Stay out of the news, Dammit! December 4, 2011 10:55 PM   Subscribe

How many Occupy posts is too many? The Mods deleted this one and that one within minutes.
posted by twoleftfeet to Etiquette/Policy at 10:55 PM (207 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite

The diversity one has a little bit of an editorializing problem, "I find myself forced to admit that this is a problem. How important a problem is it? Can I, as a white, cisgendered male even answer that question legitimately? Perhaps not, but I decided to at least read more articles about it."

The other should probably wait until there is some actual news on the shutdown accomplishing anything.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 10:58 PM on December 4, 2011 [1 favorite]


And we deleted them each for somewhat different reasons. I think Net Prophet's post could be fine actually with a little more tweaking to make it not read like a personal blog post like this go did.

That said, what we've been saying for a while now is that roughly speaking the number of Occupy posts we've been getting is too many, and we're going to keep trimming them accordingly. It'd be great if people could make a little more effort to embrace the idea of finding open threads and supplementing them, since that's pretty much standard operating procedure here, but of course we're dealing with the challenge of having a lot of different people contributing this stuff and not all of them are paying attention to Metatalk.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:59 PM on December 4, 2011


There are currently, 15 open threads tagged "Occupy." I think that's plenty.
posted by decathecting at 11:01 PM on December 4, 2011 [17 favorites]


I agree the shutdown one belonged in a comment in an existing thread, but I thought the diversity one (despite some editorializing and framing which I thought was not so great) had a chance of being a decent thread. Net Prophet, I hope you give that one another try.
posted by hattifattener at 11:01 PM on December 4, 2011 [1 favorite]


I'm not trying to blame anyone here, but I'm pretty sure that Cortex often dines on caviar and champagne with Taz and Jessamyn, laughing at the plight of the hapless fools who try to express themselves.

Caviar and champagne. That's where your $5 is going folks. Caviar and champagne.
posted by twoleftfeet at 11:10 PM on December 4, 2011 [13 favorites]


On most even fairly hot topics the proponents generally seem to acknowledge that it's not the case that everyone owes you their ceaseless attention. For OWS that appears to be something of a problem.

Maybe one should settle with trying to make a case for why others might want to continue to follow your debate by their own choice.
posted by Anything at 11:12 PM on December 4, 2011


There's also this Occupy-related MeTa from just two days ago, just a few posts below this. I'd say this alone serves as a red flag that we're pretty Occupy-saturated. I'm happy about the deletions. If you disagree, hey, I can respect that—but I'd suggest that a new Occupy post would probably have a better chance at surviving if it comes with an evident answer why it needs to be an FPP of its own and cannot fit comfortably in any of the existing, ongoing threads.
posted by red clover at 11:15 PM on December 4, 2011


I'm happy with the deletions, OWS has outstripped Wikileaks as a major source of posts and I think we're more than adequately serviced with the current open roster.

Caviar and champagne? Used to be doughnuts.
posted by arcticseal at 11:33 PM on December 4, 2011 [1 favorite]


I understand the push to write in an objective style, but I'm not sure it makes sense when discussing race/racism. How I identify, white male, unavoidably influences how I see the issues.

Jesamyn wanted me to make the thread say more than "Go read Racialicious". So I tried to make it about my own attempt, from my particular standpoint, to understand the issue.

If neither of those is acceptable, how should I frame it? I could write an academic-type essay, with a thesis and such, but it wouldn't make great reading. I'm open to other suggestions.
posted by Net Prophet at 11:37 PM on December 4, 2011 [1 favorite]


Net Prophet, that post would actually be fine without the personal remarks. That bit could just be deleted and pretty much run as is.
posted by taz (staff) at 11:46 PM on December 4, 2011 [1 favorite]


Try and write a Mefi post like you would a news report in a newspaper, how you see the issue is not relevant, the information you are providing is.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 11:48 PM on December 4, 2011 [4 favorites]


"I find myself forced to admit that this is a problem. How important a problem is it? Can I, as a white, cisgendered male even answer that question legitimately? Perhaps not, but I decided to at least read more articles about it."

Make it more: "Here are some perspectives from various authors on the importance of these issues:"
posted by furiousxgeorge at 11:50 PM on December 4, 2011


So is there any purpose this thread can serve? Two threads that were clear-cut deletions, even without a wider OWS reason. And you're already at the Cracking Jokes stage of the thread after four comments. Why did you open this thread?
posted by knave at 12:02 AM on December 5, 2011 [1 favorite]


They give out caviar as party favors these days* :
Arkady had a new neighbor across the hall, a young woman who was out all hours and sometimes needed help finding her latchkey in her voluminous bag. A journalist young enough to burn the candle at both ends. One night she showed up at his door with a black eye and a boyfriend in hot pursuit. The light on the landing was out, as usual, and Arkady did not get a good look at his face. However, the man could see Arkady in the open doorway, gun in hand, and vanished down the stairs in bounds.
  "I'm fine. It was nothing," Anya said. "Really, thank you so much, you're the hero of the hour. I must look a mess."
  "Who was it?"
  "A friend."
  "That was a friend?"
  "Yes."
  "Are you going to report this to the militia?"
  "The militia? You must be kidding. Oh, you must be the investigator in the building. I heard about you," she said. "I take back any insinuation about the honesty and integrity of our brave men in their battle against the criminal element in our society."
  He heard her whooping and laughing as soon as she was in her apartment.

The following night she knocked on Arkady's door and saw the bottle and plates of his birthday celebration scattered around the living room.
  "A party?"
  "It wasn't the Sack of Rome, just a few friends."
  "Next time let me know." From her bag she gave him two tins of Osetra caviar, 125 grams each, together worth almost a thousand dollars.
  "I can't."
  "We're even. I get these all the time and I hate caviar. Where's the woman who lived here?"
  "She left."
  "Are you sure you didn't chop her into small pieces and mail her around the country? Just joking. You scared the shit out of my friend. Served him right."
  Her name was Anya Rudikova. Oddly enough, he saw her a week later on television, black eye and all, discussing violence in film with the objectivity of a sociologist.

  —Three Stations, Martin Cruz Smith
...so, you know, if you see someone drinking champagne and eating caviar, it might be a low-paid, long-suffering civil servant with a deeply Russian sense of ironic humor. Or cortex.

* Okay, fine. They're given out as party favors at parties thrown by Russian oligarchs to beautiful and painfully hip women. Not website moderators. But, really, there's not much difference. Have you seen jessamyn and taz? Wait, does that count as sycophancy? Shit, here comes crunchland...
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 12:03 AM on December 5, 2011 [2 favorites]


painfully hip

Well, you're half right!
posted by taz (staff) at 12:11 AM on December 5, 2011


you're already at the Cracking Jokes stage of the thread after four comments. Why did you open this thread?

I'm offended by your crude put-down. If people want to bitch about the fact that effective incomes for most of us have been declining while effective incomes for a very small minority have been increasing, if people want to complain that our representatives aren't representing us so much as representing corporate interests, if ordinary citizens increasingly feel that something is going wrong, and they want to talk about it, then who are you to say that talking about it shouldn't happen?

What, because we had that post already?
posted by twoleftfeet at 12:12 AM on December 5, 2011


Yes.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 12:17 AM on December 5, 2011 [20 favorites]


who are you to say that talking about it shouldn't happen?

Well me, I'm nobody. But MetaFilter does have guidelines and those posts didn't stick to them. "If people want to bitch... if people want to complain..." they should get their own blogs.
posted by knave at 12:20 AM on December 5, 2011


Aren't the mods on record as saying that you can mail them your proposed FPP for review and advice before you post it if you're unsure on how to phrase it?
posted by arcticseal at 12:21 AM on December 5, 2011


twoleftfeet, Metafilter is not the Occupy blog. It's not a news site and it's certainly not the place to post every bit of OWS news. That we have some Occupy posts does not mean there's a mandate that we must allow all of them. What you want is a completely different site, because it doesn't resemble Metafilter at all.
posted by taz (staff) at 12:23 AM on December 5, 2011 [5 favorites]


Let's all just relax and enjoy this video of a a dwarf kitten.
posted by twoleftfeet at 12:26 AM on December 5, 2011


`Make it more: "Here are some perspectives from various authors on the importance of these issues:"'

It sounds quite random to me. Various quotes selected from various authors. Who made the selections, and for what purpose? It doesn't matter.

Thanks though. I'll think it over.
posted by Net Prophet at 12:30 AM on December 5, 2011


How many Occupy posts is too many?

I'll go with "none" if they're not about interesting sites people found on the web.

(disclaimer: I'm sitting in the Narita Admiral's club and am probably being subconsciously influenced by multiple 1%-ers)
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 12:48 AM on December 5, 2011 [3 favorites]


I'm offended by your crude put-down.

and

Let's all just relax and enjoy this video of a a dwarf kitten .

Christ, you're awfully goddamn flippant, talking about income disparity in one breath, and then posting about cats or whatever. And opening a MetaTalk thread on a Sunday evening, to boot.

Awfully hard to take you seriously.
posted by KokuRyu at 12:50 AM on December 5, 2011 [7 favorites]


`I'll go with "none" if they're not about interesting sites people found on the web.'

The crux seems to be defining "interesting". It's no problem if you're posting a link to a kitten playing baseball, or shots of last weeks exhibition at the Louvre, or an exploding toilet. That stuff is innately fascinating. But a blog about racism... what sort of impact does that really have on anyone's life?
posted by Net Prophet at 1:01 AM on December 5, 2011


Part of the utility of "interesting" as a metric is that it's different from "important." Generally speaking, if you believe your FPP is important—sometimes even if it's "interesting"—then it's not a great fit for MetaFilter. You're right that "interesting" can be squishy to unpack if you focus on the word itself, but part of why it's a useful word in this context is its contrast against other words that could have been used.
posted by red clover at 1:14 AM on December 5, 2011 [1 favorite]


Net Prophet, your post can still run – without the personal editorial commenting. We've said that twice. Your post is interesting, but we discourage people from posting in a first-person "here's what I think about things" way. The job of the poster is to bring something interesting to our attention, not to let us know their personal thoughts about it.

The diversity question is a much better post for Metafilter than "here's some news of the moment that you can find on any news site," so I think you should give it one more shot. And arcticseal is right; anyone can float a post by us first to get an idea if there is any problem.
posted by taz (staff) at 1:24 AM on December 5, 2011 [1 favorite]


The golden MeFi posting rule:

If your post is good, you don't need to tell us that it is, what to think about it, or why you like it. A good post stands on its own and generates its own discussion.

If it needs editorializing, it isn't a good post. Full stop. No exceptions.
posted by Mikey-San at 1:27 AM on December 5, 2011 [3 favorites]


But a blog about racism... what sort of impact does that really have on anyone's life?

I've been here awhile. I can tell you that the motivation to impact upon others' lives is almost always never the making of a good post for Metafilter. Does your post invite and share something cool? Or does it compel and instruct? The balance of friendliness and authoritarianism puts most activist posts in the unfriendly, bossy class, and they are rarely enjoyable, as a result.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:27 AM on December 5, 2011 [1 favorite]


How many MetaTalk posts of people complaining about Occupy deletions is too many?
posted by lwb at 1:32 AM on December 5, 2011 [3 favorites]


You'll have a site where ostensibly people make posts about things that interest them, but if lots of people are interested in one thing, then moderators will step in and correct the situation, because we want a nice balance of things. So we can be sure that if anything really serious happens, it will be fair and balanced with things that aren't serious, because that's what "fair and balanced" means, and that's what's best for everybody.
posted by twoleftfeet at 1:49 AM on December 5, 2011



Gator's RULE OF THUMB
This is cool; other people will want to see it == Good post
This is important; I want other people to see it == Bad post
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 1:55 AM on December 5, 2011 [20 favorites]


How many MetaTalk posts of people complaining about Occupy deletions is too many?

#occupytheblue
posted by Mikey-San at 2:01 AM on December 5, 2011


So you opened a MeTa without any real substance to ask a question that basically had been answered by the mods two days ago in MeTa just below. You've been jokey and you've been snide but you haven't really engaged in conversation even though others have tried to address your complaint, and it seems like you just kinda want to bitch rather than actually discuss. That's not what MeTa is for, just like "YOU MUST KNOW THIS" isn't what MeFi is for. It doesn't seem like you really get the site, which is odd 'cause you've been here awhile.
posted by red clover at 2:06 AM on December 5, 2011 [3 favorites]


So you opened a MeTa without any real substance to ask a question that basically had been answered by the mods two days ago in MeTa just below.

You have a valid point. I hadn't noticed the previous MeTa because I seldom visit this part of the site. I associate MetaTalk with people who are absolutely certain that they know what MeTa is for, and with people who are outraged because, damn it all, I should have known what the site is for and I didn't so why the Hell did I bother to even bring it up?

The deleted sites weren't mine. It's an absolute coincidence that more than one of us is complaining when OWS posts are deleted.
posted by twoleftfeet at 2:14 AM on December 5, 2011


By the way, this is nothing compared to the shitstorm we will see in 2012, as the election draws near.

I pity the Mods.
posted by twoleftfeet at 2:18 AM on December 5, 2011


"This is cool; other people will want to see it == Good post
This is important; I want other people to see it == Bad post"

Hm. I was more in the category
this is bothering me; I want to know what other people think about it.

The thread seemed to be working for that. People were telling me what they thought. But I really can't make racism into a "cool" topic, and I'm not sure I should write about it "objectively" either. So maybe it's out of place here.
posted by Net Prophet at 2:20 AM on December 5, 2011 [1 favorite]


I'm convinced that the large number of OWS deletions are part of a complex meta-joke by cortex where, after deleting 99 out of every 100 occupy posts, he can make a single line quip about the 1%.

Bravo cortex. All must fall before the meta-commentary.
posted by seanyboy at 2:20 AM on December 5, 2011 [4 favorites]


Net Prophet, I'm not sure if you noticed this comment, or this, or this? At this point it's beginning to look like you just won't take "yes" for an answer. :)

For the record, and for the last time, just edit out the personal commentary, and you're good to go.

Twoleftfeet, if you did actually look at the Metatalk post below, you'd see that the post Daniel Charms was complaining about being deleted was already being covered, and he was pretty funny about admitting that he was mistaken.
posted by taz (staff) at 2:33 AM on December 5, 2011 [1 favorite]


It's strange, but sometimes it's worth making a post that will be deleted, or in defending a deleted post somebody else made.

There is some value in trying to stick up for what you believe is right, even when you're wrong.
posted by twoleftfeet at 2:48 AM on December 5, 2011


NetProphet, basically your post is a short article about racial diversity and OWS, with links. MeFi posts tend to be links plus a short explanation of what they're about. Basically it was deleted for not following the unwritten MeFi style manual. Take a look at previous OWS posts and see how they're done. Save (most of) the discussion and commentary for the thread. You'll be fine.

I don't think the "This is important; I want other people to see it == Bad post" commentary applies to your post at all. You linked to some discussions of an issue a lot of people are interested in; this falls into the "other people will want to see it" category. So please redo it. Just make it shorter (but keep the links).
posted by nangar at 2:59 AM on December 5, 2011 [2 favorites]


You'll have a site where ostensibly people make posts about things that interest them, but if lots of people are interested in one thing, then moderators will step in and correct the situation, because we want a nice balance of things. So we can be sure that if anything really serious happens, it will be fair and balanced with things that aren't serious, because that's what "fair and balanced" means, and that's what's best for everybody.

I've been giving this problem some thought since the meta I posted about that deleted OWS thread the other day. The problem here seems to be the ambiguity of the words 'interest'. People can be 'interested' in things for very different reasons. On one hand, it could be something that draws their attention or arouses their curiosity because it's novel to them. On the other hand, it could be something they have a vested interest in: it's not about learning new things about a particular subject but more about confirming what they already know.

If you look at posts made to Mefi, it seems reasonable to assume that hot news topics tend to attract more vested interest than general curiosity (even if the authors of these posts don't see it that way). In many cases, however, these posts can and will be construed as born out of general interest: while you may have a vested interest in the subject, it doesn't mean others might not find it interesting for completely different reasons. This is what "fair and balanced" means in this context: giving people the benefit of doubt and not assuming they have a vested interest in a subject, unless it's screaming obvious. If, however, the number of posts about one single subject (like OWS, elections, Steve Jobs etc) reaches a certain threshold, the tolerance towards these posts tends to decrease and they will get deleted more often because both the moderators and other members will be more easily ready to assume vested interest on the poster's part.

With a bit of effort, I think it could be possible to establish what that threshold has been for other similarly hot topics and quantify the readiness to assume vested interest by counting the flags on deleted posts (if such records exist, that is). Unfortunately, past behaviour isn't a good token of future behaviour, so this wouldn't still get us any closer to answering the question you posed at the start of this thread.
posted by daniel_charms at 3:02 AM on December 5, 2011


Hm. I was more in the category
this is bothering me; I want to know what other people think about it.


Posting stuff that bothers you so can find out what other people think about it is not what Metafilter is for. It just doesn't scale.

AskMe if where you want to go, if you have a specific question.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 3:29 AM on December 5, 2011


Fundamentally, if there is an open OWS thread, there doesn't need to be another FPP.

For me, for example, I'm interested in the Fukushima nuclear disaster. Every few days something new comes to light, such as the fact that original radiation readings were inaccurate, etc. Instead of creating a new thread, I generally post in an existing thread. If the most recent thread is closed to new comments, I create a new post - making sure that it is relevant and contains enough new and noteworthy information.

Why does OWS have to be special?
posted by KokuRyu at 3:30 AM on December 5, 2011 [1 favorite]


BECAUSE IT'S VERY IMPORTANT AND YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT IT.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 3:35 AM on December 5, 2011


We've had... a few Metatalk threads in the 11 years that I've been here about what constitutes a good post.

It's always fun to go through it again -- you know, for the benefit of our newer users who missed the 340 times we've done it before, and because it actually does serve a useful purpose by keeping the ongoing conversation about what's best for the site alive -- but I kind of wish someone with more energy and time than me would put together a kind of 'Metafilter Primer' with links to the last 20 or so MeTa threads we've had about all The Important Metafilter Topics.

The truth is, of course, that what has constituted acceptability has changed an awful lot, especially in the last, say, 5 years maybe, and news of the day threads which were routinely considered inappropriate for the Blue way back in the yonder times are now routine.

I don't say that's a good or a bad thing in and of itself (though I have both an asshole and an opinion, of course), but I note it because I have also noted that the conversation has moved on from 'should news of the day be allowed on the front page at all' to 'how many posts on a given news of the day topic are reasonable'.

The answer, by the way, is zero†!

†Kidding, kidding. I broke up that hobbyhorse for kindling years ago.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:37 AM on December 5, 2011 [1 favorite]


There is some value in trying to stick up for what you believe is right, even when you're wrong

You're just fishing for a Godwin, eh?
posted by Burhanistan at 3:39 AM on December 5, 2011


There is some value in trying to stick up for what you believe is right, even when you're wrong.

Are you high right now?
posted by empath at 3:51 AM on December 5, 2011


At least it's an ethos, dude.
posted by Meatbomb at 3:52 AM on December 5, 2011


The thread seemed to be working for that. People were telling me what they thought. But I really can't make racism into a "cool" topic, and I'm not sure I should write about it "objectively" either. So maybe it's out of place here.

Forget the content of the post for a second. Metafilter is not a personal blog. If you're writing about yourself in the post, you're doing it wrong. We just don't do that here. If you want to give your personal take on the subject, post a comment after you make the post. It's 100% a house style thing.
posted by empath at 3:53 AM on December 5, 2011 [1 favorite]


Fundamentally, if there is an open OWS thread, there doesn't need to be another FPP.

In other words, and these are my words, you see vested interest in all news-related threads. While this is certainly one way to approach things, I think it's the wrong approach because you only see one possible reason for posting "news of the day" and it's an utterly pragmatic one. While this pragmatic aspect is always there, presenting it as the primary motive behind any post would be quite uncharitable and extremely alienating towards the user base.
posted by daniel_charms at 3:57 AM on December 5, 2011


If you're writing about yourself in the post, you're doing it wrong.

On the other hand, if you're not writing about yourself in the post, you've either lost your mind or someone has hijacked your account, as everything you post always says something about yourself.
posted by daniel_charms at 3:59 AM on December 5, 2011


In other words, and these are my words, you see vested interest in all news-related threads.

Those are your words. He didn't imply that at all.

On the other hand, if you're not writing about yourself in the post, you've either lost your mind or someone has hijacked your account, as everything you post always says something about yourself.

That's not what writing about yourself means and you know it.
posted by empath at 4:04 AM on December 5, 2011


current number of #OWS posts -1 = too many.
posted by crunchland at 4:05 AM on December 5, 2011


> I'll go with "none" if they're not about interesting sites people found on the web.

> The crux seems to be defining "interesting".

Tell Me No Lies does not speak for the site as a whole. A lot of us are really interested in OWS, and we appreciate good posts and links about it. Tell Me No Lies does have to read them if he's not interested. The same goes for any other subject (I'm not interested in baseball for instance.)


> There is some value in trying to stick up for what you believe is right, even when you're wrong.

twoleftfeet, It's not really clear what you're sticking up for here. Do you think all OWS posts should stand regardless of rules that would get any other posts deleted (double, GYOB, news update that should go in the existing thread, etc.), just because OWS is an important topic? Would doing this this improve discussion of OWS on the site in any way?

I think the policy of limiting OWS posts is a matter of trying to keep the threads discussing it workable, finding some kind of a balance between having a couple insanely long threads and having a bunch of up-date threads scattered everywhere, not trying to "balance" OWS with cat videos, as you put it.

There isn't some kind of zero sum game where every time somebody makes a music post or archeology OWS loses a point, or vice versa. We have multiple interests; there's no reason why posts about different subjects can't coexist on the site.

Speaking for myself personally, I'm fascinated by the OWS movement and I've been following it pretty closely, but I'm also a bit insulted that everything else I'm interested in is equated with cat videos.
posted by nangar at 4:09 AM on December 5, 2011 [1 favorite]


If you're very interested in following OWS, I would think other social media sites would serve you well. For example, here's the OWS subreddit. There are plenty of ways to get news about OWS, and it's not really MetaFilter's mission to be an on-going platform for your favorite movement or current event.
posted by knave at 4:24 AM on December 5, 2011 [1 favorite]


[Not OWSist]
posted by knave at 4:25 AM on December 5, 2011


Here's a question I have about making an anti-racism post: If I could frame it as "Racists are funny! Here's a plethora of ways that folks have made fun of them! Look how amusing it all is!" would that go over better than anything with any hint of negative editorializing?

The reason I ask is that it's an effort to have good humor about racism, but I could make it. To me, the "Let's all examine the ways other folks have made fun of racism and maybe use these methods ourselves to make fun of our own racists!" approach would also count as editorializing, even if it's attempting to editorialize in a positive light.

But is racism just so sore a topic that not talking about it is the best thing to do on MetaFilter? Or are there other more acceptable ways of posting about racism and the progress we may or may not have made with it?
posted by kalessin at 4:38 AM on December 5, 2011


Those are your words. He didn't imply that at all.

He said "Instead of creating a new thread [on Fukushima], I generally post in an existing thread. If the most recent thread is closed to new comments, I create a new post." I read this as a statement that he creates new posts on this subject solely for the pragmatic reason of being able to discuss it. This is what I called vested interest. He thinks other such topics should be handled the same; this is what I interpreted as attributing the same pragmatic reasoning to those posting other newsfilter-ish threads.

You don't have to agree with this, but I hope you see what I mean now.
posted by daniel_charms at 4:43 AM on December 5, 2011


People having a vested interest in it isn't why the posts are being deleted. I don't know where you got that from.
posted by empath at 4:53 AM on December 5, 2011


Some strange concept of what vested interest is and how it manifests itself, I guess.
posted by daniel_charms at 4:54 AM on December 5, 2011


Yeah. There's nothing wrong with being passionate about what you are posting. It's only if you (or your friends or associates) actually create the content that you're linking to that's not allowed. Passion about the topic is actually good, and insider information (the non-stock trading kind) is actually rewarded greatly around here.
posted by crunchland at 4:59 AM on December 5, 2011


(Although, I guess if your passion gets in the way with the way you post, and you frame the post in a one-sided and prejudicial way, you can run into trouble.)
posted by crunchland at 5:01 AM on December 5, 2011


Some strange concept of what vested interest is and how it manifests itself, I guess.

No, they're getting deleted because there are already open OWS threads. Why is that so hard to understand? They're just double posts.
posted by empath at 5:03 AM on December 5, 2011 [1 favorite]


I agree with empath, if there are open OWS threads then you should post there. If it's sufficiently new information and different from the other current threads, then post it without editorializing. When in doubt, ask a mod for guidance.
posted by arcticseal at 5:09 AM on December 5, 2011


kalessin, the sort of editorializing we're talking about here (that gets things deleted) would be like doing what you said, but writing it this way "I was thinking about the problems with addressing racism, and how badly discussions surrounding that topic seem to go. Then it occured to me that maybe the best way to attack it is with humor, so I started looking around and found some humorous videos and articles, etc... "

Choosing what links to put together is an entirely different thing, and not what we are talking about when we say "editorializing."
But is racism just so sore a topic that not talking about it is the best thing to do on MetaFilter?
We've had tons of posts on the topic, from all sorts of angles. Posts about racism are perfectly fine if they are good, thoughtful posts.
posted by taz (staff) at 5:11 AM on December 5, 2011


Why is that so hard to understand? They're just double posts.

That's the whole thing -- they're not just double posts. "Newsfilter" posts are posts about events (I think we can easily agree on this), but whether they're all one single event or completely different events depends on what your definition of an event is. Whether an essay on OWS and anarchism, for example, is a separate event from the dispersal of the OWS encampment in NY or belongs in the same thread is completely up to interpretation. Since we as a community don't have (and most likely aren't capable of having) a strict methodology of determining whether something is an event (ie noteworthy) or not, we can't delete everything but the first thread on any given subject, which is why we keep having these arguments.

NOTE: I'm not defending the deleted posts in the OP. I'm not even defending OWS threads in general. The only thing I'm defending is the view that the number of posts on any given topic, including OWS, may be more than one.
posted by daniel_charms at 5:24 AM on December 5, 2011 [2 favorites]


Newsfilter" posts are posts about events (I think we can easily agree on this)

Nope, newsfilter posts can be about particular policies changes, statements or actions

. The only thing I'm defending is the view that the number of posts on any given topic, including OWS, may be more than one.

Yeah, I think we've establish that there are multiple angles to OWS, judging by the amount of posts on the subject.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:38 AM on December 5, 2011


I very much agree with the first deletion. There needn't ever be anything first-person about an FPP. Otherwise, you're not just pointing to something cool on the web; you're pointing to yourself pointing to something cool on the web.
posted by Jpfed at 5:46 AM on December 5, 2011


SURELY THIS...
posted by quonsar II: smock fishpants and the temple of foon at 5:50 AM on December 5, 2011


Nope, newsfilter posts can be about particular policies changes, statements or actions

Bt they're also events, since they're all things that happen.

Yeah, I think we've establish that there are multiple angles to OWS, judging by the amount of posts on the subject.

The argument here hasn't been about whether there are multiple angles to OWS or not, rather it's whether they deserve separate posts. Some seem to think all posts related to the topic should be allowed to stand (unless they're outright doubles); others seem to think they're all double posts. I think it's ok to have "some" posts on the subject, but there really is no way to tell how many that should be, so it's best just to keep debating and negotiating over it as they happen.
posted by daniel_charms at 5:55 AM on December 5, 2011


newsfilter is generally considered to be a bad thing, unless it's major, major news, and even then, it's kind of frowned upon.
posted by empath at 5:59 AM on December 5, 2011


Bt they're also events, since they're all things that happen

You are parsing the term "events" to such a broad degree that it's makes conversation difficult.

The argument here hasn't been about whether there are multiple angles to OWS or not, rather it's whether they deserve separate posts.

No, the argument is whether there are too many OWS posts. By pretty much any measure, you can say there has been. One could say the same about MeTa posts complaining about their deletions.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:01 AM on December 5, 2011


Has the "Found something cool on the web?" standard been deprecated? Checking the New Post page...Nope, it's still there, right at the top. Huh.
posted by Gator at 6:02 AM on December 5, 2011


Remember the days when we were complaining about too many Lady Gaga posts?

Good times, good times.
posted by Admiral Haddock at 6:04 AM on December 5, 2011 [2 favorites]


...OWS has outstripped Wikileaks as a major source of posts...


Hell, its even outstripped Lady Gaga.
posted by Confess, Fletch at 6:04 AM on December 5, 2011


Good posts that address important news topics are fine as part of the mix, but it's not that easy to make a good post. A big problem with news posts is the outrage-filter variety, wherein the poster is furious and just posts a stark link, which is sort of like "let's all get in here and start screaming now." Another is the closely related "look at these assholes" variety, and another is "here's someone saying they hate that thing I hate, too." A news post that is just "A Thing Happened" usually isn't very good. We're shooting for news posts that are more like "A Thing Happened, and here's why and what it all means according to some people who know about these things," or "A Thing Happened, and here's some background and context that you may not know about that led to it," etc.

At any rate, as always, we're going to firmly and courageously straddle the middle ground here, and disappoint a guaranteed percent by having either too many Occupy posts (more than 0 or 1), or too few (not every update, not every op/ed or blog opinion, etc.). As always, really good posts will survive. As always, there will be some disagreement about what a really good post is, but that's why the lights are nearly always on in Metatalk.
posted by taz (staff) at 6:13 AM on December 5, 2011 [6 favorites]


almost always never

My small heart grew three sizes upon reading this phrase. You just made my morning, Blazecock Pileon. Thanks.
posted by Ice Cream Socialist at 6:18 AM on December 5, 2011 [1 favorite]


You are parsing the term "events" to such a broad degree that it's makes conversation difficult.

Yeah, I just realized this as well. I have this habit of constantly generalizing stuff but this doesn't really work here. Hold on for a sec while I go and grab my pitchfork.

By pretty much any measure, you can say there has been. One could say the same about MeTa posts complaining about their deletions.

On a personal, pitchfork-wielding level I agree and would support a blanket ban on the subject. On a meta level, though ... but scratch that, not going there anymore, so how about a blanket ban on OWS posts and if you really think it's postworthy, just clear it with the mods first?
posted by daniel_charms at 6:18 AM on December 5, 2011


how about a blanket ban on OWS posts and if you really think it's postworthy, just clear it with the mods first?

I think that would be bad to single out any category of posts as "to be handled with fire tongs". It would imply a level of distrust and prejudice with regard to subject matter that I think would rub a lot of people the wrong way. One of the things I think works well about the site is that there's an ethos of "we're doing our best to make this a nice place and we trust that you are, too" and that's a mutual thing, something the users generally believe about the mods and the mods generally believe about the users. Making an "...oh, but not you people, all OWS posts are on double secret super probation, don't you know" exception would undermine that ethos in harmful ways, I believe. As much as I personally, believe that 15 open threads is more than fucking enough for the love of Pete on one subject.
posted by Diablevert at 6:28 AM on December 5, 2011 [1 favorite]


You know, speaking for myself now, one of the things that I really, really love about Metafilter is that as a site we do trust people to make good posts, and I think it's something to be proud of that we don't screen posts, and people do rise to the challenge. I would hate to ever see a queue for Metafilter posts, even for one category.
posted by taz (staff) at 6:31 AM on December 5, 2011 [5 favorites]


OK, how about this, then: I want more posts like this and less posts like this (or this, for that matter); everyone please act accordingly.
posted by daniel_charms at 6:34 AM on December 5, 2011


so how about a blanket ban on OWS posts and if you really think it's postworthy, just clear it with the mods first?

It would be better if those interested in making OWS posts would look to see what's already been posted and either put their post as a comment in a already made thread, decide not to post and make a new post with different material.

The one about racism and OWS is interesting, hope the prophet redoes it.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:36 AM on December 5, 2011


Caviar and champagne. That's where your $5 is going folks.

Could I ask the poster of the next "Why was my Occupy post deleted?" thread to knock it off with the "the mods are the 1%" shtick? If you're joking, you are trivializing the values of the movement you're ostensibly trying to support, and if you're serious, you're out of your goddamn mind.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 6:38 AM on December 5, 2011 [11 favorites]


BECAUSE IT'S VERY IMPORTANT AND YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT IT.

Select one from Column A
posted by infini at 6:43 AM on December 5, 2011


Hell, its even outstripped Lady Gaga.

No that was one thousand wild elks.

Agh, the MurphyBrownr plugin is on the fritz again.
posted by griphus at 6:47 AM on December 5, 2011


empath: " If you're writing about yourself in the post, you're doing it wrong."

Would I have been better off placing the part below the fold in this post in a comment then? Because I considered that but then decided doing it the other way would be fun.

I know there's a difference between that and editorializing. It just occurred to me after reading your comment that the post wouldn't have passed the "writing about yourself" bar.
posted by zarq at 6:47 AM on December 5, 2011


*waves to kalessin*

Welcome back!
posted by zarq at 6:51 AM on December 5, 2011


Would I have been better off placing the part below the fold in this post in a comment then?

Eh, it wasn't necessary, but it wasn't distracting, either. Plus it was one line in small text.
posted by empath at 6:55 AM on December 5, 2011


Empath, I was thinking of wearing light colored jeans tomorrow, but with a dark tie, would that be ok?

Also, what's a good wine to go with spicy Italian sausage? And the ending of Lost, can you rationally explain that?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:00 AM on December 5, 2011 [2 favorites]


One interesting thing about the approximately 2,000 OWS posts on Metafilter and the attendant 350 metatalks rehashing the EXACT. SAME. THING. over and over again is that it has firmly turned me against OWS. Indeed, the religious fervor and complaints of WHY ARE THERE ANY POSTS ON METAFILTER THAT AREN'T ABOUT OWS OMG IT'S SO IMPORTANT make me realize that OWS is the left-wing version of those goddamn flags that right-wingers flew after 9/11: it's a litmus test, a way of getting in peoples' faces and screaming at them about not being pure enough of faith. It's what had always nagged at me about OWS, but seeing this kind of insane shit go down over and over again in metatalk has crystallized exactly what I dislike about the moment and its supporters.

So . . . congrats, I guess? Your incessant need to cram Occupy Wall Street down Metafilter's collective throat is having some effect, I suppose.
posted by Frobenius Twist at 7:11 AM on December 5, 2011 [20 favorites]


Thanks. That's sort of what I figured.
posted by zarq at 7:11 AM on December 5, 2011


Empath, I was thinking of wearing light colored jeans tomorrow, but with a dark tie, would that be ok?

Also, what's a good wine to go with spicy Italian sausage? And the ending of Lost, can you rationally explain that?


Yes.

Cheap.

No.
posted by empath at 7:14 AM on December 5, 2011


Burn the heretic with organically made kerosene and wood!
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:14 AM on December 5, 2011


Brandon Blatcher: Burn the heretic with organically made kerosene and wood!

I can't tell if that's directed at Frobenius Twist's comment about OWS, zarq accidentally thanking him, or empath's clothing and wine suggestions.
posted by gman at 7:20 AM on December 5, 2011 [2 favorites]


I thought it was a recipe for cooking the sausages.
posted by taz (staff) at 7:23 AM on December 5, 2011 [6 favorites]


You look parched gman, let me get you some Kool-Aid.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:23 AM on December 5, 2011


Without all these Metafilter posts, I wouldn't have a clue what Occupy Wall St was.
posted by Threeway Handshake at 7:25 AM on December 5, 2011 [1 favorite]


I want to get dumber.
posted by Burhanistan at 7:44 AM on December 5, 2011


Can I, as a white, cisgendered male even answer that question legitimately?

Despite being a white, cisgendered male, I hope it's legitimate for me to say that a Metafilter FPP shouldn't start out by calling into question whether a large percentage of the site's users are allowed to participate in the discussion.
posted by John Cohen at 7:49 AM on December 5, 2011 [5 favorites]


Without all these Metafilter posts, I wouldn't have a clue what Occupy Wall St was.

Are you in an unusually remote place with limited Internet access? Because the phenomena has been covered quite widely.
posted by Diablevert at 7:51 AM on December 5, 2011


> Are you in an unusually remote place with limited Internet access?

Whenever they get broadband internet out there, I hope they also install proper QoS and sarcasm detection with it.
posted by Burhanistan at 7:54 AM on December 5, 2011


You're right, I'm a dumbfuck. For some reason I thought Threeway was one of the people bitching about there not being enough OWS coverage. Mae culpa.
posted by Diablevert at 7:57 AM on December 5, 2011


This, this, a thousand times, this.
posted by namewithoutwords at 8:02 AM on December 5, 2011


Guys the ending of Lost was pretty self-explanatory, get over it.
posted by shakespeherian at 8:12 AM on December 5, 2011


Eternity is a waiting room with syncretic iconography? That sucks.
posted by Burhanistan at 8:13 AM on December 5, 2011


It wasn't eternity. That was a place Hurley made for them all using his magic island powers when he became Jacob's replacement to hang out after they died, and then whatever's in the blinding white light through the syncretic church doors is eternity. We don't see that bit.
posted by shakespeherian at 8:16 AM on December 5, 2011


Wait, but that waiting area was a sort of temporal anomaly since some got there before others since they died many years earlier. So, it was some sort of quantum cosmogony on the levels of eternity?
posted by Burhanistan at 8:19 AM on December 5, 2011


That was a place Hurley made for them all using his magic island powers when he became Jacob's replacement to hang out after they died, and then whatever's in the blinding white light through the syncretic church doors is eternity.

You're right, that is TOTALLY self-explanatory.
posted by 23skidoo at 8:20 AM on December 5, 2011


Nah uh, Jack's dad said they made the place together.

So it was waiting room that all the other people who died after Jack built, to wait for others like Jack, who had died years earlier. Ok then.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:21 AM on December 5, 2011


Yeah but it was Hurley who could actually do it. No one else is magical except Walt, and he's not there because the actor is like 48 now.
posted by shakespeherian at 8:24 AM on December 5, 2011


And I meant that is was self-explanatory because it was all explained in the text of the show.
posted by shakespeherian at 8:24 AM on December 5, 2011


Can I, as a white, cisgendered male even answer that question legitimately?

Part of the other problem with this approach, in addition to what John Cohen says, is that it sort of sets up a more academic lens through which to view this whole thing. The concept that certain people aren't or shouldn't be as empowered to discuss a topic is where things get into dicey category because people have a natural push-back reaction to that idea and then you wind up talking about that instead of OWS or instead of racial issues at OWS. This is okay at Racialicious which has [and attracts] a certain kind of community and is moderated with certain understandings in mind. If you're reading Racialicious there is a good chance that you're interested in these topics already. It goes less well here, a site with a real preponderance of young white men and significantly lighter moderation. So taking something that is or was interesting to discuss in a smaller more homogenous community of people who are pre-screened to be interested in that topic and putting it here in a more mainstream-interest blog full of irritable people not all of whom have the same cultural or social background with the topic, and you wind up discussing the metamessages and never getting to the messages.

This is fine, I guess, if it's what you want, but on a site where we have enough trouble talking about cars vs bicycles, it takes a pretty special approach to start being able to talk about issues of race and privilege. Sometimes it works out really well here, but often people post things that they are upset, annoyed or angered about and it just kicks off a thread where people are upset or annoyed which is a bad starting place to have heavy discussions about heavy topics and all we wind up with are shouting matches.

This is just for threads about race, adding the OWS stuff, a topic that many people are very passionate about and many others are sick to death of [whether they *should* be or not is yet another topic] and you've got a mess.

I pity the Mods.

We don't really need your pity, but some understanding that we represent the entire community including people who are passionate about OWS and people who are sick of OWS [on MeFi and maybe even in the real world] would go a long way towards us being able to have adult discussions about it and not just get snark hurled at us about fairness and balance.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:25 AM on December 5, 2011 [7 favorites]


So . . . congrats, I guess? Your incessant need to cram Occupy Wall Street down Metafilter's collective throat is having some effect, I suppose.

You know what's the worst part of these discussions, though? Passive-agressive "see how you made me feel" crap like this. If you object to it, just say so. Flag some posts. Or, I don't know, go and punch a vocal OWS supporter in the face. In any case, don't just sit here whining because nobody will notice; but also, don't walk away, because nobody will notice that, either. Do something. Act.
posted by daniel_charms at 8:25 AM on December 5, 2011


I think he was asking for an explanation of why the Lost finale was shit. File that one next to the BSG finale under "Showrunners Hate Us and Snort Too Much Cocaine".
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 8:42 AM on December 5, 2011 [1 favorite]


Ivan Fyodorovich: ""Showrunners Hate Us and Snort Too Much Cocaine"."

All new J.J. Abrams and Ronald D. Moore dvd's will now be required to prominently display the following disclaimer: "THIS SHOW MAY ONLY MAKE SENSE IF YOU'RE SNIFFING GLUE."
posted by zarq at 8:59 AM on December 5, 2011


Do something. Act.

Go forth and multiply!
posted by daniel_charms at 11:02 AM on December 5, 2011


But is racism just so sore a topic that not talking about it is the best thing to do on MetaFilter?

I feel like we talk about racism constantly on Metafilter. Even in posts that aren't about racism. Am I crazy?
posted by Hoopo at 11:04 AM on December 5, 2011


I feel like we talk about racism constantly on Metafilter

That's just the kind of comment I'd expect from your kind.
posted by yoink at 11:07 AM on December 5, 2011 [1 favorite]


I find the original phrasing of the racial diversity post problematic because it primes me to see it through the lens of another person's point of view on the issues. That's is a bit difficult because I'm not white. Imagine if I were not cisgendered or male. It may be tougher to write about something about racial diversity without considering your own race and how it effects your viewpoint, but stuff like, "I find myself forced to admit that this is a problem," can be seen negatively by people for which the problem of minority economic suffering has never been a question.

Since you admit that the under-representation in OWS is a problem, perhaps the best way to rewrite the post is to simply approach it as such. I don't want to diminish your experience grappling with the issue as a white, cisgendered male, or your legitimacy in trying to answer the question, but if your aim is to help more people come to grips with the problem of diversity of OWS, separating that personal part into comments would make sense. MetaFilter can then approach the problem via the content of the links and the words of Bridget Todd, Thanu, Sonny, Manissa, Natasha...etc.

People may jump on the post and say, "is this really a problem, must we bring race and racism into everything?" but a less personally written piece will afford them the opportunity to come to their own conclusions.
posted by Mister Cheese at 11:15 AM on December 5, 2011


Caviar and champagne. That's where your $5 is going folks. Caviar and champagne.

Nah, just $4.95.

The remaining 1 percent (5 cents) goes to improving the MetaFilter user experience.
posted by philip-random at 11:51 AM on December 5, 2011


Another one gone.
posted by zarq at 1:16 PM on December 5, 2011


OWS is the left-wing version of those goddamn flags that right-wingers flew after 9/11

I'm sorry, but if you actually believe these two are remotely equivalent, I suspect Mean Ol' Metafilter didn't really have to push very hard to change your mind about OWS.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 1:25 PM on December 5, 2011 [3 favorites]


And without the OWS tagline that Kucinich post might have lived.
posted by cjorgensen at 1:36 PM on December 5, 2011


And without the OWS tagline that Kucinich post might have lived.

Then it would have been deleted as "SLYT politician talking about things we've heard about hundred times before" or something similar. It just wasn't a good post.

In retrospect, it wasn't a good idea to post that comment I posted in that thread. It wasn't even that funny or anything; I was just in a bad mood.

posted by daniel_charms at 1:45 PM on December 5, 2011


You know who else was in a bad mood?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:47 PM on December 5, 2011


Bruno Ganz?
posted by Burhanistan at 1:48 PM on December 5, 2011


Charles Grodin?
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 1:48 PM on December 5, 2011


Yeah, single-link youtube to a politician's rant is pretty iffy to begin with.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 1:53 PM on December 5, 2011


"I'm sorry, but if you actually believe these two are remotely equivalent, I suspect Mean Ol' Metafilter didn't really have to push very hard to change your mind about OWS."

I don't share his antipathy against OWS—I support OWS—but I think his comparison is valid. Note that he's not equating the movement itself with post-9/11 flag-waving, he's equating OWS supporters proselytizing OWS with post-9/11 flag-waving. Both have a great deal to do with social affiliation and social identity.

And that's completely normal. When people feel threatened, they band together to create solidarity in a shared social identity. And when people feel threatened, they are suspicious of those who don't, and especially refuse, to share in that social identity.

It's not uncommon in these OWS MeTa threads for those who are upset about the deletions to attempt to socially shame those with whom they disagree, including the mods. They make allusions to the possibility that this failure to demonstrate affiliation indicates opposition. That said persons are part of the 1% and/or have some damaged sense of ethics and/or social responsibility. Which, you know, is how a lot of the post-9/11 flag-wavers felt about those who refused to participate in that shared display of patriotic affiliation.

The notion that it's really and truly about whether one actually supports OWS or the USA post-9/11 is insupportable. If I don't have a flag sticker on my car or a flag on my house doesn't at all mean that I'm not deeply active in patriotic activity and such after 9/11. (In fact, I was not because I didn't feel that way. Ironically, I now have my mother's car, which came with a flag sticker.) And if I don't want more than a few OWS posts on MetaFilter, that in no way means that I'm not otherwise actively supporting OWS, or even participating in an ongoing demonstration. (I'm not doing the latter, but I am doing the former.)

So why does it matter so much to some people that MeFi, as a community, demonstrates its affiliation to OWS as a social identity via giving it extraordinary attention? Because MeFi is a community, it is itself a shared social identity, and for those who have invested a great deal in a shared social identity in OWS, there's a natural desire for that to be reflected across their social affiliations.

But that this is normal human behavior doesn't mean that it's for the best for everyone else. MeFi only partly socially overlaps with OWS and, more to the point, MeFi has a political bias only incidentally, contingent upon some of its history. It could be otherwise. Because it's not essentially a political site and it's not essentially a leftist site. Using MeFi as an important component of one's political social affiliation is a misuse of it and a disservice to the community, most especially those who don't share one's politics.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 1:57 PM on December 5, 2011 [18 favorites]


You know who else was in a bad mood?

Gandhi?
posted by daniel_charms at 2:03 PM on December 5, 2011 [1 favorite]


If you're writing about yourself in the post, you're doing it wrong. We just don't do that here.

Cat-Scan.com is one of the strangest sites I've seen in some time. I have no idea how these people got their cats wedged into their scanners, or why.

:)
posted by Pruitt-Igoe at 2:08 PM on December 5, 2011 [1 favorite]


This MeTa is going to be the biggest thing everyone is talking about in the news tomorrow.
posted by timsteil at 2:12 PM on December 5, 2011 [2 favorites]


Note that he's not equating the movement itself with post-9/11 flag-waving, he's equating OWS supporters proselytizing OWS with post-9/11 flag-waving.

I did note that, and I still say it's horseshit. The post-9/11 flag-waving was a nebulous, hateful, xenophobic, proto-fascist cultural movement. OWS supporters are, as a group, a political force fighting for economic equality. About the only thing they have in common is zeal, and if that's the basis we're using for comparison, you might as well throw a whole lot of other completely unrelated groups in the mix, too. The comparison is oversimplistic and insulting.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 2:14 PM on December 5, 2011 [2 favorites]


OWS supporters are, as a group, a political force fighting for economic equality.

Or a bunch of anarchists intent on the overthrow of the entire capitalist system. It's all a matter of perspective, isn't it?
posted by empath at 2:21 PM on December 5, 2011


I suspect Mean Ol' Metafilter didn't really have to push very hard to change your mind about OWS.

I suspect Mean Ol' Metafilter (much like the rest of the Internet) is fantastic at providing people with 100% irrefutable evidence that they were correct to like the stuff they already liked and hate the stuff they already hated.

Really I just hate how much of Metafilter gets cluttered up with confirmation-bias-reinforcing posts. Seems like they're just everywhere.
posted by mstokes650 at 2:21 PM on December 5, 2011 [6 favorites]


The post-9/11 flag-waving was a nebulous, hateful, xenophobic, proto-fascist cultural movement. OWS supporters are, as a group, a political force fighting for economic equality.

Sure, but that has nothing to do with whether people are using OWS as "a litmus test, a way of getting in peoples' faces and screaming at them about not being pure enough of faith". Just because two things have differences doesn't mean they can't also have similarities.
posted by 23skidoo at 2:22 PM on December 5, 2011 [1 favorite]


mstokes650: " Really I just hate how much of Metafilter gets cluttered up with confirmation-bias-reinforcing posts. Seems like they're just everywhere."

I suspect you're engaging in a little confirmation bias yourself here. :)
posted by zarq at 2:27 PM on December 5, 2011


That was the joke, Zarq. :P
posted by mstokes650 at 2:28 PM on December 5, 2011 [2 favorites]


Just because two things have differences doesn't mean they can't also have similarities.

Yeah, and I noted the similarity. Just think it's a bit tenuous, that's all.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 2:28 PM on December 5, 2011


:)
posted by zarq at 2:47 PM on December 5, 2011


:V
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 2:50 PM on December 5, 2011


The post-9/11 flag-waving was a nebulous, hateful, xenophobic, proto-fascist cultural movement

Good lord you are painting with a broad stroke there.
posted by ericost at 2:52 PM on December 5, 2011 [3 favorites]


Just think it's a bit tenuous, that's all.

I think the actual problem is that people believe that whatever cause they're passionate about is righteous and whatever cause other [wrong] people are passionate about it wrong. And so it's hard to see how you could agree with the OWS people (as I personally absolutely do) and at the same time feel that their message needs a time and a place for it to be most effective, even with activism. Using MeFi to forward your activist agenda is something that gets old really really quickly. I'm not saying that anyone here is doing that, but to people with OWS fatigue, the "you MUST know about this because it's REALLY important" even if true, is still problematic from a site-culture perspective.

That said, you can go overboard with this "stop being activist" angle also, and claim that people who make, for an obvious example, posts about gay marriage or gay-themed posts generally are advancing "an agenda" as opposed to just posting about things that are interesting to and/or relevant to them. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't, but just posting about people who happen to be gay isn't agenda-driven by definition. Similarly if we had 2-3 gay marriage themed posts every day [and there was a brief period of time when that was the case here] we are not anti-gay marriage to want to try to curb that a little bit, even though marriage equality is important, very important, to us-as-mods and us as a society.

Finding the balance is difficult and it's challenging and it's not going to make everyone happy. And I get slightly irritated when people act like whatever decision we make [we had simultaneous shitty emails from two different angry people about our deletion of an OWS-related comment in a thread at the end of last week, one who thought we should have deleted MORE and one who thought we should stop deleting shit] means that we disagree with their politics as opposed to disagreeing with their tactics or the way they're acting here on the site. Larger issue, perhaps, but worth understanding as part of the smaller OWS thing we're talking about
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 2:55 PM on December 5, 2011 [1 favorite]


The post-9/11 flag-waving was a nebulous, hateful, xenophobic, proto-fascist cultural movement.

I thought it was a good time to reclaim the flag for the left. It's hard to imagine a more uncharitable read about a small token of symbolism.
posted by malocchio at 3:00 PM on December 5, 2011 [1 favorite]


Charles Grodin

I heard Charles Grodin speak about something in a short spot today on WCBS while I was in the car. I don't know much about his political views but his voice puts me in mind of an upside-down scrotum with neatly parted hair and a tweed jacket.
posted by Inspector.Gadget at 3:05 PM on December 5, 2011 [1 favorite]


There needn't ever be anything first-person about an FPP.

If you're writing about yourself in the post, you're doing it wrong. We just don't do that here.

Cat-Scan.com is one of the strangest sites I've seen in some time. I have no idea how these people got their cats wedged into their scanners, or why.


How much has this changed over the years? Is it just gradual drift in site culture or is there some underlying reason? Maybe it's confirmation bias, but looking back in the archives first person statements seem to pass without mention unless firmly in GYOB territory. Nowadays even something like "*I* was looking at this site and thought Metafilter would enjoy it" seems out of place.
posted by Lorin at 3:23 PM on December 5, 2011


I understand the push to write in an objective style, but I'm not sure it makes sense when discussing race/racism. How I identify, white male, unavoidably influences how I see the issues.


This is best of the web, not some one person's thoughts on something. GYOB for that. Links might be good for a FPP. You could make OWS only a part of that and bring more in.

This is a style thing. You'll get the hang.
posted by Ironmouth at 3:55 PM on December 5, 2011


Finding the balance is difficult and it's challenging and it's not going to make everyone happy.

You're doing great.
posted by Ironmouth at 3:56 PM on December 5, 2011


I have cat-scan.com reference fatigue.
posted by Threeway Handshake at 4:03 PM on December 5, 2011 [2 favorites]


How much has this changed over the years? Is it just gradual drift in site culture or is there some underlying reason? Maybe it's confirmation bias, but looking back in the archives first person statements seem to pass without mention unless firmly in GYOB territory. Nowadays even something like "*I* was looking at this site and thought Metafilter would enjoy it" seems out of place.

I was just being snarky with the cat-scan reference. The accepted style absolutely has changed over the years.
posted by Pruitt-Igoe at 4:10 PM on December 5, 2011


I think the actual problem is that people believe that whatever cause they're passionate about is righteous and whatever cause other [wrong] people are passionate about it wrong. And so it's hard to see how you could agree with the OWS people (as I personally absolutely do) and at the same time feel that their message needs a time and a place for it to be most effective, even with activism.

I get this. I'm not even defending the idea that Metafilter must have a plethora of OWS updates. I agree entirely that it really needs to be toned down, with updates posted in open threads. All I was speaking to was the notion that seeing multiple posts about OWS on Metafilter could turn someone from sympathetic to the cause to "that's it, you guys lost me"; that if that's the case, chances are the sympathy wasn't all that powerful to begin with. I don't think is is a controversial position to take here.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 5:12 PM on December 5, 2011 [5 favorites]


Charles Grodin is a comic genius.
posted by KokuRyu at 6:16 PM on December 5, 2011


I don't think is is a controversial position to take here.

In MeTa, every position is a controversial position to somebody.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 6:20 PM on December 5, 2011


You know who else had a controversial position to somebody?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:23 PM on December 5, 2011


Again, I evoke Charles Grodin.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 6:28 PM on December 5, 2011 [1 favorite]


it has firmly turned me against OWS

This is laughable.

My guess is you're not being truthful in order to 'teach' OWS supporters a lesson.

Either way, posting patterns on metafilter.com is an absurd reason to reject or embrace a civil disobedience movement centered around wealth inequality.
posted by airing nerdy laundry at 6:41 PM on December 5, 2011 [1 favorite]


Most people are far from rational.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:51 PM on December 5, 2011


a civil disobedience movement centered around wealth inequality.

This is laughable. It stopped being about that long ago, if it was ever about that at all. It now seems the major purpose of Occupy *.* is "some cops are assholes," which pretty much everybody already knows. We don't need a bunch of people camping out to say that.

Besides, since Wall St is now unoccupied, shouldn't it be called something different now?
posted by Threeway Handshake at 7:05 PM on December 5, 2011


*laughs*

Man, you're spoiling for a fight, aren't you? Pick up a good book.
posted by mediareport at 7:38 PM on December 5, 2011


"It's hard for me to answer a question from someone who really doesn't care about the answer."
- Charles Grodin
posted by KokuRyu at 7:53 PM on December 5, 2011 [6 favorites]


It now seems the major purpose of Occupy *.* is "some cops are assholes,"... since Wall St is now unoccupied, shouldn't it be called something different now?

I'm not getting it. Are people on this thread shooting for 'most inane commentary on OWS outside of am radio?'
posted by airing nerdy laundry at 7:57 PM on December 5, 2011 [3 favorites]


I was going to post something snarky but I realised that would only contribute to the problem I dislike.

I would personally prefer it, if you care to have an argument about the meaning of the occupy movement, that you do so in an existing occupy thread. Mostly because I could easily see this going another 900 comments now that this tiff has begun and I can't easily get the thread out of my recents on mobile view. Me and my blood pressure's preferences are, of course, not more important than your principles.
posted by Diablevert at 8:35 PM on December 5, 2011


I'm not getting it

Allow me to help you out with that nerdy

Metafilter is not the Occupy blog. It's not a news site and it's certainly not the place to post every bit of OWS news. That we have some Occupy posts does not mean there's a mandate that we must allow all of them. What you want is a completely different site, because it doesn't resemble Metafilter at all.
posted by taz (staff)


Questions? Any part of that seem inane to you? How's the family? Good? Good.
posted by timsteil at 8:38 PM on December 5, 2011


Hi timsteil -

I quoted what I was responding to.
posted by airing nerdy laundry at 8:40 PM on December 5, 2011


The post-9/11 flag-waving was a nebulous, hateful, xenophobic, proto-fascist cultural movement. OWS supporters are, as a group, a political force fighting for economic equality.

And I'm sure it's not at all difficult to see how people with different beliefs from you might characterise those movements as a patriotic show of support for one's country and its perceived values and a bunch of rabid hippies too lazy to get a job, respectively. Not that that's what I think at all, but I think it's certainly fair to compare the approaches if not the substance of those movements.

I too was and am supportive of the goals of the OWS movement but that the attitudes of many supporters both here and elsewhere have turned me off getting involved with the movement itself. I don't think this means my initial support was weak, I think it means I have better things to do with my time than listening to people rant at me that by not dedicating my entire life right now to Occupy I'm part of the evil amoral 1%.
posted by lwb at 8:40 PM on December 5, 2011


a political force fightinghanging out in parks for economic equality.
posted by quonsar II: smock fishpants and the temple of foon at 8:59 PM on December 5, 2011 [1 favorite]


I too was and am supportive of the goals of the OWS movement but that the attitudes of many supporters both here and elsewhere have turned me off getting involved with the movement itself. I don't think this means my initial support was weak, I think it means I have better things to do with my time than listening to people rant at me that by not dedicating my entire life right now to Occupy I'm part of the evil amoral 1%.

I'll say this for the last time: I was responding to this dude right here, about how Metafilter turned him from OWS supporter to turning his back altogether. What you or others may have experienced from OWS supporters outside of Metafilter isn't at all what I'm addressing here.

As someone who involved himself in a number of activists groups at various times in my life, TRUST ME - I get it. I understand the exhaustion, annoyance, and eventual indifference that comes from someone shouting with their finger in your face about how you're not dedicated enough. But that's not what I'm talking about here.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 9:01 PM on December 5, 2011 [1 favorite]


KokuRyu wrote...
For me, for example, I'm interested in the Fukushima nuclear disaster. Every few days something new comes to light, such as the fact that original radiation readings were inaccurate, etc. Instead of creating a new thread, I generally post in an existing thread.

I wrote...
I'm sitting in the Narita Admiral's club

It occurs to me that I may be sterile due to your policy of not creating new FPPs. :-)
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 9:15 PM on December 5, 2011 [1 favorite]


It's too late, the Yule Goat has already burned
posted by lakersfan1222 at 9:35 PM on December 5, 2011 [2 favorites]


See you next year, what?
posted by lakersfan1222 at 9:41 PM on December 5, 2011


It's too late, the Yule Goat has already burned

Isn't that part of the tradition? A giant straw goat is far too tempting. Or so you'd think anyway - the Icelandic version is still standing.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 9:48 PM on December 5, 2011


I'm not getting it.

well, as I pointed out yesterday down by the duck pond, the talent THAT CAN BE LEARNED makes the poet a druggist TODAY the criticism of balances no longer challenges with resemblances
Hypertrophic painters hyperaestheticized and hypnotized by the hyacinths
of the hypocritical-looking muezzins CONSOLIDATE THE HARVEST OF EX-
ACT
CALCULATIONS

... or words to that effect.
posted by philip-random at 10:09 PM on December 5, 2011


"From 1988 onward, English bookmakers made it possible to bet on the goat’s destiny..."

Surely this represents a moral hazard.
posted by Slithy_Tove at 10:21 PM on December 5, 2011 [1 favorite]


Those poor goats
posted by Sailormom at 10:27 PM on December 5, 2011


Christmas Goat burning caught on video!
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 10:33 PM on December 5, 2011


It occurs to me that I may be sterile due to your policy of not creating new FPPs. :-)

Yeah, after flying in from Vancouver we spent the night in Narita before continuing on to Nagoya the next day. It felt a little weird, since there are definitely radiation hot spots in the area, and it was also raining out. But the good Japanese weather service people told me the rain came from the south, so we were safe.
posted by KokuRyu at 10:51 PM on December 5, 2011


Yeah KokuRyu - I think you mentioned the fukushima thread being good or whatever, personally I think it was a major fail for mefi but there you go. Not that the thread was bad, but it didnt get sidebarred, was characterised as 'just a bunch of nerds talking'.
posted by sgt.serenity at 11:56 PM on December 5, 2011


MIC CHECK MIC CHECK MIC CHECK MIC CHECK
OCCUPY OCCUPY META META FILTER FILTER OCCUPY OCCUPY META META FILTER FILTER OCCUPY OCCUPY META META FILTER FILTER
WHO'S FILTER WHO'S FILTER OUR FILTER OUR FILTER WHO'S FILTER WHO'S FILTER OUR FILTER OUR FILTER

MIC CHECK MIC CHECK
HERE ARE HERE ARE SOME MORE SOME MORE HYPERLINKS HYPERLINKS I MIGHT HAVE MADE I MIGHT HAVE MADE FPPS ABOUT FPPS ABOUT WERE IT NOT WERE IT NOT FOR THE CONSTANT THREAT FOR THE CONSTANT THREAT OF DELETION OF EVICTION. I THINK I THINK IT IS BEGINNING TO HAVE IT IS BEGINNING TO HAVE A CHILLING EFFECT A CHILLING EFFECT!

Occupy Wall Street: The Will to Face the Arithmetic

The Untouchables of Zucotti Park

Whack A Mole Revolution: A guide to Pop Up Occupations

#OccupyOakland Argues In Court In SF That Police Violated Crowd Control Policies "Any argument that they're being chilled is purely speculation," said an attorney representing the City of Oakland cortex.
posted by finite at 2:28 AM on December 6, 2011 [1 favorite]


That's OK people. That's OK people. I've been used to being I've been used to being SILENCED ALL MY LIFE. SILENCED ALL MY LIFE.
posted by finite at 2:31 AM on December 6, 2011 [2 favorites]


I wouldn't mind if OWS morphs into something new. OWS is just one small thing going on to bring light to and counter act the extreme inequality. If you don't like OWS, it doesn't matter, because you are not rich or influential enough to do anything about it but whine on the internet. Also, OWS is going to go away. It's not a political party or a astroturf institution that needs to maintain it's brand. It's fine if it goes away because it seeded ideas and something new will come up.

Anyways, people who don't like OWS, can you not see the creeping fascism in the pictures of riot cops confronting a peaceful protest and the merging of state and corporate power? I would rather be known to be a participant in a silly, scattershot, unpopular movement than to be known as someone who tolerates fascism.
posted by fuq at 4:47 AM on December 6, 2011


Why does it have to be either/or?
posted by Burhanistan at 4:51 AM on December 6, 2011 [3 favorites]


I would rather be known to be a participant in a silly, scattershot, unpopular movement than to be known as someone who tolerates fascism.

So would I, but I'd rather be neither.

OWS is turning into the same 'google ron paul'/'end the fed' craziness the longer it drags on. It should have quit while it was ahead.
posted by empath at 4:57 AM on December 6, 2011 [3 favorites]


Either, we do something
Or, the fascists win?
posted by fuq at 4:58 AM on December 6, 2011


You'd rather tolerate fascism? OK.
posted by fuq at 4:58 AM on December 6, 2011


I should just get out of here, actually.
posted by fuq at 4:59 AM on December 6, 2011


You'd rather tolerate fascism? OK.

Read it again, slowly.
posted by empath at 5:32 AM on December 6, 2011


"You're either with us or you're with !BADGUYS" is exactly the kind of stupid I thought we hated ten years ago.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 5:38 AM on December 6, 2011


Not that the thread was bad, but it didnt get sidebarred, was characterised as 'just a bunch of nerds talking'.

We generally don't sidebar big busy argumentative This Is A Thing That Happened / Is Happening type threads, in no small part because they are already big and busy and argumentative and about the last thing we want to use the sidebar for is to crank up the heat further.

It's not a dismissal of the thread (or threads, really, because there was certainly more than one), it's just a mismatch between what the sidebar is actually used for and what the threads were.
posted by cortex (staff) at 6:22 AM on December 6, 2011


I THINK IT IS BEGINNING TO HAVE IT IS BEGINNING TO HAVE A CHILLING EFFECT

Absolutely do not use this MeTa thread as a thread-by-proxy for a MeFi post. Period. Thank you.

We generally don't sidebar big busy argumentative This Is A Thing That Happened


And just to be clear, we don't sidebar most posts. Usually we'll pull out a comment that seems like it has a lot of interesting insider knowledge or some MeFi-specific. The sidebar is just us highlighting things you might have missed. That is usually not the case for thousand comment threads.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:42 AM on December 6, 2011


Does anybody remember a political cartoon, probably from the mid or late 90s that had, in the sky, the Deathstar revving up its planet-destroying laser, and a bunch of protestors smiling and waving signs protesting it below? I've been looking for it for years, but unable to find it in the mountains of other political and/or Star Wars cartoons.
posted by Threeway Handshake at 8:02 AM on December 6, 2011


Can I make a suggestion?

Below the header have a box with "Still Going" like so?

And add a new option on the flagged list for "continuing conversation" so that mods can add it to that "Still Going" box.

Maybe it would improve conversation retention. And also substantial individual links of terrific quality that were submitted but still deleted (only to prevent content overload on a specific subject) could be flagged for "interesting" and put in the still going box under the relevant parent link to alert people of updated content within the thread.

It's just a passing thought but maybe could be useful to improve conversation retention in topics with long tails?
posted by Talez at 11:42 AM on December 6, 2011 [3 favorites]


That's a possibly neat thing and would've been a better use of a MeTa post!
posted by Burhanistan at 11:44 AM on December 6, 2011


Yeah well I already used mine for something dumb.

Feel free to post it as a feature request using that image if you want.
posted by Talez at 11:45 AM on December 6, 2011


Talez: " Below the header have a box with "Still Going" like so?"

Wow. That's an awesome idea. I bet it would drastically cut down on doubles.

I wonder if the mods would shoot it down for the same reason they don't sidebar posts, though.
posted by zarq at 12:35 PM on December 6, 2011


I like the 'still going' idea, but it should probably be in metatalk, not the front page.
posted by empath at 12:43 PM on December 6, 2011


It's definitely an interesting idea but it definitely puts us in the middle of something that is much more of a judgment call [what does still going mean? are we always going to delete something that shows up on the still going list? when has something stopped going? how soon is something considered still going?] in a way that I'm not comfortable with personally. Right now we decide this stuff on a case by case basis using our judgment and the flag queue for guidance, I'm not sure having something like this, as much as it's a neat and creative idea, is going to make people more comfortable with the problem of some topics getting an awful lot of posts/eyeballs.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 1:07 PM on December 6, 2011


Maybe just trigger it after reaching a comment threshold? Most of the posts that are ongoing over a couple of weeks get well over 500 posts for instance. Then drop it off as soon as it reaches a threshold (~5 posts/day maybe?)

I was just thinking from a curation/discretionary standpoint. It could be entirely automated in the name of fairness.

If you like I could do a more complete mockup and post it in a week.
posted by Talez at 1:09 PM on December 6, 2011


I WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE I WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE that the "New Post" page should require you to enter the tags for your post before doing anything else, and then above the posting form it should display all of the open posts with any those tags.
posted by finite at 1:20 PM on December 6, 2011


A more middle-of-the-road approach would be to try and make some of this stuff more visible specifically on the posting page—not so much "hey go read this busy thread" as "hey, maybe reconsider making another post about this" in intent, basically.

Right now we try to do some amount of warning about doubles and related posts by doing url- and tag-based matching alerts. Tweaking that to try and be more thorough would be an interesting idea, though I'm not immediately sure what would be practical there.
posted by cortex (staff) at 1:22 PM on December 6, 2011


Well from my perspective the situation seems to be like this:

1) FPP about a well discussed topic is created
2) Discussion appears to have run its course, people stop checking the thread
3) No new links or content are posted because nobody is checking the thread

Which reinforces a self perpetuating cycle. And the other half of the situation:

1) FPP about a well discussed topic is created
2) One to two weeks later a Mefite discovers a really cool article that could augment that FPP
3) Mefite checks the FPP with dismay to see maybe a dozen posts over the past two days and assumes the thread has died off
4) Mefite creates new FPP based on really cool thing
5) Mods (justifiably) step in with the customary "hell naw this isn't substantial for an all new thread, post in existing plz"
6) Mefite posts, gets little/no discussion about it and becomes disappointed/disillusioned/sad/emo

Nobody seems to win with that short circuit between steps five and six. Mods get a thread or two every so often with "hai mods why was this deleted kthx bai" and newer Metfits may be discouraged from posting again in the future not realising the mods are simply trying to avoid topic overload.

If someone could post something to a thread knowing that it would show up as "here's something new to discuss in an old topic guys!" on the front page that would attract people back to the thread we could have a more concise discussion without the inevitable (still) four or five threads on very similar aspects of the same basic topic that have had to be padded to hell to stand on their own.

That's my thought process about the entire situation after pondering.
posted by Talez at 1:36 PM on December 6, 2011


My feeling is that if (4) is exactly what it says there—that it's actually a really cool new substantial thing—it's a lot less likely to get binned then if it's actually more of an additional related update tidbit to an existing thing. A great post is a great post and short of some bizarre clustering of really genuinely great posts on the same subject I think it's unlikely we'd ever be looking at one and thinking, man, that's a great post but I'd better delete it.

Less-than-great posts following up on or largely repeating the content or topic of an existing recent post are the main issue here, and what we want to see happen is people being more mindful of that distinction and opting to go the "add it to an open thread" route with the stuff that isn't in fact the This Is a Really Great Post exception.

If someone could post something to a thread knowing that it would show up as "here's something new to discuss in an old topic guys!" on the front page that would attract people back to the thread we could have a more concise discussion without the inevitable (still) four or five threads on very similar aspects of the same basic topic that have had to be padded to hell to stand on their own.

Recent Activity does a really nice job of alerting previous contributors to a thread that there's new content, in fact. It's not quite the sort of situation where once a thread goes quiet it's doomed to stay quiet; I have seen plenty of threads sort of kick back into gear days or even weeks later when something new gets dropped into a dormant thread and people start talking about it again.
posted by cortex (staff) at 1:43 PM on December 6, 2011


My feeling is that if (4) is exactly what it says there—that it's actually a really cool new substantial thing—it's a lot less likely to get binned then if it's actually more of an additional related update tidbit to an existing thing. A great post is a great post and short of some bizarre clustering of really genuinely great posts on the same subject I think it's unlikely we'd ever be looking at one and thinking, man, that's a great post but I'd better delete it.

Less-than-great posts following up on or largely repeating the content or topic of an existing recent post are the main issue here, and what we want to see happen is people being more mindful of that distinction and opting to go the "add it to an open thread" route with the stuff that isn't in fact the This Is a Really Great Post exception.


The problem with this is two-fold:
1) "Great links" can be entirely subjective depending on the mod, the time of day, the general attitude with the topic at hand, the seasons and the phase of the moon.
2) Additional threads even for those that are truly "great links" still split conversation and make it easier to miss genuinely interesting things whether it be further additional links, talking points or just great arguments.

Recent Activity does a really nice job of alerting previous contributors to a thread that there's new content, in fact. It's not quite the sort of situation where once a thread goes quiet it's doomed to stay quiet; I have seen plenty of threads sort of kick back into gear days or even weeks later when something new gets dropped into a dormant thread and people start talking about it again.

Fair call. There have been dormant threads that revive themselves but they seem to be the exception rather than the rule. Recent activity has the problem where it can be quickly clogged up with lots of stuff if it's been a few hours in peak times. This would be more to get people driving by back into the discussion quickly on large threads so that we don't have to have four open OWS threads each discussing a minute difference within the movement, all of them tailing a couple of posts each per day for a week. Think of it more as "oh there's new stuff in the big thread I think I'll go take a look!" at a glance.

I don't mean to be persistent but I honestly am liking discussing this/nutting it out.
posted by Talez at 1:58 PM on December 6, 2011


In the last 72 hours, the most recent open OWS-related thread on the blue has had 0 comments besides links I've posted.

During the same period there have been 203 comments in this thread, and a number more in the other open OWS-related MeTa thread.

I really wish there could have been some discussion on the blue about this Žižek speech I tried to post a while ago, or several of the other links I've dropped in the end of other OWS threads instead of bothering to make hopeless fpps about.

But, I also appreciate that what makes this site such a great place for discussion really is the moderation. So it goes.
posted by finite at 2:26 PM on December 6, 2011


finite: " During the same period there have been 203 comments in this thread, and a number more in the other open OWS-related MeTa thread."

I sympathize, but many of the comments here are complaining about MeFi being saturated in 'Occupy' posts. It's unlikely that people who are feeling Occupy-fatigue will be likely to comment enthusiastically in yet another post about it, or feel compelled to follow up in an existing post.

finite: " I really wish there could have been some discussion on the blue about this Žižek speech I tried to post a while ago, or several of the other links I've dropped in the end of other OWS threads instead of bothering to make hopeless fpps about."

One of the hard-earned lessons I have taken from volunteer work with a number of non-profit or activism-oriented organizations over the years is that there is no possible way to make people care about something and want to discuss it. If they are interested enough they will flock. But sometimes people just can't be bothered to give a damn. All we can do is try.

But I suppose it's worth noting that many posts that show up on MeFi on a daily basis don't initiate deep discussions. I think that's more the nature of the beast than a moderation issue. And if you're presenting something to the community that it is already feeling a sort of threshold on, it's more likely that people will snark, complain or derail. A catch-22.
posted by zarq at 2:37 PM on December 6, 2011


Does anybody remember a political cartoon, probably from the mid or late 90s that had, in the sky, the Deathstar revving up its planet-destroying laser, and a bunch of protestors smiling and waving signs protesting it below? I've been looking for it for years, but unable to find it in the mountains of other political and/or Star Wars cartoons.

Not quite that old, but here you go.
posted by furiousthought at 3:23 PM on December 6, 2011 [2 favorites]


I love you.
posted by Threeway Handshake at 11:49 AM on December 7, 2011


« Older Hello haystack.   |   Could we gamble on this? Newer »

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