Controversial soapbox rants. July 8, 2002 1:12 PM Subscribe
I don't like when people decide they can abuse metafilter by posting controversial soapbox rants. You know you're going to get a bunch of comments, and you know people will have their feelings hurt or their blood boiling, but are these good things? What good do you contribute?
It's a terrible post, and it doesn't even have any internal logic. A story about how a wife claims innocence for a husband magically becomes a searing indictment of an entire culture? It doesn't even pass the laugh test. I'm betting Matt gorks it.
posted by Skot at 1:25 PM on July 8, 2002
posted by Skot at 1:25 PM on July 8, 2002
I agree.
But too often we see a bunch of folks making a thread their own playground to vent their pet-peaves. - BlueTrain (that's me!)
posted by BlueTrain at 1:29 PM on July 8, 2002
But too often we see a bunch of folks making a thread their own playground to vent their pet-peaves. - BlueTrain (that's me!)
posted by BlueTrain at 1:29 PM on July 8, 2002
To be fair, the poster offered other examples other than the one linked. Some additional links to the other stories, along with a caveat "is it the media coverage, or is it a cultural thing?" would have made it a better post. As it stands, it only ensures that a non-productive discussion will emerge as backlash and counter-backlash forces enagage in stone-throwing.
posted by cell divide at 1:30 PM on July 8, 2002
posted by cell divide at 1:30 PM on July 8, 2002
dreamer98 has posted 1 link and 5 comments to MetaFilter
and no threads and no comments to MetaTalk
I don't think we can really call this a "pet peeve" yet, and the article frankly is pretty astounding. It deserves to be read, although the "denial" is exactly the same in nature as the denial seen in similar situations, without the Muslim angle. "My son is a good boy, he couldn't have done [whatever]." I think the post should stay, though, simply because it is the same dynamic as happens in all those other instances. Perhaps, given time, that discussion will develop.
posted by yhbc at 1:30 PM on July 8, 2002
and no threads and no comments to MetaTalk
I don't think we can really call this a "pet peeve" yet, and the article frankly is pretty astounding. It deserves to be read, although the "denial" is exactly the same in nature as the denial seen in similar situations, without the Muslim angle. "My son is a good boy, he couldn't have done [whatever]." I think the post should stay, though, simply because it is the same dynamic as happens in all those other instances. Perhaps, given time, that discussion will develop.
posted by yhbc at 1:30 PM on July 8, 2002
Controversial soapbox rants
It's a good new MetaFilter tag
posted by matteo at 1:41 PM on July 8, 2002
It's a good new MetaFilter tag
posted by matteo at 1:41 PM on July 8, 2002
another controversial post, which came right before it, concerns evolution. that one didn't bother me. i suppose the cynic could say "maybe moz is simply more interested in evolution than the mid-east crisis"; they'd be right on that account. i think it's fine to post a thread about something that interests you, but there was a bit more to chew on as far as links go. thus far the commentary there has been pointed but civil and informative (having ousted mack's thread as perhaps eugenicist). the LAX thread didn't have that kind of reference material, and given the nature of the thread, i doubt it possibly could.
I don't think we can really call this a "pet peeve" yet
good point, yhbc. it read to me like a pet peeve, but that is just my opinion.
posted by moz at 1:41 PM on July 8, 2002
I don't think we can really call this a "pet peeve" yet
good point, yhbc. it read to me like a pet peeve, but that is just my opinion.
posted by moz at 1:41 PM on July 8, 2002
Making a gross generalization from a single incident is the worst type of reasoning and makes for the most inflammatory, unproductive posts.
With some supporting links and something about, say, the psychology of denial this may have been interesting. An interesting discussion may still ensue, but I hate to reward this type of front-page post and to place the onus on the community of developing an interesting discussion.
Fundamentally, it is the responsibility of the poster to present worthwhile link and commentary. Historically, unsupported leaps of logic in the FPP tend to not create worthwhile discussion.
posted by vacapinta at 1:43 PM on July 8, 2002
With some supporting links and something about, say, the psychology of denial this may have been interesting. An interesting discussion may still ensue, but I hate to reward this type of front-page post and to place the onus on the community of developing an interesting discussion.
Fundamentally, it is the responsibility of the poster to present worthwhile link and commentary. Historically, unsupported leaps of logic in the FPP tend to not create worthwhile discussion.
posted by vacapinta at 1:43 PM on July 8, 2002
If you cannot discuss the implications of a story like this, what are you really going to discuss: that it's terrible to lose your spouse in this way? Cultural differences in mourning? The story obviously cries out for discussion of its possible connection to AQ. So chill out. Or read another thread.
posted by ParisParamus at 3:09 PM on July 8, 2002
posted by ParisParamus at 3:09 PM on July 8, 2002
"Fundamentally," it is the responsbility of the Mefi participant to accept that (s)he will not agree that every post is worthwhile. And, in that case, to move on.
posted by ParisParamus at 3:10 PM on July 8, 2002
posted by ParisParamus at 3:10 PM on July 8, 2002
The story obviously cries out for discussion of its possible connection to AQ. So chill out. Or read another thread.
Says who? You? Spare me...YOU are not a credible resource in these threads. So to assume that anyone should "chill out" at your request is laughable.
There was a very large inference made by the poster of this thread. Correct or incorrect inference, at this point, is irrelevant, because it immediately alienated a large (perhaps not majority) of the MeFi readership. The point of this MeTa post is to discuss such an angry write-up.
And, in that case, to move on.
If the post was written in such a way as to purvey information without adding insulting, and rather condescending, language, I agree. This was not the case here. The woman in the story made some rather unsettling remarks, but we cannot prevent those comments from being made. We CAN, however, prevent ourselves from being drawn into such a polarizing and covertly racist attitude.
posted by BlueTrain at 3:24 PM on July 8, 2002
Says who? You? Spare me...YOU are not a credible resource in these threads. So to assume that anyone should "chill out" at your request is laughable.
There was a very large inference made by the poster of this thread. Correct or incorrect inference, at this point, is irrelevant, because it immediately alienated a large (perhaps not majority) of the MeFi readership. The point of this MeTa post is to discuss such an angry write-up.
And, in that case, to move on.
If the post was written in such a way as to purvey information without adding insulting, and rather condescending, language, I agree. This was not the case here. The woman in the story made some rather unsettling remarks, but we cannot prevent those comments from being made. We CAN, however, prevent ourselves from being drawn into such a polarizing and covertly racist attitude.
posted by BlueTrain at 3:24 PM on July 8, 2002
controversial soapbox rants
Calling that post a "controversial soapbox rant" insults all the literate wackos with agendas out there (I'm looking at you, Paris :). I can't even figure out what the thing is supposed to be about.
posted by MarkAnd at 3:25 PM on July 8, 2002
Calling that post a "controversial soapbox rant" insults all the literate wackos with agendas out there (I'm looking at you, Paris :). I can't even figure out what the thing is supposed to be about.
posted by MarkAnd at 3:25 PM on July 8, 2002
Just how racist and/or offensive does one have to be to get banned from this site?
posted by salmacis at 4:06 PM on July 8, 2002
posted by salmacis at 4:06 PM on July 8, 2002
I agree -- no useful discussion has come of it -- it's mostly yet another textbook exhibit of ParisParamus's OCD.
posted by donkeyschlong at 4:34 PM on July 8, 2002
posted by donkeyschlong at 4:34 PM on July 8, 2002
"You know you're going to get a bunch of comments, and you know people will have their feelings hurt or their blood boiling, but are these good things? What good do you contribute?
"
one question answers the other.
last i checked, mefi was about posting links and creating discussions about them. isn't this an example of that? isn't this thread here in metatalk *another* example of that?
i don't see pulling out the soapbox as abuse. i see it as realizing and understanding that sometimes you just need to have a naked lunch every once in a while.
posted by jcterminal at 10:20 PM on July 8, 2002
"
one question answers the other.
last i checked, mefi was about posting links and creating discussions about them. isn't this an example of that? isn't this thread here in metatalk *another* example of that?
i don't see pulling out the soapbox as abuse. i see it as realizing and understanding that sometimes you just need to have a naked lunch every once in a while.
posted by jcterminal at 10:20 PM on July 8, 2002
last i checked, mefi was about posting links and creating discussions about them. isn't this an example of that?
all threads are an example of what you describe, and yet not all threads are retained on metafilter. i felt like the thread was offensive enough to be deleted, but perhaps matt thought the discussion inside warranted its place on the site?
posted by moz at 11:52 PM on July 8, 2002
all threads are an example of what you describe, and yet not all threads are retained on metafilter. i felt like the thread was offensive enough to be deleted, but perhaps matt thought the discussion inside warranted its place on the site?
posted by moz at 11:52 PM on July 8, 2002
There have been a couple of threads that I would have deleted...this being one of them, the discussion about SW airlines being another (because we lost some really groovy people after that fight), and one or two that have been deleted.
I think this thread started out fairly racist, then got worse as Post and Paris chimed in with their obligatory "Arabs Suck" comments. (Which I've begun to expect from both of them, so I don't consider it too terribly surprising...I swear, the two of them could give David Duke a run for his money in the Racism 10K.)
When it's all said and done however, it's Matt's site...he makes the call...and I'm good with that...even when I disagree. :-)
posted by dejah420 at 12:07 AM on July 9, 2002
I think this thread started out fairly racist, then got worse as Post and Paris chimed in with their obligatory "Arabs Suck" comments. (Which I've begun to expect from both of them, so I don't consider it too terribly surprising...I swear, the two of them could give David Duke a run for his money in the Racism 10K.)
When it's all said and done however, it's Matt's site...he makes the call...and I'm good with that...even when I disagree. :-)
posted by dejah420 at 12:07 AM on July 9, 2002
As I said in the thread, I have no idea if the poster was being purposely inflammatory or just a little less careful than s/he should have been with the topic, but I saw the germ of a decent discussion there.
Is it possible for MetaFilter to have any discussion of differences between cultures before someone screams racism?
Does my position as a member of the social left mean that I can't make tentative observations or ask questions about what I perceive to be differences in cultures?
And does *your* position on the social left mean that your obligation is to dismiss such a topic entirely with a declaration of TROLL! or RACIST!, rather than, ohidontknow, to explain how I am wrong, so that I could just possibly learn something in the deal?
Anyone up for another thread of kitten pictures?
posted by Sapphireblue at 7:21 AM on July 9, 2002
Is it possible for MetaFilter to have any discussion of differences between cultures before someone screams racism?
Does my position as a member of the social left mean that I can't make tentative observations or ask questions about what I perceive to be differences in cultures?
And does *your* position on the social left mean that your obligation is to dismiss such a topic entirely with a declaration of TROLL! or RACIST!, rather than, ohidontknow, to explain how I am wrong, so that I could just possibly learn something in the deal?
Anyone up for another thread of kitten pictures?
posted by Sapphireblue at 7:21 AM on July 9, 2002
Do any of you guys have links for pictures of kitten eating Pancakes?
posted by matteo at 10:01 AM on July 9, 2002
posted by matteo at 10:01 AM on July 9, 2002
Yeah, I dig what you're saying Sapphireblue. And I do think there there can be a discussion about the differences in cultures. In fact, I would welcome a discussion like that, for I think we would find that the differences would lead to commonalities...if that makes sense. What I mean is, somehow, even though we are all different, somehow, we are also all the same. (I dunno, I could just be insane there.)
But once comments like:
the above get posted, the discussion will automatically reduce itself to kneejerk reactions...and thus I think it can safely be considered that comments like that are trolling...as they are, for all intents and purposes, written down and posted to *cause* a reaction to them.
It isn't an attempt to add to the discussion, or to put forth a meaningful dialogue or question...it's simply there to cause outrage, indignation or agreement...depending on the reader's already preconceived perceptions of the situation. (IMHO)
That being said, I reiterate that I would love to see a meaningful thread about the Arabic culture...which as many people seem to forget is not just about Islam. The first Christians were Arabs (Lebanon), there are Arabic Jews, Arabs gave us the number 0, which is nice, from that culture came architecture, the golden mean, algebra, trade routes, the first purple and blue dyes and so on and so on. Every culture has contributed something to this big world of ours, and the Arabs no less than any other.
And thus, to see them lumped into one category of "Islamic EeeeViiiiL", just chaps my ass. It's no better than saying all Native Americans are naked savages, all African Americans are AIDS riddled muggers, all Jews are zionist masters waiting to take over the universe, and all WASPS are really a global Trilateral Commission conspiracy bent, coincidentally enough, on global domination. But, because racism can hide behind the snapping flag icon of 9-11-01, it's suddenly become ok to hate people of Middle Eastern heritage...and that's just wrong.
And yes, I too want kitten pictures. Fuzzy, cute, little yawning tabby kittens please. :) Oooooh, and a calico kitten just to make Ashcroft crazy. :)
posted by dejah420 at 10:08 AM on July 9, 2002
But once comments like:
- Is there no crime in arab countries? Do criminal defenses take to form of "I'm a muslim, muslims can't commit crimes, so I didn't do it?".
- It's a Muslim thing because (1) he's Egyptian; (2) He shot people in an Israeli air terminal; (3) at least one of his victims was simply Jewish; (4) He had LOTS of ammo; (5) he did it on July 4th.
the above get posted, the discussion will automatically reduce itself to kneejerk reactions...and thus I think it can safely be considered that comments like that are trolling...as they are, for all intents and purposes, written down and posted to *cause* a reaction to them.
It isn't an attempt to add to the discussion, or to put forth a meaningful dialogue or question...it's simply there to cause outrage, indignation or agreement...depending on the reader's already preconceived perceptions of the situation. (IMHO)
That being said, I reiterate that I would love to see a meaningful thread about the Arabic culture...which as many people seem to forget is not just about Islam. The first Christians were Arabs (Lebanon), there are Arabic Jews, Arabs gave us the number 0, which is nice, from that culture came architecture, the golden mean, algebra, trade routes, the first purple and blue dyes and so on and so on. Every culture has contributed something to this big world of ours, and the Arabs no less than any other.
And thus, to see them lumped into one category of "Islamic EeeeViiiiL", just chaps my ass. It's no better than saying all Native Americans are naked savages, all African Americans are AIDS riddled muggers, all Jews are zionist masters waiting to take over the universe, and all WASPS are really a global Trilateral Commission conspiracy bent, coincidentally enough, on global domination. But, because racism can hide behind the snapping flag icon of 9-11-01, it's suddenly become ok to hate people of Middle Eastern heritage...and that's just wrong.
And yes, I too want kitten pictures. Fuzzy, cute, little yawning tabby kittens please. :) Oooooh, and a calico kitten just to make Ashcroft crazy. :)
posted by dejah420 at 10:08 AM on July 9, 2002
[That image by mr_crash_davis, from a photograph by Adam]
posted by MiguelCardoso at 10:09 AM on July 9, 2002
posted by MiguelCardoso at 10:09 AM on July 9, 2002
I am a big fan of people who post links about controversial topics in a way that encourages thoughtful responses. Be even-handed on the front page and wait until a few comments are made before unleashing a torrent of bile.
I think mediareport is great at soft-selling his own agenda in links like the recent "In God We Trust" item. He even managed to post about the Middle East without a huge scrum breaking out; he's either inspiring people with his approach or scaring them off with research.
posted by rcade at 10:59 AM on July 9, 2002
I think mediareport is great at soft-selling his own agenda in links like the recent "In God We Trust" item. He even managed to post about the Middle East without a huge scrum breaking out; he's either inspiring people with his approach or scaring them off with research.
posted by rcade at 10:59 AM on July 9, 2002
the above get posted, the discussion will automatically reduce itself to kneejerk reactions
I understand that, but I'd vastly prefer to see people carry on their discussion around the trolls, then have ten people in a row post TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! Because there comes a certain point with that sort of thing where it's just as disruptive to a thread as the trolling itself, and accomplishes the same end: to shut down the discussion.
racism can hide behind the snapping flag icon of 9-11-01, it's suddenly become ok to hate people of Middle Eastern heritage...and that's just wrong.
I totally agree.
But isn't the first step in getting past some of that crap to discuss it? If you're going to wait to start the discussion til everyone agrees to play nice, then 1) it'll never happen, particularly in a forum of this size, and 2) if all the participants in that discussion are nice, tolerant folks who wholeheartedly believe that Arabic culture is not bad, just different, there's nothing really to discuss anyway; it turns into a "What's YOUR favorite Arab contribution to modern culture?" list thread. Nothing wrong with that, but it's hardly living up to MeFi's potential.
I'm not saying that we should hope that some poor misguided soul will post to the front page saying ARAB WOMIN HIDE BEHIND VALES B/C THEY ARE UGLY DOGS WOOF! so that we can take him under our wings and gently nurture his understanding. I'm saying that *borderline* trolly situations should ideally be seen as an opportunity for discourse. Which is, as they say, win-win: promotes the conversation, of course, but also would seem to take a lot of the fun out of the passive-aggressive 'but I wasn't trolling' style of trolling.
oooooor, perhaps I'm living all alone in my personal dream world where reason prevails and logic is the ultimate weapon, where people don't give troublemakers the satisfaction of making trouble, and where someone needs to take me under his wing and gently nurture my understanding that the trolls have already won and that resistance is futile. I'm never sure, really.
posted by Sapphireblue at 11:09 AM on July 9, 2002
I understand that, but I'd vastly prefer to see people carry on their discussion around the trolls, then have ten people in a row post TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! Because there comes a certain point with that sort of thing where it's just as disruptive to a thread as the trolling itself, and accomplishes the same end: to shut down the discussion.
racism can hide behind the snapping flag icon of 9-11-01, it's suddenly become ok to hate people of Middle Eastern heritage...and that's just wrong.
I totally agree.
But isn't the first step in getting past some of that crap to discuss it? If you're going to wait to start the discussion til everyone agrees to play nice, then 1) it'll never happen, particularly in a forum of this size, and 2) if all the participants in that discussion are nice, tolerant folks who wholeheartedly believe that Arabic culture is not bad, just different, there's nothing really to discuss anyway; it turns into a "What's YOUR favorite Arab contribution to modern culture?" list thread. Nothing wrong with that, but it's hardly living up to MeFi's potential.
I'm not saying that we should hope that some poor misguided soul will post to the front page saying ARAB WOMIN HIDE BEHIND VALES B/C THEY ARE UGLY DOGS WOOF! so that we can take him under our wings and gently nurture his understanding. I'm saying that *borderline* trolly situations should ideally be seen as an opportunity for discourse. Which is, as they say, win-win: promotes the conversation, of course, but also would seem to take a lot of the fun out of the passive-aggressive 'but I wasn't trolling' style of trolling.
oooooor, perhaps I'm living all alone in my personal dream world where reason prevails and logic is the ultimate weapon, where people don't give troublemakers the satisfaction of making trouble, and where someone needs to take me under his wing and gently nurture my understanding that the trolls have already won and that resistance is futile. I'm never sure, really.
posted by Sapphireblue at 11:09 AM on July 9, 2002
The funny thing is that the moment I saw the thread on MeFi, I knew there would be a post on MeTa about it. I mean I knew it instantaneously! Just by reading the FPP!
posted by ( .)(. ) at 11:12 AM on July 9, 2002
posted by ( .)(. ) at 11:12 AM on July 9, 2002
Hey! Keep on topic! ;) posted by MiguelCardoso
Heh, dude...sorry, totally my bad. In that vein, here's a Troll with a Kitten. :)
posted by dejah420 at 11:32 AM on July 9, 2002
Heh, dude...sorry, totally my bad. In that vein, here's a Troll with a Kitten. :)
posted by dejah420 at 11:32 AM on July 9, 2002
« Older So what happened about the MeFi Swap II? | Is there a plan for a thread tracking feature? Newer »
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
LAX shooter is innocent What is the source of this incessant sense of denial that permeates arab society? Between the "absurdity" of an Egyptian pilot committing suicide, the computer generated videos of OBL, and the "impossibility" of a hate crime, why is it that arabs have an over-arching sense of impossibiility of committing crimes of such sort? Is there no crime in arab countries? Do criminal defenses take to form of "I'm a muslim, muslims can't commit crimes, so I didn't do it?".
the link is denoted in bold. the href, which targets a USA Today article, is not reproduced. it seems to me, if nothing else, that the link of the thread has little to do with the thread text; it seems to me that this thread is nothing more than an excuse to jaw about one of the author's pet peeves in a community that guarantees large exposure. (that's almost like metatalk, isn't it? but this is supposedly ok over here, considering we're jawing about metafilter.)
posted by moz at 1:18 PM on July 8, 2002