What constitutes movement? June 19, 2002 12:45 PM Subscribe
If we take Matt's post verbatim, I don't really agree with it.
[This] whole thread is totally uninteresting and pointless due to the continued presence of dissent.
Later however, Matt shows signs that what he called dissent really refers to what I'll call blocking or um, unresponsiveness. Extended arguments wherein at least one party will not even consider that their opponent may have made a valid point. It all comes back to the idea of giving one's peers a modicum of respect; If you're declaring something in a loud voice, and then blocking your ears and 'la la la'ing to yourself, you're not fostering a good discussion.
I don't think the linked thread was a particularly heinous example of 'blocking'. Fact is, however, that the Blogathon gets a lot of support from MeFi's blogdesign community, and the criticism of a charity event simply Would Not Stand with them.
posted by Marquis at 1:05 PM on June 19, 2002
[This] whole thread is totally uninteresting and pointless due to the continued presence of dissent.
Later however, Matt shows signs that what he called dissent really refers to what I'll call blocking or um, unresponsiveness. Extended arguments wherein at least one party will not even consider that their opponent may have made a valid point. It all comes back to the idea of giving one's peers a modicum of respect; If you're declaring something in a loud voice, and then blocking your ears and 'la la la'ing to yourself, you're not fostering a good discussion.
I don't think the linked thread was a particularly heinous example of 'blocking'. Fact is, however, that the Blogathon gets a lot of support from MeFi's blogdesign community, and the criticism of a charity event simply Would Not Stand with them.
posted by Marquis at 1:05 PM on June 19, 2002
I sometimes wonder about claims of thread derailment. In many discussions, the topic can often start in one place, go to any number of other places and come back to where it started (or not). To me, this constitutes movement. Or in a thread where the topic remains constant but various people chime in with their particular understanding of it can also be "movement". Whether opinions are changed or not is immaterial to the discussion, so long as people are willing to discuss things in an open manner and to allow diverse opinions within that framework. I don't believe that I/P or creation/evolution threads have a lot of movement, which is why so many people are against those types of topics.
posted by ashbury at 1:11 PM on June 19, 2002
posted by ashbury at 1:11 PM on June 19, 2002
Sorry I made my point in such a clumsy manner.
The blogathon thread reminded me of the very first thread about Kaycee. Keep in mind that she was a previously unheard of girl with cancer, and then go back and read the comments especially by FAB4GIRL.
Someone points to something (could be kaycee, the blogathon, or maybe even the modestneeds.com site) and yeah, it's a hair cheesy, maybe a touch goofy in concept or execution, but it only exists to try and do some good. I'm the most cynical person I know, and although those things might make a tiny part of me want to roll my eyes, I can tell it's a harmless thing that aims to help others, and it seems pointless to protest it. In these cases the contrarian point of view is probably 1% of the audience and the line between protesting the movement/site/whatever and being a heartless asshole is razor thin.
It's a fucking charity event, and I can't understand why someone would find it off-putting, when it can so easily be ignored but it sounds like Su has religious/cultural issues and yarf already gives to charity and feels it is stupid to stage events around it. That's fine and I'm glad that finally came out in the last few comments, but by and large the thread is pointless, reading like "this is stupid" "no it's not, get over yourself" "yes it is stupid" and it was incredible tiresome.
Also, what marquis said above.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 1:17 PM on June 19, 2002
The blogathon thread reminded me of the very first thread about Kaycee. Keep in mind that she was a previously unheard of girl with cancer, and then go back and read the comments especially by FAB4GIRL.
Someone points to something (could be kaycee, the blogathon, or maybe even the modestneeds.com site) and yeah, it's a hair cheesy, maybe a touch goofy in concept or execution, but it only exists to try and do some good. I'm the most cynical person I know, and although those things might make a tiny part of me want to roll my eyes, I can tell it's a harmless thing that aims to help others, and it seems pointless to protest it. In these cases the contrarian point of view is probably 1% of the audience and the line between protesting the movement/site/whatever and being a heartless asshole is razor thin.
It's a fucking charity event, and I can't understand why someone would find it off-putting, when it can so easily be ignored but it sounds like Su has religious/cultural issues and yarf already gives to charity and feels it is stupid to stage events around it. That's fine and I'm glad that finally came out in the last few comments, but by and large the thread is pointless, reading like "this is stupid" "no it's not, get over yourself" "yes it is stupid" and it was incredible tiresome.
Also, what marquis said above.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 1:17 PM on June 19, 2002
Here's last year's thread.
I thought it was interesting that the thread took a completely different turn this time. Yes, there was some annoying straw-grasping in a couple instances, but for the most part, discussing the merits of the event was welcome.
I think it's important not to dig your heels in and keep arguing just for the sake of ego. Su specifically avoided this, and made some good points.
posted by frykitty at 1:17 PM on June 19, 2002
I thought it was interesting that the thread took a completely different turn this time. Yes, there was some annoying straw-grasping in a couple instances, but for the most part, discussing the merits of the event was welcome.
I think it's important not to dig your heels in and keep arguing just for the sake of ego. Su specifically avoided this, and made some good points.
posted by frykitty at 1:17 PM on June 19, 2002
it's a hair cheesy, maybe a touch goofy in concept or execution
Hey! ;-)
posted by frykitty at 1:20 PM on June 19, 2002
Hey! ;-)
posted by frykitty at 1:20 PM on June 19, 2002
Good.
- V: "I believe A."
- W: "I believe B."
- X: "I also believe A."
- Y: "I believe C."
- Z: "I believe A is better than C."
- V: "I believe A."
- W: "I believe B."
- X: "I also believe A."
- W: "What are you, some kind of idiot? B, dude."
- Y: "I believe C."
- W: "Well, I still believe B!
- Z: "I believe A is better than C."
- W: "A?! C?! Why are you even talking about C and A?! Didn't you hear me say I believe B? Jesus, people!
Personally, I think it's silly but harmless. If some enjoy it or feel that this is a good way for them to contribute something to others, more power to them. I DO think, though, that there is definitely a measure of sacred-cow defense occurring in the thread, which while understandable, seems inappropriate to me. Why shouldn't people be able to express contrary opinions and reasoning about this issue as with any other?
posted by rushmc at 1:26 PM on June 19, 2002
posted by rushmc at 1:26 PM on June 19, 2002
there is definitely a measure of sacred-cow defense occurring in the thread
This isn't meant to be contrarian: Would you mind pointing out some specific examples?
I can't really see any "won't someone think of the children!" arguments despite yarf's assertion of it, but I'm helping build the pedestal for the cow statue, so maybe the marble dust is blocking my sight.
posted by cCranium at 1:36 PM on June 19, 2002
This isn't meant to be contrarian: Would you mind pointing out some specific examples?
I can't really see any "won't someone think of the children!" arguments despite yarf's assertion of it, but I'm helping build the pedestal for the cow statue, so maybe the marble dust is blocking my sight.
posted by cCranium at 1:36 PM on June 19, 2002
(off topic: I think frykitty deserves some serious props for her good humour, politeness, and cool attitude. She really modelled a great way to behave in that discussion. Thanks!)
posted by RJ Reynolds at 2:32 PM on June 19, 2002
posted by RJ Reynolds at 2:32 PM on June 19, 2002
off topic: I think frykitty deserves some serious props for her good humour, politeness, and cool attitude
I don't think that's off-topic at all. If I take Su's question correctly, he's asking or proposing we discuss what constitutes the progress of polite, rational discourse hereabouts. Frykitty's (and, I think, cCranium's) posts are a good example of providing information while trying to move the conversation beyond a point on which it has gotten stuck and upon which the participants probably should simply agree to disagree.
posted by bradlands at 2:43 PM on June 19, 2002
I don't think that's off-topic at all. If I take Su's question correctly, he's asking or proposing we discuss what constitutes the progress of polite, rational discourse hereabouts. Frykitty's (and, I think, cCranium's) posts are a good example of providing information while trying to move the conversation beyond a point on which it has gotten stuck and upon which the participants probably should simply agree to disagree.
posted by bradlands at 2:43 PM on June 19, 2002
True, RJR. I am more in line with Su's view but frykittys patience, graciousness and inclusiveness(where others might have gone ballistic) has more than anything else made me reconsider my opinion on the matter.
posted by vacapinta at 2:45 PM on June 19, 2002
posted by vacapinta at 2:45 PM on June 19, 2002
I'm with Opus Dark. You'll notice I don't write much in threads any more, I'll leave something small (although hopefully not pointless). Part of the reason is that often anything I would want to say has already been said and just to post and say 'I agree with A' seems like noise to me. The other reason is threads like this (of which there seem to be an increasing number).
The post is perfectly harmless question. There is a nostalgic tinge to it, like 'Do you remember when ...' 'What happened to you last Christmas...' An opportunity for those involved to share their experience. Lovely idea. I've signed up to the Blogathon mailing list and trying to work out the logistics of taking part with my house move and volunteering at the Commonwealth Games to work around. Might happen, might not. But I clicked in to see what happened last year to see what I might gain from the experience.
Then I read the first three posts. The first is nice, supportive. Good luck guys. Then we have two and three. Both snarky comments. Both contributing little, which is ironic considering that they both castigate frykitty and friends for doing exactly the thing that they're doing. I respect Su that she realised she was bit quick off the mark and made peace with those she felt she had to, and this post isn't specifically directed at her. I've made some off hand comments myself before. What I'm talking about here is a condition of the site, and the people within as a collective.
Because these posts occured at the beginning of the thread, anyone who clicked through to share their stories were immediately put on the defensive and felt that they had to somehow justify this thing they've garnered a lot of pleasure from. So the interesting they wanted to post is submerged in their attempt to change the mind of someone who doesn't feel that way. This is a pattern which is being repeated time and again. Shadowkeeper gives a good model above. Place 'How do you feel about ...' at the top and it's perfect.
Sorry, but I don't come here for that model of argument. I may be wrong, but it feels like a learning experience only for those involved not for those reading. I think what I'm expecting and which occured much more frequently in the past is the Greek model, which is too complex to explain in a few sentences so here's an explanation for interested parties. It used to happen sometimes and these were jewels.
I think my point is that contributors here have rapidly lost the capacity for respect and the need to contribute something postive. I urge you to take a look at this thread from last August. I was feeling pretty bad after reading a newspaper article and asked a similar question as appeared here. Anyone else feel the same? The ensuing discussion. Those involved worked through reasoned arguments, offering personal experience and also statistics and facts. Almost like some group essay, people were adding in ideas which had been missed elsewhere. In some ways it feels like improvisational jazz.
I'd be interested to know if anyone has an recent examples of something similar. I might feel better then.
I'm not suggesting that people shouldn't disagree with each other. Lord knows, I've seen enough things on here which have made me want to throw my monitor out of the window. It would just be nice sometimes that if people don't agree with something offering a considered argument. Rather than simply a sarcastic remark, offer something deeper. Hopefully this raises the level of discussion, which means that those who have a rational argument won't be afraid to express it. I'm sure there are times when you've been burning to say something but haven't because you know you're going to be ripped into.
I suppose what I'm asking is (on some basic level) -- can we not sometimes shoot the puppy (thread) before it's even had a chance to go out for a run?
posted by feelinglistless at 3:44 PM on June 19, 2002
The post is perfectly harmless question. There is a nostalgic tinge to it, like 'Do you remember when ...' 'What happened to you last Christmas...' An opportunity for those involved to share their experience. Lovely idea. I've signed up to the Blogathon mailing list and trying to work out the logistics of taking part with my house move and volunteering at the Commonwealth Games to work around. Might happen, might not. But I clicked in to see what happened last year to see what I might gain from the experience.
Then I read the first three posts. The first is nice, supportive. Good luck guys. Then we have two and three. Both snarky comments. Both contributing little, which is ironic considering that they both castigate frykitty and friends for doing exactly the thing that they're doing. I respect Su that she realised she was bit quick off the mark and made peace with those she felt she had to, and this post isn't specifically directed at her. I've made some off hand comments myself before. What I'm talking about here is a condition of the site, and the people within as a collective.
Because these posts occured at the beginning of the thread, anyone who clicked through to share their stories were immediately put on the defensive and felt that they had to somehow justify this thing they've garnered a lot of pleasure from. So the interesting they wanted to post is submerged in their attempt to change the mind of someone who doesn't feel that way. This is a pattern which is being repeated time and again. Shadowkeeper gives a good model above. Place 'How do you feel about ...' at the top and it's perfect.
Sorry, but I don't come here for that model of argument. I may be wrong, but it feels like a learning experience only for those involved not for those reading. I think what I'm expecting and which occured much more frequently in the past is the Greek model, which is too complex to explain in a few sentences so here's an explanation for interested parties. It used to happen sometimes and these were jewels.
I think my point is that contributors here have rapidly lost the capacity for respect and the need to contribute something postive. I urge you to take a look at this thread from last August. I was feeling pretty bad after reading a newspaper article and asked a similar question as appeared here. Anyone else feel the same? The ensuing discussion. Those involved worked through reasoned arguments, offering personal experience and also statistics and facts. Almost like some group essay, people were adding in ideas which had been missed elsewhere. In some ways it feels like improvisational jazz.
I'd be interested to know if anyone has an recent examples of something similar. I might feel better then.
I'm not suggesting that people shouldn't disagree with each other. Lord knows, I've seen enough things on here which have made me want to throw my monitor out of the window. It would just be nice sometimes that if people don't agree with something offering a considered argument. Rather than simply a sarcastic remark, offer something deeper. Hopefully this raises the level of discussion, which means that those who have a rational argument won't be afraid to express it. I'm sure there are times when you've been burning to say something but haven't because you know you're going to be ripped into.
I suppose what I'm asking is (on some basic level) -- can we not sometimes shoot the puppy (thread) before it's even had a chance to go out for a run?
posted by feelinglistless at 3:44 PM on June 19, 2002
I'd be interested to know if anyone has an recent examples of something similar
Well, I thought this thread from two days ago went rather well - It could easily have devolved into a bitter creationism vs. evolution thread but was, instead well-mannered and thought-provoking.
Don't disengage, feelinglistless. Try instead to lead by example.
posted by vacapinta at 4:02 PM on June 19, 2002
Well, I thought this thread from two days ago went rather well - It could easily have devolved into a bitter creationism vs. evolution thread but was, instead well-mannered and thought-provoking.
Don't disengage, feelinglistless. Try instead to lead by example.
posted by vacapinta at 4:02 PM on June 19, 2002
Looking at your example thread, feelinglistless, I am immediately struck by the snarkiness of some of the very first posts. So it seems that even when they get off on a shaky foot, a thread can be redeemed by the efforts and participation of the engaged.
In general, though, I agree with you that it is better to try to build than to tear down what others are trying to build. The problem is that different people build in different ways, and the tools of some can look like dynamite and bulldozers to others, who then start acting to defend their construction. It's a tricky thing.
posted by rushmc at 4:22 PM on June 19, 2002
In general, though, I agree with you that it is better to try to build than to tear down what others are trying to build. The problem is that different people build in different ways, and the tools of some can look like dynamite and bulldozers to others, who then start acting to defend their construction. It's a tricky thing.
posted by rushmc at 4:22 PM on June 19, 2002
snarkiness of some of the very first posts
Perhaps, but they still offer their argument against with some foundation through personal experience. They say 'here is why I think the article is wrong' rather than 'that article's a bunch of crap, why the hell would you post it you moron!?!'
posted by feelinglistless at 4:28 PM on June 19, 2002
Perhaps, but they still offer their argument against with some foundation through personal experience. They say 'here is why I think the article is wrong' rather than 'that article's a bunch of crap, why the hell would you post it you moron!?!'
posted by feelinglistless at 4:28 PM on June 19, 2002
Wait. So if I disagree with a topic, I should wait until the people who are fine with it get their chances to post first because the possibility of conflict might scare them away?
Sorry, but I don't come here for that model of argument. I may be wrong, but it feels like a learning experience only for those involved not for those reading.
And how did you learn the Greek argument model?
At any rate, there's only so much you can learn from watching anyway, unless you just never come up with your own questions. If you choose not to go into a discussion, you only learn by proxy and assumption, since you don't necessarily know the reasoning behind the participant's questions.
Because these posts occured at the beginning of the thread, anyone who clicked through to share their stories were immediately put on the defensive and felt that they had to somehow justify this thing
No, they weren't, and even if, what stopped them from going right ahead and then posting what they originally intended to after responding to the dissent, or even just ignoring it? Not only does this suggest that one not argue against the topic of a thread, or perhaps just not at the beginning, but also makes a person who does so responsible for the non-participation of others. Ohhhhhh, no. I don't think so.
posted by Su at 4:50 PM on June 19, 2002
Sorry, but I don't come here for that model of argument. I may be wrong, but it feels like a learning experience only for those involved not for those reading.
And how did you learn the Greek argument model?
At any rate, there's only so much you can learn from watching anyway, unless you just never come up with your own questions. If you choose not to go into a discussion, you only learn by proxy and assumption, since you don't necessarily know the reasoning behind the participant's questions.
Because these posts occured at the beginning of the thread, anyone who clicked through to share their stories were immediately put on the defensive and felt that they had to somehow justify this thing
No, they weren't, and even if, what stopped them from going right ahead and then posting what they originally intended to after responding to the dissent, or even just ignoring it? Not only does this suggest that one not argue against the topic of a thread, or perhaps just not at the beginning, but also makes a person who does so responsible for the non-participation of others. Ohhhhhh, no. I don't think so.
posted by Su at 4:50 PM on June 19, 2002
I honestly don't know what to say to a thread like this... I viewed the original MeFi post as asking for people's opinions on this sort of attempt to raise money for charity, not as a place for reminiscing about last year's blogathon. I think if dobbs wanted to reminisce, he would've come out and said (or done) so.
What I find/found most concerning and unhelpful was how, after I had expressed an opinion that others disagreed with, that I was called on the carpet to explain it. The "oh, this is a great idea and it hurts no one!" (as though lack of "hurt" was the only measurement of the validity or usefulness of an idea) opinion was never questioned.
And then to be told, straight up, that "dissent" has made the thread "pointless" and "useless" by a person other than the original author of the thread's topic, well, that was just icing on the cake. There is nothing that cuts off discusson more quickly than to have the site's owner come into a thread and say something like that. We call it a "chilling effect" elsewhere on the Net... (Ironically, this same person contributes in some fashion to Creative Commons.)
posted by yarf at 5:08 PM on June 19, 2002
What I find/found most concerning and unhelpful was how, after I had expressed an opinion that others disagreed with, that I was called on the carpet to explain it. The "oh, this is a great idea and it hurts no one!" (as though lack of "hurt" was the only measurement of the validity or usefulness of an idea) opinion was never questioned.
And then to be told, straight up, that "dissent" has made the thread "pointless" and "useless" by a person other than the original author of the thread's topic, well, that was just icing on the cake. There is nothing that cuts off discusson more quickly than to have the site's owner come into a thread and say something like that. We call it a "chilling effect" elsewhere on the Net... (Ironically, this same person contributes in some fashion to Creative Commons.)
posted by yarf at 5:08 PM on June 19, 2002
yarf:
so basically matt can't express his opinion simply because he owns the site? that's ridiculous. he has every right to not only wear the Admin Hat, but also the Contributor Hat. would you build something like mefi if you never got to speak your mind? what would be the point?
dissent was not the problem here. the problem was that there's no progression to the conversation. although su demonstrated that he was in the conversation to make his opinions clear and to understand other peoples' opinions, it seemed that you were only in it to cut the blogathon down. i could be wrong, but it seemed to me that your attitude got in the way of anyone getting anything out of your comments except knowledge of your contempt for the event.
posted by pikachulolita at 5:47 PM on June 19, 2002
so basically matt can't express his opinion simply because he owns the site? that's ridiculous. he has every right to not only wear the Admin Hat, but also the Contributor Hat. would you build something like mefi if you never got to speak your mind? what would be the point?
dissent was not the problem here. the problem was that there's no progression to the conversation. although su demonstrated that he was in the conversation to make his opinions clear and to understand other peoples' opinions, it seemed that you were only in it to cut the blogathon down. i could be wrong, but it seemed to me that your attitude got in the way of anyone getting anything out of your comments except knowledge of your contempt for the event.
posted by pikachulolita at 5:47 PM on June 19, 2002
Depends on the role he was playing there... If a bookstore owner walks up to you and says that the book you're holding is pure drivel and crap and you should put it down, or a nightclub owner tells the audience that tonight's show has gone downhill ever since the last comedian came on, well, how should you take it? The the bookstore owner is just acting like another reader in the world, or the nightclub owner is just acting as someone who enjoys comedy??
Define "progression." Since when has the measurement of discussion been based upon such nebulous, undefineable "movement" here, or in any other online community? Seriously, I'd like to see such communities. I've never been told a discussion I was engaged in lacked enough "movement" to make it worthy of continuation until today. And I've been doing this for many, many years.
As for people cutting each other down, srboisvert certainly had a nice time cutting Su down. But then again, srboisvert wasn't dissenting, so it's nice to ignore that. No, no attitude there! lol!!
posted by yarf at 5:57 PM on June 19, 2002
Define "progression." Since when has the measurement of discussion been based upon such nebulous, undefineable "movement" here, or in any other online community? Seriously, I'd like to see such communities. I've never been told a discussion I was engaged in lacked enough "movement" to make it worthy of continuation until today. And I've been doing this for many, many years.
As for people cutting each other down, srboisvert certainly had a nice time cutting Su down. But then again, srboisvert wasn't dissenting, so it's nice to ignore that. No, no attitude there! lol!!
posted by yarf at 5:57 PM on June 19, 2002
I'll grant yarf and Su that I might have overreacted a bit, as it sounded like arguments that have taken place previously here, and I was in no mood to hear them again.
yarf, I still assert that you dug your heels in a bit. Looking at the comments, your fourth comment in the thread was only the 14th comment total. That's pretty close to hijacking the thread with your comments on a purely mathematical point, and I'll still sit here and say you seemed a bit insensitive in your remarks.
And then to be told, straight up, that "dissent" has made the thread "pointless" and "useless"
What is useless was having a discussion turn into everybody vs Su & yarf. Any discussion here is useless when one person or a couple people take over. If the comments were threaded like slashdot or kuro5hin, it wouldn't have made as much of an impact because visitors could skip over that thread and see the other concerns. This assertion early on that because no one could understand his/her point of view that everyone was suffering from group-think certainly wasn't going to help. If you say something highly debatable, and everyone takes you to task for it, then you poo-poo the entire site and paint them with a demeaning brush, things aren't going to improve from there and will no doubt get increasingly hostile (as I did after reading that). If I have any problem with that entire discussion, it's that rude message, proclaiming that everyone has a problem except yarf.
Also, I don't know what my current contract employer has to do with anything, but feel free to make the connection for me.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 6:05 PM on June 19, 2002
yarf, I still assert that you dug your heels in a bit. Looking at the comments, your fourth comment in the thread was only the 14th comment total. That's pretty close to hijacking the thread with your comments on a purely mathematical point, and I'll still sit here and say you seemed a bit insensitive in your remarks.
And then to be told, straight up, that "dissent" has made the thread "pointless" and "useless"
What is useless was having a discussion turn into everybody vs Su & yarf. Any discussion here is useless when one person or a couple people take over. If the comments were threaded like slashdot or kuro5hin, it wouldn't have made as much of an impact because visitors could skip over that thread and see the other concerns. This assertion early on that because no one could understand his/her point of view that everyone was suffering from group-think certainly wasn't going to help. If you say something highly debatable, and everyone takes you to task for it, then you poo-poo the entire site and paint them with a demeaning brush, things aren't going to improve from there and will no doubt get increasingly hostile (as I did after reading that). If I have any problem with that entire discussion, it's that rude message, proclaiming that everyone has a problem except yarf.
Also, I don't know what my current contract employer has to do with anything, but feel free to make the connection for me.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 6:05 PM on June 19, 2002
If it's important to you for me to admit that "I dug my heels in a bit," then yes, certainly I did so. So did others, if you would be so kind to note, even some people who were not dissenting!
Is it rude to point out the obvious, that people quickly took up sides and started ostracizing others who disagreed with their pov, trying to turn it into a black-and-white issue? Well, to each their own.
posted by yarf at 6:39 PM on June 19, 2002
Is it rude to point out the obvious, that people quickly took up sides and started ostracizing others who disagreed with their pov, trying to turn it into a black-and-white issue? Well, to each their own.
posted by yarf at 6:39 PM on June 19, 2002
What constitutes movement?
A good, Hegelian question. It's dialectical. Dissenting opinions are good; they allow statu quo opinions to sharpen; they provide a focus for definition; they keep the ball rolling; they present something against which to labour and elaborate.
Dissenting opinions really only mean they go against the grain; the establishment view. Positions could easily be reversed and Su and yarf be in the majority. The point is that, thanks to Su and yarf, a lot of people were able to rethink and better define their attitude towards Blogathon and the approach to charity it embodies.
[For the record, I'm 100% behind Blogathon, but thank yarf and Su for having provoked so many cogent responses I could identify with; leaving me nothing to add. Since this post is (inevitably, honestly!) pretentious; let me add that the discussion is, like all good moral discussions, about conceptions of the Good and the actions best designed to defend them. In that respect, movement existed. And it was good.!]
posted by MiguelCardoso at 7:10 PM on June 19, 2002
A good, Hegelian question. It's dialectical. Dissenting opinions are good; they allow statu quo opinions to sharpen; they provide a focus for definition; they keep the ball rolling; they present something against which to labour and elaborate.
Dissenting opinions really only mean they go against the grain; the establishment view. Positions could easily be reversed and Su and yarf be in the majority. The point is that, thanks to Su and yarf, a lot of people were able to rethink and better define their attitude towards Blogathon and the approach to charity it embodies.
[For the record, I'm 100% behind Blogathon, but thank yarf and Su for having provoked so many cogent responses I could identify with; leaving me nothing to add. Since this post is (inevitably, honestly!) pretentious; let me add that the discussion is, like all good moral discussions, about conceptions of the Good and the actions best designed to defend them. In that respect, movement existed. And it was good.!]
posted by MiguelCardoso at 7:10 PM on June 19, 2002
Shitsake yarf, your entire point, once finally clarified beyond your initial ultra-vague negestalt, seemed to consist of a sheeny, pathos-of-distance-inspired pronouncement that event-driven charity is not as good a thing as non-event-driven charity.
OK. Mebbe so. Either extrapolate, or limit yourself to one (1) loud thread buzz. You could've made a lot of interesting and arguable points by skillfully deconstructing the event-driven charity model - instead, you presented with some mildly self-righteous, mildly scolding mini-blurbs about anonymous altruism. Nothing was going anywhere.
Waiting for your next post to the thread was like...
...playing MeFi whack-a-mole...
...and all the moles looked like Zarathustra's ape.
posted by Opus Dark at 7:54 PM on June 19, 2002
OK. Mebbe so. Either extrapolate, or limit yourself to one (1) loud thread buzz. You could've made a lot of interesting and arguable points by skillfully deconstructing the event-driven charity model - instead, you presented with some mildly self-righteous, mildly scolding mini-blurbs about anonymous altruism. Nothing was going anywhere.
Waiting for your next post to the thread was like...
...playing MeFi whack-a-mole...
...and all the moles looked like Zarathustra's ape.
posted by Opus Dark at 7:54 PM on June 19, 2002
There is nothing that cuts off discusson more quickly than to have the site's owner come into a thread and say something like that. We call it a "chilling effect" elsewhere on the Net... (Ironically, this same person contributes in some fashion to Creative Commons.)
What the hell? I can sympathize that it must've been frustrating to be in sharp disagreement with a bunch of people and the owner of the site, but your sneer about Creative Commons is loony. I can't think of anything this situation resembles less than an effort to reclaim space for the public domain. You were doing better with that stuff about how MetaFilter isn't a community unless your vigorously contrarian opinion is warmly embraced by all.
posted by rcade at 8:26 PM on June 19, 2002
What the hell? I can sympathize that it must've been frustrating to be in sharp disagreement with a bunch of people and the owner of the site, but your sneer about Creative Commons is loony. I can't think of anything this situation resembles less than an effort to reclaim space for the public domain. You were doing better with that stuff about how MetaFilter isn't a community unless your vigorously contrarian opinion is warmly embraced by all.
posted by rcade at 8:26 PM on June 19, 2002
Su:
Wait. So if I disagree with a topic, I should wait until the people who are fine with it get their chances to post first because the possibility of conflict might scare them away?
That isn't quite what I said. What I said was if you disagree with the topic, that a considered argument rather than a swift comment seem to work best here for promoting discussion rather than fighting.
posted by feelinglistless at 11:06 PM on June 19, 2002
Wait. So if I disagree with a topic, I should wait until the people who are fine with it get their chances to post first because the possibility of conflict might scare them away?
That isn't quite what I said. What I said was if you disagree with the topic, that a considered argument rather than a swift comment seem to work best here for promoting discussion rather than fighting.
posted by feelinglistless at 11:06 PM on June 19, 2002
On topic... if it's yellow, let it mellow. If it's brown, flush it down.
posted by crunchland at 11:46 AM on June 20, 2002
posted by crunchland at 11:46 AM on June 20, 2002
"there is definitely a measure of sacred-cow defense occurring in the thread"
sacred cows make the tastiest of burgers.
posted by jcterminal at 1:42 PM on June 20, 2002
sacred cows make the tastiest of burgers.
posted by jcterminal at 1:42 PM on June 20, 2002
Insightful spoof of MetaFilter discussion dynamics. (old)
posted by sheauga at 6:51 AM on June 21, 2002
posted by sheauga at 6:51 AM on June 21, 2002
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
In the end, this led to me settling with D, partially with Srboisvert and with Frykitty(via e-mail). I now have several interesting examples of output resulting from last year's 'thon. While my overall opinion has not currently changed, it's not so bleak. It's something. It also led some people to start understanding why someone could disagree. I think those qualify as the movement referred to as not occuring.
Movement's a very different thing from there being an actual change of opinion, which is a lot to ask of a single discussion.
I'm interested in other views, and this doesn't really go in the thread itself.
posted by Su at 12:46 PM on June 19, 2002