b) blog mainly on war topics, c) support the war in Afghanistan, d) suspect that extension of the war is an unwelcome but necessary task. Yet almost every warblogger actually fails at least one of those criteria. There are anti-war blogs that use the term 'warblog'. There are warblogs that are prowar for Afghanistan and at the very least skeptical or cautious on Iraq. There are warblogs that began as weblogs long before 9/11 and continue to touch a variety of subjects. There are warblogs that come from the left as well as the right. I've heard Glenn Reynolds described as 'conservative' when he's a centrist who supports gay rights and hates Ashcroft's anti-terror laws. Welch, of course, is a former Nader supporter who wrote the definitive article demonstrating that a) far-lefties exaggerate Iraqi sanctions casualties, b) righties deny Iraqi sanctions casuaties, and c) both are wrong. The one label that most warbloggers have rallied beneath is Charles Johnson's term anti-Idiotarians, which is meant to point to jerks like Ted Rall or brazenly anti-American columnists like Robert Fisk, and not your average NPR liberal war-skeptic, so don't take it overly personally.
The fact that I have to keep explaining this to people who a) should know better, and b) often portray themselves as being open-minded and broadly-sourced in their own reading, simply demonstrates that there are people who are neither. "Oh, look, he thinks we should bomb al Qaeda. He must be some kind of undead Jesse Helms zombie." Sheesh.
mattpfeff, I expect you're right -- it's someone who's been reading around. Of course, he may have been lurking for some time here under a periodic sign-up moratorium -- I don't keep track of those.
posted by dhartung at 12:19 PM on March 17, 2002
The warblog community is largely but not exclusively people who a) began blogging after 9/11, b) blog mainly on war topics, c) support the war in Afghanistan, d) suspect that extension of the war is an unwelcome but necessary task. Yet almost every warblogger actually fails at least one of those criteria. There are anti-war blogs that use the term 'warblog'. There are warblogs that are prowar for Afghanistan and at the very least skeptical or cautious on Iraq. There are warblogs that began as weblogs long before 9/11 and continue to touch a variety of subjects. There are warblogs that come from the left as well as the right. I've heard Glenn Reynolds described as 'conservative' when he's a centrist who supports gay rights and hates Ashcroft's anti-terror laws. Welch, of course, is a former Nader supporter who wrote the definitive article demonstrating that a) far-lefties exaggerate Iraqi sanctions casualties, b) righties deny Iraqi sanctions casuaties, and c) both are wrong. The one label that most warbloggers have rallied beneath is Charles Johnson's term anti-Idiotarians, which is meant to point to jerks like Ted Rall or brazenly anti-American columnists like Robert Fisk, and not your average NPR liberal war-skeptic, so don't take it overly personally.
The fact that I have to keep explaining this to people who a) should know better, and b) often portray themselves as being open-minded and broadly-sourced in their own reading, simply demonstrates that there are people who are neither. "Oh, look, he thinks we should bomb al Qaeda. He must be some kind of undead Jesse Helms zombie." Sheesh.
mattpfeff, I expect you're right -- it's someone who's been reading around. Of course, he may have been lurking for some time here under a periodic sign-up moratorium -- I don't keep track of those.
posted by dhartung at 12:19 PM on March 17, 2002
You don't have to keep explaining it, Dan, you just do. And do, and do, and do.
posted by rodii at 12:28 PM on March 17, 2002
posted by rodii at 12:28 PM on March 17, 2002
Okay dhartung, first you accuse of being wrong in my description of warbloggs, then you go on at great windy length to re-describe what I managed to say in a paragraph, only with your subjective impressions of warbloggs, rather than mine.
I painted with a broad brush, it was appropriate to do so for someone like jcterminal who'd not seen warbloggs yet. I hardly misrepresented them.
Power down a wee bit, Rommel, you're gonna pop something.
posted by dong_resin at 12:45 PM on March 17, 2002
I painted with a broad brush, it was appropriate to do so for someone like jcterminal who'd not seen warbloggs yet. I hardly misrepresented them.
Power down a wee bit, Rommel, you're gonna pop something.
posted by dong_resin at 12:45 PM on March 17, 2002
dong_resin, you're off the mark. Dan's description of warbloggers may have been a bit long for your tastes, but it's a lot more accurate than your misrepresentation because he has carefully explained the breadth of opinion to be found across them.
I'd hardly say that Avram Grumer, Ginger Stampley, Gary Farber or Patrick Neilsen Hayden could be described as people who have taken "one too many jingoism pills [and who are] unapologetic supporter[s] of all things War On Terrorism." And they're not the only non right-wingers out there, either.
posted by maudlin at 2:05 PM on March 17, 2002
I'd hardly say that Avram Grumer, Ginger Stampley, Gary Farber or Patrick Neilsen Hayden could be described as people who have taken "one too many jingoism pills [and who are] unapologetic supporter[s] of all things War On Terrorism." And they're not the only non right-wingers out there, either.
posted by maudlin at 2:05 PM on March 17, 2002
Fair enough. I wasn't attempting to be encyclopedia warbloggica, but I wasn't so far off the mark as to called small minded for my description. The majority seem to fall within my glib description.
posted by dong_resin at 2:15 PM on March 17, 2002
posted by dong_resin at 2:15 PM on March 17, 2002
Okay, I see that I did make too gross a generalization in my description. Evidently I've been surfing a pretty narrow thread of warblogs. Those of you who calmly informed me of this by providing numerous links to examples different from my original description, thanks. You showed me something new. The three other jackasses who typed with their spleens taught me not much of anything, `cept that you know where your cap lock key is.
posted by dong_resin at 3:01 PM on March 17, 2002
posted by dong_resin at 3:01 PM on March 17, 2002
Uh, I was responding primarily to emails in my last comment. That may have been a bit unclear
posted by dong_resin at 3:08 PM on March 17, 2002
posted by dong_resin at 3:08 PM on March 17, 2002
I don't think any definition of warblogs is complete without at least one sneer about how much blogrolling they do. I never get tired of reading how much Stephen Den Beste admires Glenn Reynolds comment about Andrew Sullivan's excellent link to Matt Welch.
posted by rcade at 3:21 PM on March 17, 2002
posted by rcade at 3:21 PM on March 17, 2002
SDB, however, actually only links on his front page to warblogs that he thinks aren't getting enough attention. He may comment on the comments of the other very few Big Names (though to be fair, I think he does far less of that than any of the others you named), but he sure doesn't plug them at the top of his page like everybody else.
That general Big Names Protecting Big Names phenomenon is a growing problem, though. The less chance new warbloggers (or any bloggers) have of being able to make names for themselves, the less likely they are to keep blogging.
posted by aaron at 4:14 PM on March 17, 2002
That general Big Names Protecting Big Names phenomenon is a growing problem, though. The less chance new warbloggers (or any bloggers) have of being able to make names for themselves, the less likely they are to keep blogging.
posted by aaron at 4:14 PM on March 17, 2002
dong_resin was right about warblogs to a first approximation. I find this trend of calling people out then proceeding to agree with them bizarre.
Anyway, it's all blind men and elephants, or web surfers and flavors of protein shakes.
posted by euphorb at 5:01 PM on March 17, 2002
Anyway, it's all blind men and elephants, or web surfers and flavors of protein shakes.
posted by euphorb at 5:01 PM on March 17, 2002
dong_resin, I wish you well in your new reading list. But how can you expect me to respect your characterization, when the one person you link to -- a Naderite liberal -- meets none of your three stated criteria? I can only conclude you haven't actually read him.
aaron, truthfully, I hardly go a day without seeing a warblog pimping for a new blog they just found. It's a constantly expanding circle. The blogrolling is not just "I found this link at X who found it at Y who found it at Z", but generally consists of substantive response to X, Y, and Z, making it rather more like a Metafilter thread spread across blogs, or what Den Beste has called 'blog conversations' or 'blog debates'. This collegiality has become an accepted style; and the wider the circle of new blogs (lgf list now too big for front page), the more important it is. After all, some blogrolling is necessary if new blogs are to be found. In the end, the very surge of warblogs shows me that there isn't any bar to new entrants; and all it takes to get past a Gladwell-esque tipping point is one particularly good post.
One practice I can't defend is the "blogwatch", which is distilled blogrolling of a daily list. Um, I could do without the one-line summaries of what Tim Blair said today; I'll just get to him myself today or later this week. One needn't, and probably shouldn't, blog unless you have something to say. So I find those summaries rather thin content-wise.
Also, warbloggers sometimes display as much ignorance of the weblog phenomenon which preceded them, as old-school bloggers do of the relatively new and thriving subculture they spawned.
And there's even a liberal warblogger who sensed a dearth of other liberal blogs -- but this, as I pointed out to him (no doubt windily), with others, was a function of his narrow reading list. Like d.r., he lists four reasons that are easily shown wrong if one only broadens one's horizons.
posted by dhartung at 5:10 PM on March 17, 2002
aaron, truthfully, I hardly go a day without seeing a warblog pimping for a new blog they just found. It's a constantly expanding circle. The blogrolling is not just "I found this link at X who found it at Y who found it at Z", but generally consists of substantive response to X, Y, and Z, making it rather more like a Metafilter thread spread across blogs, or what Den Beste has called 'blog conversations' or 'blog debates'. This collegiality has become an accepted style; and the wider the circle of new blogs (lgf list now too big for front page), the more important it is. After all, some blogrolling is necessary if new blogs are to be found. In the end, the very surge of warblogs shows me that there isn't any bar to new entrants; and all it takes to get past a Gladwell-esque tipping point is one particularly good post.
One practice I can't defend is the "blogwatch", which is distilled blogrolling of a daily list. Um, I could do without the one-line summaries of what Tim Blair said today; I'll just get to him myself today or later this week. One needn't, and probably shouldn't, blog unless you have something to say. So I find those summaries rather thin content-wise.
Also, warbloggers sometimes display as much ignorance of the weblog phenomenon which preceded them, as old-school bloggers do of the relatively new and thriving subculture they spawned.
And there's even a liberal warblogger who sensed a dearth of other liberal blogs -- but this, as I pointed out to him (no doubt windily), with others, was a function of his narrow reading list. Like d.r., he lists four reasons that are easily shown wrong if one only broadens one's horizons.
posted by dhartung at 5:10 PM on March 17, 2002
Dhartung takes the time and trouble to answer. Riviera, even after being invited to come here(I linked to this thread on a MetaFilter post he was contributing to) and speak up for him/herself, doesn't. I'm disappointed. Respecting MetaTalk should come easily to those who so easily criticize others. Perhaps mattpfeff, as usual, is right. He's someone else. That sort of ruins it for me and tends to make me agree with rcade. Cowardice is beneath everything.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 5:34 PM on March 17, 2002
posted by MiguelCardoso at 5:34 PM on March 17, 2002
"...one too many jingoism pills [and who are] unapologetic supporter[s] of all things War On Terrorism."
That's a perfect description of myself, yet I'm not a warblogger. I hate the popular kids, no matter what side of the political fence they're on.
posted by evanizer at 9:27 PM on March 17, 2002
That's a perfect description of myself, yet I'm not a warblogger. I hate the popular kids, no matter what side of the political fence they're on.
posted by evanizer at 9:27 PM on March 17, 2002
My understanding of Matt Welch came from a few selected remarks of his, which I now understand to be vastly misrepresentative. No, I don't read him regularly. Yes it was stupid of me to invoke his name without a better understanding of his stuff. Yes I recognize that I shouldn't have been let near a keyboard this morning. I typed while unbalanced from whiskey, smack and pop-tarts. It happens. Perhaps next I'll create a MetaTalk thread announcing my departure from the site altogether. Who can tell. I'm just that wacky.
Dhartung, as I read through a more balanced selection of warblogs than I have been, I get your original ire with my remark, if not your undeniably windy expression of it.
By the way, whatever genius pornspamed me gave me roughly the same level of punishment as the teachers who used to make me leave class. Maybe if I really piss you off, you'll mail me a case of Toblerone.
posted by dong_resin at 12:02 AM on March 18, 2002
Dhartung, as I read through a more balanced selection of warblogs than I have been, I get your original ire with my remark, if not your undeniably windy expression of it.
By the way, whatever genius pornspamed me gave me roughly the same level of punishment as the teachers who used to make me leave class. Maybe if I really piss you off, you'll mail me a case of Toblerone.
posted by dong_resin at 12:02 AM on March 18, 2002
Jingoism: the term we use on Metafilter to describe someone who has the nerve to ever support his country in something. Usage increased by about 10,000% at about 2pm 9/11/01.
posted by owillis at 1:24 AM on March 18, 2002
posted by owillis at 1:24 AM on March 18, 2002
Well, I won't speak for others, owillis, but when I use the term jingoism, I specifically mean the overhyped patriotism that's been very actively marketed at us since 9/11.
Not flying your dopey flag on your SUV, but "fear this axis of evil."
posted by dong_resin at 1:35 AM on March 18, 2002
Not flying your dopey flag on your SUV, but "fear this axis of evil."
posted by dong_resin at 1:35 AM on March 18, 2002
> Usage increased by about 10,000% at about 2pm 9/11/01.
There wasn't much need for the term "jingoism" until then, which is when many an American who normally paid little attention to the rest of the world (politics was largely domestic tax squabbling) suddenly became a jingo: "a person who professes his or her patriotism loudly and excessively, favoring vigilant preparedness for war and an aggressive foreign policy; bellicose chauvinist."
posted by pracowity at 3:43 AM on March 18, 2002
There wasn't much need for the term "jingoism" until then, which is when many an American who normally paid little attention to the rest of the world (politics was largely domestic tax squabbling) suddenly became a jingo: "a person who professes his or her patriotism loudly and excessively, favoring vigilant preparedness for war and an aggressive foreign policy; bellicose chauvinist."
posted by pracowity at 3:43 AM on March 18, 2002
If the shoe fits, Oliver, if the shoe fits....
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:02 AM on March 18, 2002
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:02 AM on March 18, 2002
Dhartung takes the time and trouble to answer. Riviera, even after being invited to come here(I linked to this thread on a MetaFilter post he was contributing to) and speak up for him/herself, doesn't. I'm disappointed. Respecting MetaTalk should come easily to those who so easily criticize others.
Let me see if I have this right. Someone opens a MeTa thread for the sole purpose of slamming a user, and you think that user has some obligation to come here and defend himself? First of all, there was no reason for this thread; people can respond to his comments in the original threads. Second, no one has an obligation to show up at his own lynching.
"Respecting MetaTalk"? Come on. So now restricting yourself to MetaFilter is showing disrespect for MetaTalk? Did he come here and say that MeTa is crap? The mere fact that you linked this thread in a MeFi thread does not compel his attendance. I don't see any evidence of cowardice in his not wanting to be a part of this thread.
posted by anapestic at 6:04 AM on March 18, 2002
Let me see if I have this right. Someone opens a MeTa thread for the sole purpose of slamming a user, and you think that user has some obligation to come here and defend himself? First of all, there was no reason for this thread; people can respond to his comments in the original threads. Second, no one has an obligation to show up at his own lynching.
"Respecting MetaTalk"? Come on. So now restricting yourself to MetaFilter is showing disrespect for MetaTalk? Did he come here and say that MeTa is crap? The mere fact that you linked this thread in a MeFi thread does not compel his attendance. I don't see any evidence of cowardice in his not wanting to be a part of this thread.
posted by anapestic at 6:04 AM on March 18, 2002
What is wrong with vigilant preparedness for war? Or aggressive foreign policy? What is excessively professing patriotism? I think on 9/11 we were forced to step out of a Clintonian, Age of Aquarias fog and remember exactly what is great about America, namely that we don't have to tolerate insane religious idiots ramming planes into our nice modernist buildings. Sorry that some of us don't wish to see our country melt away into a great, globular multi-national Small World ride operated by some Eurocrats in Belgium telling us the proper viscosity of tomato sauce, or that we don't whither under the shrill prevarications of a Charlotte Raven piece in the Guardian. I'm sure all the people that wish harm on anyone else in the world would come to their senses if we just gave them a bouquet of daisies and sang a few choruses of 'Give Peace A Chance'. That would perhaps buy one a few minutes, since our enemy would have to quell his fit of laughter before he blew us away.
Honestly, y'all are just jealous that we have better computers, nicer roads, better teeth and chunkier tomato sauce. Not to mention that New York kicks the ass of any city in the entire stinkin' world. SOUR GRAPES!
Whew. Sorry, I just needed to vent that. Oliver got it right.
Oh, and GO USA! Root for your home team, friends. No matter what anyone says, it's not a crime.
posted by evanizer at 6:23 AM on March 18, 2002
Honestly, y'all are just jealous that we have better computers, nicer roads, better teeth and chunkier tomato sauce. Not to mention that New York kicks the ass of any city in the entire stinkin' world. SOUR GRAPES!
Whew. Sorry, I just needed to vent that. Oliver got it right.
Oh, and GO USA! Root for your home team, friends. No matter what anyone says, it's not a crime.
posted by evanizer at 6:23 AM on March 18, 2002
The sheer fact you see the American flag as dopey tells me all I need to know. For other countries, its national pride, for America its jingoism. Ah well, I can rest easy knowing the Mefi opinion is decidedly in the minority.
posted by owillis at 6:49 AM on March 18, 2002
posted by owillis at 6:49 AM on March 18, 2002
maybe i just didn't see them, but it seemed like dhartung went a few weeks without posting any bibles here, just the occasional sentence or two. i, for one, am glad the revelations are actively being written again.
posted by danOstuporStar at 6:56 AM on March 18, 2002
posted by danOstuporStar at 6:56 AM on March 18, 2002
It's the mindless embrace of the icon that spooks me, not the icon itself, owillis, and certainly not what it stands for. I'm a big fan of America. I'm not a big fan of engineered enthusiasm which makes it easier to get dopey ideas over with less friction from questioners.
posted by dong_resin at 7:10 AM on March 18, 2002
posted by dong_resin at 7:10 AM on March 18, 2002
What is wrong with vigilant preparedness for war? Or aggressive foreign policy? What is excessively professing patriotism?
Careful evaniser ... someone, somewhere is reaching for the Godwin button.
posted by walrus at 7:16 AM on March 18, 2002
Careful evaniser ... someone, somewhere is reaching for the Godwin button.
posted by walrus at 7:16 AM on March 18, 2002
No-one denies that we all have the right to self defence: the 9/11 attacks were supremely aggressive and required a response. What a lot of Americans seem to fail to understand is the blind rage felt by many of the world's oppressed (including Arab/muslim people) at the seemingly unconditional support (financial/military/political, etc. ) offered to the Israelis by American politicians for several generations now. No guys in white hats here: all the combatant groups have murdered innocents. So why, rationally, is one side favoured above another - at great cost domestically to America?
Coupled with this is the undeniable fact that the US is both the sole economic superpower & a global military force that aims at 'total spectrum dominance', or whatever. It's fair to say that when so many Americans distrust their own government and its power, shouldn't the rest of the world also be wary?
If this is seen in the context of American cultural dominance (TV, clothing, Hollywood, Rawk 'n' Roll, etc.) displacing the indigenous traditional expressions of cultures as diverse the French, Muslim, African, Russian and Japanese (to speculate on just a few: we could argue this point all day), we could begin to see where the inchoate rage originates from: little people hate the big targets. America is now, as the Egyptians/Roman/Mongols/British once were, the biggest target (= empire ) ever known. The exact definition of empire we could argue, but where it sees fit, America has - for over 100 years - intervened economically or otherwise to promote its interests, just as any empire would. Sometimes (1941, anyone?), the world sighs with relief that we're on the side of the angels. Sometimes (Vietnam? Afghanistan, c. 1980?), the ill-thought out or unintended consequences spill out much later and more extensively. I do not say this with glee; the US has given many times more good into the universe than bad, but the actual effect ( of US intervention ) is radically different depending on where you stand, what your culture is and what your aspirations are.
This is not to deny the fact that much of the oppression is due to a rights-denying social/religious system westerners wouldn't wish for ourselves, but which we underpin due to the economic necessities, geographical realities and plain old political self interest. Would we prefer it if the oil was beneath the snow of Siberia than the sands of Saudi? Would we deal with it anyway?
Evan: seeing as we all have different homes, then " ..rooting for the home team .." leads to conflict, no?
- john (no name calling)
posted by dash_slot- at 7:30 AM on March 18, 2002
someone, somewhere is reaching for the Godwin button
I think that's the root of the problem with this. Because WW2 was such a well documented (compared to the past) war it colors everything, then our parents/grandparents tell us what it was like in order for us to not repeat the sins of the past. But the thing is, if you can't see the difference between blowing the holy hell out of the Taliban/Al Qaeda while not targeting the civilian populace and actually sending them food - you need to look closer.
While he/she is much derided (even by me) I dont think the average American is such an evil headed kneejerker as you guys think. People cite our lack of attention to foreign affairs, and while I know it gets more play on their news - I frankly don't think much of the world cares about what goes on in America that doesn't directly affect them. Because we're the big dog on the porch, there's a very real double standard for us I think.
I also think if the average American was as bloodthirsty as you think, one or two nukes would have been lobbed at Afghanistan versus what is currently going on. And while Bush's support is high, he knows that he doesnt exactly have a blank check from us for the Axis Of Evil Tour 2002. Saddam is almost a no-brainer, but North Korea and Iran? The average American will want a little more than a "trust me" before we send our boys over - because we rememeber Vietnam as much as WW2.
Remember that more than half the people voted for the other guy. There are a lot of us out there (like myself) who believe "the president's an idiot, but we have to do this and I support the action - not the man". Which is why I chafe a bit (a lot, actually) at folks that seem to paint America as this war hungry beast. Given the choice, America much prefers having other countries buying our crap than bombing them away (if only for the idea of repeat customers).
Hitler was a waaaay better speechmaker than George II.
posted by owillis at 7:43 AM on March 18, 2002
I think that's the root of the problem with this. Because WW2 was such a well documented (compared to the past) war it colors everything, then our parents/grandparents tell us what it was like in order for us to not repeat the sins of the past. But the thing is, if you can't see the difference between blowing the holy hell out of the Taliban/Al Qaeda while not targeting the civilian populace and actually sending them food - you need to look closer.
While he/she is much derided (even by me) I dont think the average American is such an evil headed kneejerker as you guys think. People cite our lack of attention to foreign affairs, and while I know it gets more play on their news - I frankly don't think much of the world cares about what goes on in America that doesn't directly affect them. Because we're the big dog on the porch, there's a very real double standard for us I think.
I also think if the average American was as bloodthirsty as you think, one or two nukes would have been lobbed at Afghanistan versus what is currently going on. And while Bush's support is high, he knows that he doesnt exactly have a blank check from us for the Axis Of Evil Tour 2002. Saddam is almost a no-brainer, but North Korea and Iran? The average American will want a little more than a "trust me" before we send our boys over - because we rememeber Vietnam as much as WW2.
Remember that more than half the people voted for the other guy. There are a lot of us out there (like myself) who believe "the president's an idiot, but we have to do this and I support the action - not the man". Which is why I chafe a bit (a lot, actually) at folks that seem to paint America as this war hungry beast. Given the choice, America much prefers having other countries buying our crap than bombing them away (if only for the idea of repeat customers).
Hitler was a waaaay better speechmaker than George II.
posted by owillis at 7:43 AM on March 18, 2002
> What is excessively professing patriotism? ... GO USA!
It may be hard to see what's wrong with American jingoism when you're an American jingo, but the character of jingoism becomes apparent when you just change the country.
Make the jingoism British or Canadian or Russian or Chinese or Portuguese or French or German or any other sort you like. If representatives of another country declare, for example, that your country is either with them or against them, and that they should attack any country (including perhaps yours) that is not one hundred percent with them -- you suddenly realize how dumb and bad jingoism is.
posted by pracowity at 8:07 AM on March 18, 2002
It may be hard to see what's wrong with American jingoism when you're an American jingo, but the character of jingoism becomes apparent when you just change the country.
Make the jingoism British or Canadian or Russian or Chinese or Portuguese or French or German or any other sort you like. If representatives of another country declare, for example, that your country is either with them or against them, and that they should attack any country (including perhaps yours) that is not one hundred percent with them -- you suddenly realize how dumb and bad jingoism is.
posted by pracowity at 8:07 AM on March 18, 2002
owillis, I actually made the "Godwin" comment in a humorous spirit, but the thing is, if you can't see the difference between blowing the hell out of the Taliban/Al Quaeda and "a person who professes his or her patriotism loudly and excessively, favoring vigilant preparedness for war and an aggressive foreign policy" - you need to look closer. No, hang on. Can I come in again?
FWIW I don't think the average American is an "evil headed kneejerker" either, nor do most of us(?) guys. I think, prima facie, that GWB might be one, but I've never had the dubious pleasure of meeting him face to face, so I'll reserve judgement. However, it is possible to be broadly against nationalism whilst thinking that there might not be much option but to have some form of conflict in Afghanistan. And I'm not even very Anti-American ...
posted by walrus at 8:13 AM on March 18, 2002
FWIW I don't think the average American is an "evil headed kneejerker" either, nor do most of us(?) guys. I think, prima facie, that GWB might be one, but I've never had the dubious pleasure of meeting him face to face, so I'll reserve judgement. However, it is possible to be broadly against nationalism whilst thinking that there might not be much option but to have some form of conflict in Afghanistan. And I'm not even very Anti-American ...
posted by walrus at 8:13 AM on March 18, 2002
It may be hard to see what's wrong with American jingoism when you're an American jingo, but the character of jingoism becomes apparent when you just change the country.
But countries are not interchangable.
posted by mw at 8:59 AM on March 18, 2002
But countries are not interchangable.
posted by mw at 8:59 AM on March 18, 2002
rcade, why do you even care, is your sleuthing doing any good? (your not good at it) and dhart...i know 'loopys' like 'me' get ignored but fuck you man, stick to your little sophmore fact book . If you want to have a debate (which i'll thrash you) lets do it baby. on mefi, another room or 'outback'...your choice....not shit - the amnesty is a way for the goons to watch after illegals(from prevoius thread) I dont respond to the loopy remarks cause i am to a degree, but bring-it-on. and a real topic, not some horseshit topic... someone should dump you in new mexico...@##%$%^^&."Hitler was a waaaay better speechmaker than George II." thats about the dumbest thing i ever heard.
posted by clavdivs at 9:12 AM on March 18, 2002
posted by clavdivs at 9:12 AM on March 18, 2002
Make the jingoism British or Canadian or Russian or Chinese or Portuguese or French or German or any other sort you like.
If Britain or Canada or Russia or China or Portugal or France or Germany or any other country were treated as The Great Satan, the ultimate TARGET in one way or another by half the other countries on the planet, I'd be quite happy to hear any of them get the balls to take action and do so very publicly. Of course, all of the countries your mention fall into two categories: 1) Pussies. Canada, Portugal France and Germany are so innocuous, and irrelevant, to the world scene (at least compared to the US) that they have nothing to fear from anybody else. 2) Quiet tigers. If you screw with Russia or China, particularly if you're terrorists, they simply go in and kill you. All of you, until your entire organization has ceased to exist. No news media, possibly not even an admission that it's happening. They just do it. (Oh, and if you think China hasn't been engaged in a top-down plan of intentional indoctrination of jingoism in its citizens since 1989, then you haven't been paying much attention.)
The United States is damned if it does and damned if it doesn't. If it finally says "we're putting an end to terrorism," we're jingoist murderers. If we take our ball and go home, we're arrogant isolationists, leaving the rest of the world to fall apart instead of using our expertise and wealth, AND MILITARY, to maintain and increase the peace in other fucked-up places.
This is why the United States no longer cares what any other countries think.
posted by aaron at 9:56 AM on March 18, 2002
If Britain or Canada or Russia or China or Portugal or France or Germany or any other country were treated as The Great Satan, the ultimate TARGET in one way or another by half the other countries on the planet, I'd be quite happy to hear any of them get the balls to take action and do so very publicly. Of course, all of the countries your mention fall into two categories: 1) Pussies. Canada, Portugal France and Germany are so innocuous, and irrelevant, to the world scene (at least compared to the US) that they have nothing to fear from anybody else. 2) Quiet tigers. If you screw with Russia or China, particularly if you're terrorists, they simply go in and kill you. All of you, until your entire organization has ceased to exist. No news media, possibly not even an admission that it's happening. They just do it. (Oh, and if you think China hasn't been engaged in a top-down plan of intentional indoctrination of jingoism in its citizens since 1989, then you haven't been paying much attention.)
The United States is damned if it does and damned if it doesn't. If it finally says "we're putting an end to terrorism," we're jingoist murderers. If we take our ball and go home, we're arrogant isolationists, leaving the rest of the world to fall apart instead of using our expertise and wealth, AND MILITARY, to maintain and increase the peace in other fucked-up places.
This is why the United States no longer cares what any other countries think.
posted by aaron at 9:56 AM on March 18, 2002
Is there a specific Babelfish filter I should use for this post? I've tried everything. :(
posted by Karl at 10:09 AM on March 18, 2002
posted by Karl at 10:09 AM on March 18, 2002
whoah aaron, i wouldnt call france the p-word. Indeed russia does have a way to deal with terrorists...in the 70's, some islamic group took some russians hostage. The Roosks hunted down the family members of the terrorists, sent thier body parts in the mail to them. the hostages were released. same for the french foreighn legions 'devils brigade' in Indochine circa 1948."This is why the United States no longer cares what any other countries think." BINGO. it seems a carefully crafted moral dilema (sic sp) to categorize our foreghn policy decisions involving military action as either murderous or cowardice. (we played the game too. afgan 1979. cambodia-1979 (though we had little opinion when china invaded vietnam in 79')
posted by clavdivs at 10:36 AM on March 18, 2002
posted by clavdivs at 10:36 AM on March 18, 2002
Although I'm incredibly late to the party, I think this needs to be said. I've said this before and I'll say it again. Methinks that left of center trolls have yet to be banned. Real9 and HHH are gone, based primarily on conservative trolls. F & M, Riviera, and others I don't want to single out, seem to still be around, trolling away.
I think we have a problem. I understand that Riviera has some content to his posts. I also understand that this is the first MeTa thread revolving around his comments. I'm not suggesting a banning. I'm concerned that we're creating a policy that allows for troll-like behavior from the left. I'm concerned that unless a conservative has fully proven his/her point, they are a troll. On the other hand, if we say Bush stole the election, which IS a troll, it's simply okay. No big deal...it's what most people are thinking, right?
I think we have a problem. Or maybe it's me. Maybe I have to understand that MeFi is left of center. Maybe I have to realize that this type of thing is okay because most people want it. I simply dislike that idea that we masquerade as equals. I dislike the idea that conservative opinions are just as welcome as liberal opinions. Because it's not true...
We claim free speech and intelligent conversation. I think the reality is much more complicated. I'm concerned that perhaps free speech is only offered to conservatives when they have something completely intelligent to say. Yet, "Bush is an idiot" or "Ashcroft is Hitler" slithers across the floor with not even a scolding.
The Grand Liberal Conspiracy revisited, eh?
posted by BlueTrain at 11:24 AM on March 18, 2002
I think we have a problem. I understand that Riviera has some content to his posts. I also understand that this is the first MeTa thread revolving around his comments. I'm not suggesting a banning. I'm concerned that we're creating a policy that allows for troll-like behavior from the left. I'm concerned that unless a conservative has fully proven his/her point, they are a troll. On the other hand, if we say Bush stole the election, which IS a troll, it's simply okay. No big deal...it's what most people are thinking, right?
I think we have a problem. Or maybe it's me. Maybe I have to understand that MeFi is left of center. Maybe I have to realize that this type of thing is okay because most people want it. I simply dislike that idea that we masquerade as equals. I dislike the idea that conservative opinions are just as welcome as liberal opinions. Because it's not true...
We claim free speech and intelligent conversation. I think the reality is much more complicated. I'm concerned that perhaps free speech is only offered to conservatives when they have something completely intelligent to say. Yet, "Bush is an idiot" or "Ashcroft is Hitler" slithers across the floor with not even a scolding.
The Grand Liberal Conspiracy revisited, eh?
posted by BlueTrain at 11:24 AM on March 18, 2002
BlueTrain, I've thought the same thing my whole time here, but neither the administration nor many of the site's members wish to answer for what I see as a pretty blatant bit of bias. You are brave to posit such a theory, because you will be flamed to a crispy crisp for even suggesting such a thing. Don't believe me? Watch...
posted by evanizer at 11:40 AM on March 18, 2002
posted by evanizer at 11:40 AM on March 18, 2002
It may be hard to see what's wrong with American jingoism when you're an American jingo, but the character of jingoism becomes apparent when you just change the country.
It may be hard to see what's wrong with liberal bias when you're a liberal, but the bias becomes apparent when you just change your viewpoint.
posted by Mick at 11:47 AM on March 18, 2002
It may be hard to see what's wrong with liberal bias when you're a liberal, but the bias becomes apparent when you just change your viewpoint.
posted by Mick at 11:47 AM on March 18, 2002
Real9 and HHH are gone, based primarily on conservative trolls.
I'm sure Harry Hopkins' Hat, the schmuck who said that [d]eclaring one's self a Republican is essentially announcing "I'm white and relatively well-provided for. I want to keep it that way, and I don't care upon whom I step in the process of preserving the present order of things.", will be pleased to know that he is the target of a liberal conspiracy.
posted by snarkout at 11:47 AM on March 18, 2002
I'm sure Harry Hopkins' Hat, the schmuck who said that [d]eclaring one's self a Republican is essentially announcing "I'm white and relatively well-provided for. I want to keep it that way, and I don't care upon whom I step in the process of preserving the present order of things.", will be pleased to know that he is the target of a liberal conspiracy.
posted by snarkout at 11:47 AM on March 18, 2002
snarkout, you're right...HHH was an incorrect example.
posted by BlueTrain at 12:03 PM on March 18, 2002
posted by BlueTrain at 12:03 PM on March 18, 2002
No kidding. I love hearing how blatantly biased we are against conservatives from people who have been members for two months. Especially in a thread calling a liberal to account for obnoxious behavior. Nice touch, guys.
Hopkins is a great counterexample to the put-upon, poor-mistreated-conservative theory. He's a flaming liberal who got banned for the same reason that most people get banned -- personally antagonistic behavior and an unwillingness to talk about the issue with Matt in e-mail. You don't have to take my word for it, though -- read the thread.
posted by rcade at 12:08 PM on March 18, 2002
Hopkins is a great counterexample to the put-upon, poor-mistreated-conservative theory. He's a flaming liberal who got banned for the same reason that most people get banned -- personally antagonistic behavior and an unwillingness to talk about the issue with Matt in e-mail. You don't have to take my word for it, though -- read the thread.
posted by rcade at 12:08 PM on March 18, 2002
I'm curious rcade, how often do "Bush is stupid" comments go ignored? Now, counter that with "Clinton is stupid" and suddenly you're derailing the thread and asked to go back under your bridge?
This is more than a couple of posters. It's always been about more than that. I firmly believe that conservatives without fully established opinions are thrown to the dogs, while left-of-centers can get away with more rhetoric and fluff, less content comments.
Riviera, upon first arriving, immediately lashed out at dhartung and aaron. Aaron pointed out to me that people who have absolutely no history and immediately make personal attacks are usually trolls.
I love hearing how blatantly biased we are against conservatives from people who have been members for two months.
I'm shocked that you would even bring this up...a pretty cheap shot at the very least, but more like an easy way to insult me while staying within the rules.
posted by BlueTrain at 12:24 PM on March 18, 2002
This is more than a couple of posters. It's always been about more than that. I firmly believe that conservatives without fully established opinions are thrown to the dogs, while left-of-centers can get away with more rhetoric and fluff, less content comments.
Riviera, upon first arriving, immediately lashed out at dhartung and aaron. Aaron pointed out to me that people who have absolutely no history and immediately make personal attacks are usually trolls.
I love hearing how blatantly biased we are against conservatives from people who have been members for two months.
I'm shocked that you would even bring this up...a pretty cheap shot at the very least, but more like an easy way to insult me while staying within the rules.
posted by BlueTrain at 12:24 PM on March 18, 2002
BlueTrain, with help from your own examples, it occurs to me that the most dangerous place to stand around these parts is anywhere near the center. Any strongly held opinion or belief is going to face fire from somebody. Witness the number of times someone's been called out by another that they agree with. The closer you are to center, the more fire you'll draw. So maybe MeFi has an anti-moderate agenda?
It seems far more dangerous labeling certain phrases as "trolling", behind a defense of conservative viewpoint, than to examine an individual's behavior. If someone is behaving as rcade pointed out that riviara was, then its worth while to talk about in the hope that they will change the behavior, not the message. Labelling a phrase, such as "Bush is Stupid" as trolling is nothing more than censorship. If you don't agree, then tell them what they said was idiotic and tell them why. Its the "vicious personal invective" part that lands you in MetaTalk, not whether or not you agree with a particular ideology.
posted by Wulfgar! at 12:46 PM on March 18, 2002
It seems far more dangerous labeling certain phrases as "trolling", behind a defense of conservative viewpoint, than to examine an individual's behavior. If someone is behaving as rcade pointed out that riviara was, then its worth while to talk about in the hope that they will change the behavior, not the message. Labelling a phrase, such as "Bush is Stupid" as trolling is nothing more than censorship. If you don't agree, then tell them what they said was idiotic and tell them why. Its the "vicious personal invective" part that lands you in MetaTalk, not whether or not you agree with a particular ideology.
posted by Wulfgar! at 12:46 PM on March 18, 2002
(The difference, of course, is that we have "Bush is Stupid" threads an average of 1-2 times per day. If any person or group of people starting posting "Bush is Great" threads, or threads on ANY OTHER TOPIC, political or otherwise, at the same rate, this place would explode in vicious anger instantly.)
posted by aaron at 12:51 PM on March 18, 2002
posted by aaron at 12:51 PM on March 18, 2002
The closer you are to center, the more fire you'll draw.
In the real world, I couldn't agree with you more. However, in the world of the 'net, polarized opinions are heard much more often, as can be seen here. Centrist opinions aren't heard too often here, IMHO, because most people are centrists. On the other hand, slightly extreme opinions are thrown around and debated ad nauseum because this is how most people come to their own conclusions. You have to ask for a mile to get an inch, or something like that.
And upon preview, thank you aaron. This is precisely what I'm talking about.
posted by BlueTrain at 1:01 PM on March 18, 2002
In the real world, I couldn't agree with you more. However, in the world of the 'net, polarized opinions are heard much more often, as can be seen here. Centrist opinions aren't heard too often here, IMHO, because most people are centrists. On the other hand, slightly extreme opinions are thrown around and debated ad nauseum because this is how most people come to their own conclusions. You have to ask for a mile to get an inch, or something like that.
And upon preview, thank you aaron. This is precisely what I'm talking about.
posted by BlueTrain at 1:01 PM on March 18, 2002
I'm curious rcade, how often do "Bush is stupid" comments go ignored? Now, counter that with "Clinton is stupid" and suddenly you're derailing the thread and asked to go back under your bridge?
I keep hearing this, but I never hear anything more than someone's gut feeling that "their" side gets treated shabbily. The posts are out there, go do some counting and figure it out. How often *does* Bush-bashing get the implicit OK? How often *do* Clinton-bashers get called trolls? I think this whole complaint has reached the point where the complainers ought to show that there actually is a significant difference, or shrug it off. Most of us do the latter already, and it's only relatively new members or longstanding shit-stirrers that even bother to participate in most of these threads.
Plus there's an element of "nyah nyah, you dissed my president so I get to dis yours" here. The thing is, Bush is president now, so he's relevant to many, many threads, whereas with Clinton, most of the time there's a distinct sense of digging up old grudges (or Drudges) for rhetorical ammunition, even though they may not be strictly relevant.
posted by rodii at 1:03 PM on March 18, 2002
I keep hearing this, but I never hear anything more than someone's gut feeling that "their" side gets treated shabbily. The posts are out there, go do some counting and figure it out. How often *does* Bush-bashing get the implicit OK? How often *do* Clinton-bashers get called trolls? I think this whole complaint has reached the point where the complainers ought to show that there actually is a significant difference, or shrug it off. Most of us do the latter already, and it's only relatively new members or longstanding shit-stirrers that even bother to participate in most of these threads.
Plus there's an element of "nyah nyah, you dissed my president so I get to dis yours" here. The thing is, Bush is president now, so he's relevant to many, many threads, whereas with Clinton, most of the time there's a distinct sense of digging up old grudges (or Drudges) for rhetorical ammunition, even though they may not be strictly relevant.
posted by rodii at 1:03 PM on March 18, 2002
Aaron has a point. But you know, even many people like me, who thinks Bush is, well, stupid, also think that the plethora of threads that are posted just to bash Bush are destructive and wish they'd stop. Just because I have the same thoughts sometimes doesn't mean I wannt to see them dominate the discourse here. So I don't post to them, and I mentally put the posters in my newbie/shit-stirrer list.
I know this has been said a milion times, but 90% of the noise here would simply stop if we banned newsfilter posts. At the very least, a thread should have to be more artful than your generic Bush=chimp story to be acceptable here, and if people would just not take the bait, and instead say "newsfilter story, you suck" and move on, we'd all be better off.
posted by rodii at 1:08 PM on March 18, 2002
I know this has been said a milion times, but 90% of the noise here would simply stop if we banned newsfilter posts. At the very least, a thread should have to be more artful than your generic Bush=chimp story to be acceptable here, and if people would just not take the bait, and instead say "newsfilter story, you suck" and move on, we'd all be better off.
posted by rodii at 1:08 PM on March 18, 2002
I'm shocked that you would even bring this up...a pretty cheap shot at the very least, but more like an easy way to insult me while staying within the rules.
Cheap shot or not, you haven't been here that long, so you ought to spend a little more time gathering evidence before buying into conspiracy theories. Get to know us a little better and then strongly condemn us.
There are really two issues, anyway -- people getting banned and people being dragged off to MetaTalk for a whiny mope session like this one.
It's rare someone gets banned, and I don't think anyone can make a case that it's political. Matt's a pretty soft touch when it comes to booting people. Any of the names you mentioned would probably be back if they had simply faked a little contrition in e-mail and promised to chill out.
Even if they were one of those, shudder, conservatives.
posted by rcade at 1:30 PM on March 18, 2002
Cheap shot or not, you haven't been here that long, so you ought to spend a little more time gathering evidence before buying into conspiracy theories. Get to know us a little better and then strongly condemn us.
There are really two issues, anyway -- people getting banned and people being dragged off to MetaTalk for a whiny mope session like this one.
It's rare someone gets banned, and I don't think anyone can make a case that it's political. Matt's a pretty soft touch when it comes to booting people. Any of the names you mentioned would probably be back if they had simply faked a little contrition in e-mail and promised to chill out.
Even if they were one of those, shudder, conservatives.
posted by rcade at 1:30 PM on March 18, 2002
Evaniser, the U.S may have chunkier tomato sauce but it is still incapable of finding a very well known bearded man with one eye touring around Afghanistan on a motyorcycle.
Nor is it able, despite having in excess of 1300 Taliban and al - Qaida in captivity, to locate one active cell within the U.S, although Tom Ridge (N.Y.Times link) assumes that they exist.
posted by Fat Buddha at 1:42 PM on March 18, 2002
Nor is it able, despite having in excess of 1300 Taliban and al - Qaida in captivity, to locate one active cell within the U.S, although Tom Ridge (N.Y.Times link) assumes that they exist.
posted by Fat Buddha at 1:42 PM on March 18, 2002
I know! Let's take the kind of discussion that pisses everyone off in metafilter and have it here too!
posted by rodii at 2:06 PM on March 18, 2002
posted by rodii at 2:06 PM on March 18, 2002
rodii, if that's a motion not to bring a disingenious and emotionally charged argument from the front page to this thread, where it absolutely doesn't belong, then I second the motion.
posted by Wulfgar! at 2:12 PM on March 18, 2002
posted by Wulfgar! at 2:12 PM on March 18, 2002
StWC - Now holding at 5 posts written and withdrawn.
I will say, though, walrus : I got yer back, brother. I'm not very Anti-American either. But these are dangerous times.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 2:44 PM on March 18, 2002
I will say, though, walrus : I got yer back, brother. I'm not very Anti-American either. But these are dangerous times.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 2:44 PM on March 18, 2002
"Evaniser, the U.S may have chunkier tomato sauce but it is still incapable of finding a very well known bearded man with one eye touring around Afghanistan on a motyorcycle..."
Who's evaniser? And anyway, that describes 98.3% of the Afghan population. Hell, that describes me except for the one eye part. And I'm not in Afghanistan. But still.
Anyway fellas, points all taken. I do still contend that Chomskying up the place is tolerated a wee bit more than other points of view, but it's not really that bad. I just chalk it up to immaturity when I see X-RTEME posts by some of the resident flame warriors, be they leftists or otherwise.
posted by evanizer at 3:07 PM on March 18, 2002
Who's evaniser? And anyway, that describes 98.3% of the Afghan population. Hell, that describes me except for the one eye part. And I'm not in Afghanistan. But still.
Anyway fellas, points all taken. I do still contend that Chomskying up the place is tolerated a wee bit more than other points of view, but it's not really that bad. I just chalk it up to immaturity when I see X-RTEME posts by some of the resident flame warriors, be they leftists or otherwise.
posted by evanizer at 3:07 PM on March 18, 2002
Centrist opinions aren't heard too often here, IMHO, because most people are centrists.
The question here is how many people here would know the difference? I've been taken to task for my liberal leanings, and slammed for my obviously conservative (jingoist) viewpoints. owillis has been titled as one of Metafilter's token conservative voices (say what?). I'm a centrist, and think Bush is an idiot, Cheney is a thief and a liar, I believe that eating meat is okay, and I believe that the American flag (any American flag) is worth the respect of Americans. For these simple (if strongly held positions) I've been nailed by both sides of the aisle. I stand by my belief that real9 was a jerk, and f_and_m was trolling (for a while). I agree with rodii here, ignore the stupid, call the opposition on their position, and don't worry about the conspiracies, until someone tries to silence you. Censorship in a group that values freedom is wrong, either from the left or the right.
For what it's worth, I do find a strong left of center voice on Metafilter; but I have seen no evidence of such leanings in mathowie's administration, nor do I believe that the Chomskyites have been given free riegn of the place. There is no Liberal Conspiracy, or anti-conservative cabal here. If there has been a failing, it is when moderates or centrists (such as myself) have failed to adequately bear defense of something that we agree with but don't find worth issue, yet a more conservative individual might. This is something I pledge to work on.
posted by Wulfgar! at 3:42 PM on March 18, 2002
The question here is how many people here would know the difference? I've been taken to task for my liberal leanings, and slammed for my obviously conservative (jingoist) viewpoints. owillis has been titled as one of Metafilter's token conservative voices (say what?). I'm a centrist, and think Bush is an idiot, Cheney is a thief and a liar, I believe that eating meat is okay, and I believe that the American flag (any American flag) is worth the respect of Americans. For these simple (if strongly held positions) I've been nailed by both sides of the aisle. I stand by my belief that real9 was a jerk, and f_and_m was trolling (for a while). I agree with rodii here, ignore the stupid, call the opposition on their position, and don't worry about the conspiracies, until someone tries to silence you. Censorship in a group that values freedom is wrong, either from the left or the right.
For what it's worth, I do find a strong left of center voice on Metafilter; but I have seen no evidence of such leanings in mathowie's administration, nor do I believe that the Chomskyites have been given free riegn of the place. There is no Liberal Conspiracy, or anti-conservative cabal here. If there has been a failing, it is when moderates or centrists (such as myself) have failed to adequately bear defense of something that we agree with but don't find worth issue, yet a more conservative individual might. This is something I pledge to work on.
posted by Wulfgar! at 3:42 PM on March 18, 2002
dhartung: Word.
(Short enough for ya y2karl? Thanks, by the way, for a nice cheap shot in a thread I didn't appear to be reading. I'll be sure to return the favor).
posted by MidasMulligan at 7:38 PM on March 18, 2002
(Short enough for ya y2karl? Thanks, by the way, for a nice cheap shot in a thread I didn't appear to be reading. I'll be sure to return the favor).
posted by MidasMulligan at 7:38 PM on March 18, 2002
Don't preach compassion to me asshole, I don't pretend, nor speak in your flowery words - but I've created more jobs for people that support families, and contributed in taxes to more welfare checks than a dozen of your sort wrapped into a little self-righteous ball.
Of course, MidasMoses, when it comes to cheap shots, you're the King pro tem.
posted by y2karl at 12:12 AM on March 19, 2002
Of course, MidasMoses, when it comes to cheap shots, you're the King pro tem.
posted by y2karl at 12:12 AM on March 19, 2002
dong_resin: apology accepted on behalf of Matt Welch. I do need to get my site back online: consider it an active defense against pigeonholing of warblogs. Perhaps that will make me more concise here, if that's your poison. But probably not. Jeez, I only post on 15% or so of threads, it can't be that much of an imposition.
danOstuporstar: thanks!
posted by dhartung at 1:30 AM on March 19, 2002
danOstuporstar: thanks!
posted by dhartung at 1:30 AM on March 19, 2002
y2karl: Give it a rest. We've already figured out you don't like the guy.
posted by rcade at 5:11 AM on March 19, 2002
posted by rcade at 5:11 AM on March 19, 2002
I will say, though, walrus : I got yer back, brother. I'm not very Anti-American either. But these are dangerous times.
Certainly dangerous enough that I should have encased that entire post in irony tags, and then dropped it into a lead-lined box for safe-keeping. I have nothing against Americans. Some of my best friends are Americans. No, what am I saying? Think I'll just back away from the thread now, and hope that nobody important noticed.
posted by walrus at 5:38 AM on March 19, 2002
Certainly dangerous enough that I should have encased that entire post in irony tags, and then dropped it into a lead-lined box for safe-keeping. I have nothing against Americans. Some of my best friends are Americans. No, what am I saying? Think I'll just back away from the thread now, and hope that nobody important noticed.
posted by walrus at 5:38 AM on March 19, 2002
Your comments have been noted and forwarded to the appropriate authorities. We suggest you don't leave town.
posted by rodii at 6:06 AM on March 19, 2002
posted by rodii at 6:06 AM on March 19, 2002
Oh, I wasn't apologizing to you, dhartung.
I didn't want to misrepresent Matt Welch , or warblogs in general, or myself, to wherever these comments may turn up in the future. Your personal offense is, at worst, mildly amusing for me.
I call myself dong_resin with a purpose, y' know. Take my comments with a big grain of salt.
We're not fighting cancer, here.
posted by dong_resin at 8:18 AM on March 19, 2002
I didn't want to misrepresent Matt Welch , or warblogs in general, or myself, to wherever these comments may turn up in the future. Your personal offense is, at worst, mildly amusing for me.
I call myself dong_resin with a purpose, y' know. Take my comments with a big grain of salt.
We're not fighting cancer, here.
posted by dong_resin at 8:18 AM on March 19, 2002
Of course, MidasMoses, when it comes to cheap shots, you're the King pro tem.
I don't know buddy, I think starting, and then continuing, a string of cheap personal shots on a MetaTalk thread about cheap personal shots pretty much gets you that crown.
posted by MidasMulligan at 11:04 AM on March 19, 2002
I don't know buddy, I think starting, and then continuing, a string of cheap personal shots on a MetaTalk thread about cheap personal shots pretty much gets you that crown.
posted by MidasMulligan at 11:04 AM on March 19, 2002
(steals crown) with all that tax money you produce midas, i think you can go purchase another.
posted by clavdivs at 11:22 AM on March 19, 2002
posted by clavdivs at 11:22 AM on March 19, 2002
Y2Karl and MidasMulligan have their own comic, ya know.
posted by jonmc at 11:23 AM on March 19, 2002
posted by jonmc at 11:23 AM on March 19, 2002
As an aside - I rarely start anything personal. It is ideas that are far more fun. If someone gets personal with me first, however (as in this thread, where Y2 grabbed my name out of the blue), it's a blast to turn a mirror on them ... following from that - under the "things look a tad different in context" department - the entire post of which Y2K quotes but a part is below:
" ... Why? Because Midas does not like other people. His writing is rife with this loathing of "the masses", of the common man of which- god forbid- he ever be confused. His opinion won't be changed, nor ours by his, through appeals to compassion because of this fundamental difference at heart. At some point, for some reason, he made a decision to see himself as apart from humanity because of its flaws, while the rest of us seem to have embraced the cause of humanity in spite of their flaws- and our own..."
Oh, you poor, confused little boy. "tis not my writing, but yours that is filled with "loathing" of the "masses". I don't see masses. I see individuals. The "compassion" you pretend to have apparently falls apart into something approaching violent language when someone even mildly disagrees with you. Apparently deciding that you can't answer the arguments - you've instead tried to pull a nearly classic demonization (it's "us" compassionate ones vs. "Midas") ... this then, is your view of compassion?
So far as "embracing" humanity. I've started three companies, now do strategy for a fourth - started a foundation and serve on the board of another. I have directly provided jobs - i.e., incomes - for over 1,200 people during the course of my life, and indirectly for many more.
Don't preach compassion to me asshole, I don't pretend, nor speak in your flowery words - but I've created more jobs for people that support families, and contributed in taxes to more welfare checks than a dozen of your sort wrapped into a little self-righteous ball.
People don't eat your pious sentiments. They can eat the food I've helped them earn for their tables.
I can understand why you hate Ayn Rand, she called bullshit on two thirds of what you are.
posted by MidasMulligan at 12:13 PM on March 19, 2002
" ... Why? Because Midas does not like other people. His writing is rife with this loathing of "the masses", of the common man of which- god forbid- he ever be confused. His opinion won't be changed, nor ours by his, through appeals to compassion because of this fundamental difference at heart. At some point, for some reason, he made a decision to see himself as apart from humanity because of its flaws, while the rest of us seem to have embraced the cause of humanity in spite of their flaws- and our own..."
Oh, you poor, confused little boy. "tis not my writing, but yours that is filled with "loathing" of the "masses". I don't see masses. I see individuals. The "compassion" you pretend to have apparently falls apart into something approaching violent language when someone even mildly disagrees with you. Apparently deciding that you can't answer the arguments - you've instead tried to pull a nearly classic demonization (it's "us" compassionate ones vs. "Midas") ... this then, is your view of compassion?
So far as "embracing" humanity. I've started three companies, now do strategy for a fourth - started a foundation and serve on the board of another. I have directly provided jobs - i.e., incomes - for over 1,200 people during the course of my life, and indirectly for many more.
Don't preach compassion to me asshole, I don't pretend, nor speak in your flowery words - but I've created more jobs for people that support families, and contributed in taxes to more welfare checks than a dozen of your sort wrapped into a little self-righteous ball.
People don't eat your pious sentiments. They can eat the food I've helped them earn for their tables.
I can understand why you hate Ayn Rand, she called bullshit on two thirds of what you are.
posted by MidasMulligan at 12:13 PM on March 19, 2002
*Interrupts fight to cure cancer to briefly wish for the death of this thread*
posted by Skot at 12:35 PM on March 19, 2002
posted by Skot at 12:35 PM on March 19, 2002
As an aside - I rarely start anything personal. It is ideas that are far more fun. If someone gets personal with me first, however ...
I love it when grown-ups use "he started it!" as an excuse. But we really should call this thread to a close. I have a feeling we need to make space for a flood of people showing up to talk about the 740-pound woman thread.
posted by rcade at 1:13 PM on March 19, 2002
I love it when grown-ups use "he started it!" as an excuse. But we really should call this thread to a close. I have a feeling we need to make space for a flood of people showing up to talk about the 740-pound woman thread.
posted by rcade at 1:13 PM on March 19, 2002
I love it when grown-ups use "he started it!" as an excuse.
I'm sorry if I gave you the mistaken impression that I was making an "excuse". Merely letting a few around know that I won't come after them first - but also will respond over and over - in kind - to their shots. (And I kind of like it when adults try to take a final little hit, then quickly say "okay game's over now, no more talking").
Myself, I'm starting to get slightly puzzled by people calling for the end of the thread - and by the act of calling for it, keeping it alive.
posted by MidasMulligan at 7:26 PM on March 19, 2002
I'm sorry if I gave you the mistaken impression that I was making an "excuse". Merely letting a few around know that I won't come after them first - but also will respond over and over - in kind - to their shots. (And I kind of like it when adults try to take a final little hit, then quickly say "okay game's over now, no more talking").
Myself, I'm starting to get slightly puzzled by people calling for the end of the thread - and by the act of calling for it, keeping it alive.
posted by MidasMulligan at 7:26 PM on March 19, 2002
*whistles*
I claim this thread and all its riches for me and my heirs.
posted by rodii at 8:29 PM on March 19, 2002
I claim this thread and all its riches for me and my heirs.
posted by rodii at 8:29 PM on March 19, 2002
Aol Troll Academy. I like that.
posted by ParisParamus at 8:42 PM on March 19, 2002
posted by ParisParamus at 8:42 PM on March 19, 2002
> I have directly provided jobs - i.e., incomes - for over
> 1,200 people during the course of my life, and indirectly
> for many more.
Translated from Randspeak: you have used the toil of 1,200 people to make yourself rich.
Those people worked for their incomes; they were not given money by you. And they would have worked somewhere else if they hadn't worked for you. People found jobs before you came along and they'll continue to find jobs when you're dead, just as if you were never here.
posted by pracowity at 11:00 PM on March 19, 2002
> 1,200 people during the course of my life, and indirectly
> for many more.
Translated from Randspeak: you have used the toil of 1,200 people to make yourself rich.
Those people worked for their incomes; they were not given money by you. And they would have worked somewhere else if they hadn't worked for you. People found jobs before you came along and they'll continue to find jobs when you're dead, just as if you were never here.
posted by pracowity at 11:00 PM on March 19, 2002
Merely letting a few around know that I won't come after them first - but also will respond over and over - in kind - to their shots.
Gotcha. You really have a talent for making Internet flamewars sound like the Battle of Normandy. It's almost dignified.
posted by rcade at 5:35 AM on March 20, 2002
Gotcha. You really have a talent for making Internet flamewars sound like the Battle of Normandy. It's almost dignified.
posted by rcade at 5:35 AM on March 20, 2002
Since Midas is too busy at 1:35 PM generating wealth so the rest of us can continue to eat, here's a quote about "surplus value" which he won't notice.
"The simplest way to explain the actual process of capitalist exploitation is to examine the working day. Before capitalists can get any profit, one of the components of surplus value, they must recover the price they have agreed to pay the workers for a day's labor power. Therefore, workers spend the first part of the working day producing values equal to their wages. To this part of the working day, Marx gave the name necessary labor time.
But workers don't stop when they have produced the value of their labor power. They continue to work for five, six or seven hours longer, until they have delivered the full eight hours of labor to their capitalist employer. It is during this part of the working day that workers produce surplus value. To this second part of the day, Marx gave the name surplus labor time."
posted by sheauga at 10:29 AM on March 20, 2002
"The simplest way to explain the actual process of capitalist exploitation is to examine the working day. Before capitalists can get any profit, one of the components of surplus value, they must recover the price they have agreed to pay the workers for a day's labor power. Therefore, workers spend the first part of the working day producing values equal to their wages. To this part of the working day, Marx gave the name necessary labor time.
But workers don't stop when they have produced the value of their labor power. They continue to work for five, six or seven hours longer, until they have delivered the full eight hours of labor to their capitalist employer. It is during this part of the working day that workers produce surplus value. To this second part of the day, Marx gave the name surplus labor time."
posted by sheauga at 10:29 AM on March 20, 2002
Damn, I feel like a pale shadow of the great prophet Zarquon. It's almost impolite for me to break into this. (But not. MiguelCardoso, thanks for the URL. Sorry for not getting to it sooner. I only backtracked to that story today.)
I'm guessing that MetaTalk is where you all get to play at being good cop. Some better than others. Apart from MidasMulligan, who is a pompous twat.
But I'm obviously better at boiling down wire reports than responding to them. Just shows that the swagger goes with the turf.
posted by riviera at 6:18 PM on March 21, 2002
I'm guessing that MetaTalk is where you all get to play at being good cop. Some better than others. Apart from MidasMulligan, who is a pompous twat.
But I'm obviously better at boiling down wire reports than responding to them. Just shows that the swagger goes with the turf.
posted by riviera at 6:18 PM on March 21, 2002
I hate the 'workers'. I hate the 'masses'. And I hate twats who swagger. All your base are belong to me! Pancakes! Kitties! Ponies! Zippity BOP™
With those magic words, the thread is officially over. Goodnight everybody and enjoy the buffet.
posted by evanizer at 3:47 AM on March 22, 2002
With those magic words, the thread is officially over. Goodnight everybody and enjoy the buffet.
posted by evanizer at 3:47 AM on March 22, 2002
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
Riviera: You seem like one of the more interesting people to show up lately, but you ought to curb your enthusiasm for personal attacks.
Maybe you think that's the vibe of the place, since you're not alone in finding ways to make a point by lunging at someone's jugular. However, one of the things that has distinguished MetaFilter from other places on the Internet is that dissenting opinions are generally afforded some respect.
You can doubtlessly find examples where that hasn't happened. But nothing causes a discussion to empty out faster than a couple of master debaters taking personal shots at each other.
posted by rcade at 7:07 AM on March 16, 2002