Bad fpp Deletion October 6, 2015 6:25 PM   Subscribe

This post was deleted for the following reason: This needs to be framed much less editorially to work here, sorry. -- restless_nomad Bad call in my opinion. What do you guys think?
posted by AElfwine Evenstar to MetaFilter-Related at 6:25 PM (98 comments total) 2 users marked this as a favorite

We can totally have a thread on the subject (I'm a bit surprised we haven't already, or if we did, that I missed it) but this thread was framed very clearly as having One Right Way to Feel About This, which leads to unnecessarily contentious discussions even when 98% of the commenters agree with that One Right Way. The subsequent comment in the thread by adamvasco confirms that. Someone is welcome to take another crack at it, taking into account that there needs to be something to discuss other than how horrible it is.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 6:29 PM on October 6, 2015 [4 favorites]


I think it was a good call. The post was heavily editorialized, complete with the poster jumping in to argue their point further in the thread. This is a difficult story of a type that will tend towards people getting into fights, even in the best of cases. Having it posted with such a specific editorial slant by a poster who then jumped in and more or less confirmed that they posted it so they could argue about it is a recipe for a total mess of a thread.
posted by tocts at 6:33 PM on October 6, 2015 [5 favorites]


I guess I'm not seeing the editorializing.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 6:36 PM on October 6, 2015 [2 favorites]


I guess I'm not seeing the editorializing.

Check the title, if nothing else.
posted by shakespeherian at 6:38 PM on October 6, 2015 [10 favorites]


I think "bad post deletion" MeTas very seldom generate anything of value, and I don't see this one being much different.
posted by Chrysostom at 6:39 PM on October 6, 2015 [7 favorites]


I flagged this post for exactly the reason it was deleted, and the OP's followup comment was especially terrible. This was a badly framed post and a good deletion.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 6:41 PM on October 6, 2015 [10 favorites]


Awful event, bad framing, and a good deletion.

If I ever became the Ruler of Metafilterland, I would ban news-posts with a vengeance. There is nothing about this event (or most other breaking news stories) that demands an immediate FPP, and everything that would be more interesting a few weeks later when more is known and there are a good array of analyses to draw upon.
posted by Dip Flash at 6:48 PM on October 6, 2015 [24 favorites]


If I ever became the Ruler of Metafilterland, I would ban news-posts with a vengeance. There is nothing about this event (or most other breaking news stories) that demands an immediate FPP, and everything that would be more interesting a few weeks later when more is known and there are a good array of analyses to draw upon.

Amen.
posted by NotMyselfRightNow at 6:49 PM on October 6, 2015 [4 favorites]


Well, it reads oddly as an FPP, like it was not super well thought out and maybe a little rushed. So maybe it's okay to hit the reset button here and make a new thread. ( AElfwine Evenstar, you are one of the first people I would choose to write it.)

But I don't know if being editorial is the issue with it. I mean, what other side? This seems to be the justification if somebody wants to include it in a future link:

The American commander in Afghanistan, Gen. John F. Campbell, said on Monday that Afghan forces had requested the airstrike that destroyed a Doctors Without Borders hospital in the city of Kunduz, conceding that the military had incorrectly reported at first that the response was to protect American troops said to be under direct threat.

I mean, the American side can't get it's story straight but even if the Afghan government requested it our eleventy trillion dollar military should like, verify the information, it's not an excuse. If I wrote an FPP on this I would present the American position extremely skeptically because I feel it would be expressing my pro-US bias if I did anything else. But yeah, I guess I can see why it should at least be included.

This is a borderline deletion, I could go either way. The thread probably would have been fine as a thin newsfilter with the comments bringing up the American view on the situation but there was nothing spectacular or unique in the links particularly worth preserving. Greenwald is controversial though. I love him to death, but he probably should be balanced with alternative views in an FPP.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:01 PM on October 6, 2015 [2 favorites]


OPs comment took a car headed off a cliff and gunned it. Good deletion for framing.
posted by Karaage at 7:05 PM on October 6, 2015 [23 favorites]


I did not see that. It certainly changes how I view the FPP. This topic should be discussed here if there are good links to frame it, but that was clearly someone posting out of justifiable anger. Justifiable anger is justifiable, but not always a good basis for an FPP. That comment is an example of how that anger can go really bad.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:09 PM on October 6, 2015 [1 favorite]


The line between MetaFilter and NewsFilter is blurry, but this post was almost definitely over it. And the line between NewsFilter and OpinionFilter is even blurrier, but this post was definitely definitely over it.

As usual, the Gotta/Should/Must Rule applies:
"Oh, man, you gotta see this!" -- good start to a MetaFilter post
"People should see this!" -- might be a good start to a MetaFilter post, but be careful
"Everyone must see this!" -- probably not a good start to a MetaFilter post
posted by Etrigan at 7:19 PM on October 6, 2015 [22 favorites]


Yeah, Etrigan just said what I was about to. The post was poorly framed and the comments were already getting bad when it got axed. Good deletion, I think.
posted by drinkyclown at 7:27 PM on October 6, 2015


We can totally have a thread on the subject (I'm a bit surprised we haven't already, or if we did, that I missed it) but this thread was framed very clearly as having One Right Way to Feel About This

Yeah well don't keep your mind so open your brains fall out. Very disappointing to read the comments supporting an attack by an AC 130 gunship against an MSF hospital. Like, is there any debate at all about what one should think about that?

MSF is made up of people far better and braver than me. I don't know about the rest of you though. Perhaps that's open for debate.
posted by Nevin at 7:29 PM on October 6, 2015 [12 favorites]


That's a pretty good example of why a post framed as "Look at this horrible thing that happened!" leads to much poorer discussions than "This thing happened, here's some of the fallout, here's some analysis and theories about how to make sure it doesn't happen again."
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 7:31 PM on October 6, 2015 [32 favorites]


Good deletion.
posted by escabeche at 7:35 PM on October 6, 2015


Yeah well don't keep your mind so open your brains fall out. Very disappointing to read the comments supporting an attack by an AC 130 gunship against an MSF hospital. Like, is there any debate at all about what one should think about that?

It strikes me, that had the thread been allowed to continue, it would've devolved into a thread full of this sort of comment call outs and the subsequent wrangling over language rather than actual interesting discussion.
posted by Karaage at 7:41 PM on October 6, 2015 [19 favorites]


lousy post. good deletion. no point on expounding what others have said. might as well have gone ahead and used a tag "newsfilter" to make the deletion easier.
posted by chasles at 7:41 PM on October 6, 2015


That's a shit comment. I know it's Meta so you gotta be open to feedback but as someone who makes sure to try and watchdog on that...just delete it and the comments mentioning it.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:43 PM on October 6, 2015 [11 favorites]


Do we really need a mod to remind us yet again not to relitigate the deleted post in the MeTa about the deleted post?
posted by Etrigan at 7:53 PM on October 6, 2015 [3 favorites]


This post was major-league outrage-filter. The deletion was fully warranted.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 7:59 PM on October 6, 2015


I don't want to sound like a grouch, but since there have been some problems with similar threads recently, would it be a great loss if this thread were closed?
posted by teponaztli at 8:02 PM on October 6, 2015 [4 favorites]


"It's about ethics in discussing war crimes."
posted by Nevin at 8:04 PM on October 6, 2015


Good deletion, hope this MeTa doesn't blow up in our faces. I look forward to reading the discussion in a better-framed FPP in a few days' time. Nevin, your opinion is duly noted.
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 8:07 PM on October 6, 2015


Good deletion. adamvasco has been around here a long time and this is a choice he made, not a mistake he made.
posted by jessamyn (retired) at 8:12 PM on October 6, 2015 [18 favorites]


The title put it solidly in "Delete" territory for me. Do you have titles turned off, AElfwine? I do (and tend to ignore titles anyways), so I wasn't quite sure about it. Once I read the title it seemed like a straight-forward decision.
posted by benito.strauss at 8:16 PM on October 6, 2015 [1 favorite]


Im outraged but I also think his was a good deletion. Metafilter is a completely unproductive avenue for outrage.
posted by muddgirl at 8:16 PM on October 6, 2015 [5 favorites]


The title put it solidly in "Delete" territory for me. Do you have titles turned off, AElfwine? I do (and tend to ignore titles anyways), so I wasn't quite sure about it. Once I read the title it seemed like a straight-forward decision.

I don't see anything wrong with the title. I have family members that have flown American jets in Afghanistan. I'm not biased against them or the American military. It was a very determined, targeted strike. It wasn't a miss. It was more than one pass.

But this is just another example of why displaying titles on the main page has always been a bad idea.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:29 PM on October 6, 2015


Even overlooking the title, citing Greenwald's "adversarial journalism" site talking about war crimes is probably too editorial. (NB I totally think it's a war crime and I am outraged.)
posted by gingerest at 8:55 PM on October 6, 2015 [1 favorite]


It's a horrendous event, a bad post, and a good deletion.
posted by rtha at 9:06 PM on October 6, 2015 [4 favorites]


"This thing happened, here's some of the fallout, here's some analysis and theories about how to make sure it doesn't happen again."

Huh? The bar for a successful post about a war crime is now that the poster has to know how to fix the US military so it won't commit war crimes?
posted by RogerB at 9:12 PM on October 6, 2015 [7 favorites]


This post was major-league outrage-filter.

If 9/11 is worth a front-page post, then the war crime of bombing a hospital filled with patients and doctors is also worth a major-league front-page post. Bad deletion.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 9:13 PM on October 6, 2015 [1 favorite]


That's a shit comment.

I'd characterize it as a "a stopped clock is right twice a day" comment, because I rarely or never like that user's comments and yet here I think he nails it.
posted by jayder at 9:19 PM on October 6, 2015


"But this is just another example of why displaying titles on the main page has always been a bad idea."

Always great to hear an opinion and the conviction. Though, having titles on an FFP considered bad? I disagree.

I had thought of adding some correlation from Vietnam or the Neak Long bombing but those were B-52s. ARVN, if given air or arty support, would call in a strike if they suspected movement, leding to more to more death and tension in the coalition. The easiest thing about war is to convey ones agreement or disagreement. The sentiment can create contention but title or no title, with no analysis it's just outrage filter.

In this case, the object military lesson is not to give your ally blanket air support then change the story when horror is created. Of course, the best option is not to be there at all.
posted by clavdivs at 9:20 PM on October 6, 2015


Since when is the American military committing war crimes news
posted by the uncomplicated soups of my childhood at 9:22 PM on October 6, 2015 [2 favorites]


I don't want to sound like a grouch, but since there have been some problems with similar threads recently, would it be a great loss if this thread were closed?
posted by teponaztli at 8:02 PM on October 6
[2 favorites +] [!]


why do you care? why not just not read this thread?
posted by jayder at 9:23 PM on October 6, 2015 [1 favorite]


Yeah, adams' comment to Nevin felt like J'Accuse territory.
posted by clavdivs at 9:24 PM on October 6, 2015 [1 favorite]


Honestly, I think the title of the post was the most problematic thing there.

Other than that, I'm not sure how this could be framed in a neutral way.

I think it'd be inappropriate to have a post about this story and only have mainstream US media that is generally deferential to the US military.

I'm sure you could find some 'media' outlets (right wing war mongering) that would be very apologetic, but that would seem like an odd thing to do (I mean, that would seem odd on a post about some awful thing some other country did).

As far as the poster jumping in - well, he did express a pointed opinion (and maybe that comment should have been deleted), but he did it in a comment, not the post itself (which shouldn't be a reason to delete the post). It was the 7th comment, and his only comment other than the post.

I hope someone reposts this 'reworked', and I wish the mod would give better guidance on how to frame the post better. And requiring analysis on how to avoid the problem seems inappropriate, there may be no solution available (maybe some serious compensation to address the actions) to prevent this sort of thing in the future.
posted by el io at 9:27 PM on October 6, 2015 [3 favorites]


"thread was framed very clearly as having One Right Way to Feel About This"

How do you frame a thread in a way where you leave open the possibility that it's totally cool to bomb a hospital? Would that requirement for thread framing be the same if this was the actions, of say, Syria?
posted by el io at 9:28 PM on October 6, 2015 [3 favorites]


There's probably enough material out there to justify a FPP about the US military's changing story and the US media's uncritical acceptance of it. I'd like to know more about that. I don't think there's been enough time for an analysis of how the attack was initiated, and why, but when there is I'd like to know more about that too. Also, why the USA is in Afghanistan at all, which is not something I've ever been very clear on. But the fact of the bombing itself? It is so unjustifiable that it simply can't be anything other than outrage-filter.
posted by Joe in Australia at 9:32 PM on October 6, 2015 [4 favorites]


"Since when is the American military committing war crimes news"

In theory, when we had no military power and were paying large bribes to pirates.

El io raised a great point. The compensation issue itself is worth discussing. I hope someone does rework it.
posted by clavdivs at 9:32 PM on October 6, 2015 [1 favorite]


I think it'd be inappropriate to have a post about this story and only have mainstream US media that is generally deferential to the US military.


Do the post in Pashto and French.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 9:36 PM on October 6, 2015 [1 favorite]


Do the post in Pashto and French.

My comment was a round-about-way of saying that I thought the inclusion of the Intercept's coverage was appropriate. UK media, Al Jazeera, and many other English language non-American media would also be a way to give a non US mainstream media perspective on the manner.
posted by el io at 9:41 PM on October 6, 2015 [1 favorite]


How do you frame a thread in a way where you leave open the possibility that it's totally cool to bomb a hospital?

That's the point - you frame the thread so that's not the question on the table. Other, more nuanced and complicated questions make for much better posts than "this is horrible"/"this isn't THAT horrible"/"this is more horrible than Hitler" which is how posts framed this way usually go.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 9:45 PM on October 6, 2015 [23 favorites]


On review: I agree that the title is what pushes it over the line. From what I've read so far, it's not necessarily the case that that anyone knowingly bombed the MSF hospital. There were probably multiple failures, some of which may have been malevolent, others merely negligent. Calling it "deliberate" conflates all of that before the facts are in.
posted by Joe in Australia at 9:46 PM on October 6, 2015 [2 favorites]


If 9/11 is worth a front-page post, then the war crime of bombing a hospital filled with patients and doctors is also worth a major-league front-page post. Bad deletion.

Regarding this in particular:

I do not believe that previous threads necessarily are precedents to what gets deleted or not deleted now. Metafilter is not a court of law. Mods may leave a thread open and regret it a bit, make a mental note "maybe come down a bit harder on that kind"; or delete one and stand by it but shift in the other direction.

More pertinently, that thread was from 2001. This is two years after Metafilter's opening. It is now 2015 and I think an interval of 14 (!) years is enough for a -lot- of information on what goes well and what doesn't, and for what direction discussions here should ideally take.

I think yes, in 2001 it would've stood easily. It's an important news event, and there's going to be a lot to chew over. But today, I agree that the title pushes it over a certain line for discussion direction, and there is no time pressure to get this onto the blue. Metafilter now seems to be the wrong place for that. The information will not go away - more will come, and even if the link itself was weak (which didn't seem to be the case here admittedly) there's going to be enough soon to make a strong story without any need for a partisan frame.
posted by solarion at 10:00 PM on October 6, 2015 [3 favorites]


Definitely outragefilter, and I'm happy to see that sort of thing deleted.

The usual outcome is that people, outraged, find flaws in the way people are agreeing with them, and the bad faith and the accusations start flying. I would love for MetaFilter to have less of people fighting because they're not agreeing in the right way, and outragefilter so very rarely allows for there to be even the slightest room for anything resembling nuance.
posted by gadge emeritus at 10:00 PM on October 6, 2015 [3 favorites]


why do you care? why not just not read this thread?

It would be one thing if I thought something useful might come from this discussion, but there seems to be a pretty clear majority in favor of the deletion, and I just don't see the point in letting this go on. The mods won't reverse their decision, and at best we can disagree about whether or not the title was too editorialized. The odds of this turning into a shitshow are high, especially when people come in swinging, as has already happened. Everybody gets to say their piece, then nothing changes.

No, I don't need to read this or any thread, but I care because I keep coming across nastiness and hostility; I don't feel at all comfortable engaging with this site because I never know when I'm going to be on the receiving end of it. Other people clearly don't care as much about this as I do, but I'm awfully tired of seeing this come up every other day and produce nothing but resentment. I'm open to the idea that people see it differently, and it may be that the mods, or individual users, do in fact get something out of these threads. But it certainly doesn't look like it, and it seems like they just contribute to a pretty negative atmosphere overall.
posted by teponaztli at 10:29 PM on October 6, 2015 [14 favorites]


Of course now I'll look completely ridiculous if mine is one of the last comments.
posted by teponaztli at 10:35 PM on October 6, 2015


nom de poop
posted by joseph conrad is fully awesome at 10:36 PM on October 6, 2015


Alright, never mind. I get it if it looks like a shtick. I don't know.
posted by teponaztli at 10:53 PM on October 6, 2015 [1 favorite]


I'm pretty mod-positive most of the time. But. Poor deletion. And even worse deletion reason. Calm down. Present both sides within the agreed frame of reference. Cite the right, compliant sources from MSM. It's basically Manufacturing Consent in a nutshell.
posted by Rumple at 1:26 AM on October 7, 2015 [5 favorites]


Rumple, who is it that you are telling to calm down etc.? I don't really understand what you're trying to say here, or to whom.
posted by Too-Ticky at 4:00 AM on October 7, 2015


I think Rumple is claiming that the mods are telling us to calm down as, like, an arm of the American propaganda machine. Which, if a sincerely held belief, makes me question why Rumple continues to participate here.
posted by muddgirl at 4:41 AM on October 7, 2015 [6 favorites]


(It's also a serious misrepresentation of everything restless_nomad has said about this deletion, to the point where I wonder if people are actually reading comments or just coming in here with their axe pre-ground).
posted by muddgirl at 4:46 AM on October 7, 2015 [13 favorites]


I have no strong feelings either way about news/outrage-filter, but the post and poster's comment as a whole were bound to create a thread that would need a ton of mod monitoring, and thus I'd say it was a good deletion.
posted by EndsOfInvention at 5:17 AM on October 7, 2015


From what I've read so far, it's not necessarily the case that that anyone knowingly bombed the MSF hospital. There were probably multiple failures, some of which may have been malevolent, others merely negligent. Calling it "deliberate" conflates all of that before the facts are in.

Quoting Joe in Australia because it isn't like anyone on this website actually thinks "yes, bombing hospitals, good call, A+++ work." But anyone in that thread who tried to say "this is horrible, but it may be more complicated than the first reports suggest" was being labeled as complicit in and supportive of war crimes. A thread that is already filled with that rhetoric is not a place where a discussion can happen.

People can agree that a specific act was horrific but disagree about what caused it, or how to respond to it. Telling anyone who offers a different take that they are "publically on record as condoning airstrikes on the wounded in hospital" is a conversation killer.
posted by a fiendish thingy at 6:44 AM on October 7, 2015 [20 favorites]


I've put together another post with some added background and some extra links. And I'm going to bed.
posted by Joe in Australia at 7:00 AM on October 7, 2015 [20 favorites]


Boy, I was so deep in the outrage blender I didn't even realize it until the cool, clear light of day.

Good deletion.
posted by SLC Mom at 7:17 AM on October 7, 2015 [2 favorites]


anyone in that thread who tried to say "this is horrible, but it may be more complicated than the first reports suggest" was being labeled as complicit in and supportive of war crimes.
Were there many deleted comments? Because I do not see those comments right now. I did see that one person said that a hospital could be a very valid enemy target, which seemed to me an incredibly awful thing to say. Saying that if there are wounded enemies "this hospital is a very valid enemy target" is indeed "condoning airstrikes on the wounded in hospital" to me, so if it is a conversation killer in my opinion that is because the first person said an awful thing, not the person who calls them out on it.
posted by blub at 7:17 AM on October 7, 2015


Also, Joe in Australia is amazeballs.
posted by SLC Mom at 7:19 AM on October 7, 2015 [3 favorites]


That new post on this topic is an excellent post. The poster has waited until there are multiple substantive materials to link to, is unbiased, provides contextual materials, and has 15 links in total. It's pretty much a one-stop shop FPP on this specific event, and is arguably a good model for how to do a post about a controversial news post.
posted by Wordshore at 7:20 AM on October 7, 2015 [18 favorites]


JiA's new post is indeed excellent, and provides a nice template for handling topics like this. It focuses on the facts ("The rationale for the attack remains unclear") rather than assumptions ("When a mistake is deliberate.") The new post has the word "outrage" in it (because no amount of attention toward neutral framing can change the underlying outrageous nature of the event) but seems less likely to trend toward outrage-filter due to the focus on what we know, and the refusal to opine on what we don't yet know.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:23 AM on October 7, 2015 [10 favorites]


I'm not bothered by the deletion but am a little skeptical about the idea that we can't have a thumb on this "this ain't okay" scale in posts. Maybe this pushed a little hard but I can think of a few ideological bents - ones I share, even - that I think would get more slack if they did the same. Perhaps I am just a little skeptical on this because I am such a crank about "the view from nowhere."
posted by phearlez at 7:27 AM on October 7, 2015


I hate view-from-nowhere-ism as well, phearlez, but the implication that the attack was "deliberate" can't be part of a productive post on this event. The new post clearly sends the "this ain't okay" message without that kind of innuendo.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:30 AM on October 7, 2015 [2 favorites]


I'm not bothered by the deletion but am a little skeptical about the idea that we can't have a thumb on this "this ain't okay" scale in posts.

If you mean we should as mods take account of the situation and let the context drive our decision-making a little, I'm as skeptical of the idea that we can't as anybody because I think we can and do. The usual issue is not a rigid inflexibility, it's folks expecting something close to carte blanche if the subject is sufficiently upsetting/outrageous/terrible/new-and-raw.
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:36 AM on October 7, 2015 [4 favorites]


Or I guess you mean having an editorial "and here's my opinion about the situation" angle to a post, rather. That is more of a, well, no, folks shouldn't sort of thing in terms of deliberately approaching putting together a post on the front page. Like, it shouldn't be a goal of post construction, and it shouldn't be why you're making a post. "I'm linking this because someone's got to say it's not okay" isn't really where someone should be coming from.

Which is not to say that that sense of personal opinion will never be there at all or is 100% grounds for deletion automatically, but it does make for a lot of trouble and is not great. Certainly, the opportunity to thumb the scale shouldn't be part of the reasoning for making a post. Having feelings or an opinion about a thing you're posting about is understandable (in a case like this tremendously so), but the front page isn't where you should be organizing or presenting those feelings.
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:40 AM on October 7, 2015 [1 favorite]


I, too, think this was a good deletion.
posted by Going To Maine at 7:49 AM on October 7, 2015


Good deletion, better replacement. And good deletion not just because of the framing of the post, but boy that one looked like it would be a bear to moderate from a glance at the post, without reading the comments.
posted by immlass at 7:55 AM on October 7, 2015 [2 favorites]


This deletion was great, the new post is great, and surprisingly enough this MeTa is great for showing the vast yawning chasm of difference between a good post and a bad post on the same subject.
posted by poffin boffin at 8:07 AM on October 7, 2015 [22 favorites]


the implication that the attack was "deliberate" can't be part of a productive post on this event.

Meh, I think that's kind of a reductive way to define that phrase. "When a mistake is deliberate" isn't an unfair way to characterize a course of action that goes on for a period of time and is part of a process. Nobody is questioning that this wasn't a one-off where something missed its target or crashed.

Cortex, I guess my retort to all that would be this is still here and even the title is similarly charged. Yeah, it's an art not a precise weighing and I don't have an issue with that or, as I said, this deletion and replacement with something more news article-esque. But I didn't have to look past the first page to find something that's no more loaded and I'm personally comfortable with the idea that people should be as worked up about killing as they are about family.

Metafilter takes a number of stances on a number of things, most prominently of late about gender and equality. I don't remotely mind that since they're stances I pretty completely share and I think they're important parts of being good human beings. So I cock my head a little at the idea that we can be cool with that leaning in one place and not the other. I think we have several subjects that at one point couldn't have been "part of a productive post" but the community made an effort on it. I question that we couldn't, if we wanted to, do so here.
posted by phearlez at 8:13 AM on October 7, 2015 [1 favorite]


this MeTa is great for showing the vast yawning chasm of difference between a good post and a bad post on the same subject.

Indeed. I firmly believe MetaFilter should be required reading in every journalism school, everywhere.
posted by valkane at 8:17 AM on October 7, 2015


Cortex, I guess my retort to all that would be this is still here and even the title is similarly charged.

Your retort to "Which is not to say that that sense of personal opinion will never be there at all or is 100% grounds for deletion automatically" is "yeah but this post proves it isn't 100% grounds for deletion automatically"?

So I cock my head a little at the idea that we can be cool with that leaning in one place and not the other.

I don't know if you're arguing with what mods have actually said in here or with the things you most disagree with that users have said in here, but I can't meaningfully defend individual users' statements of preference or arguments, I can only talk about actual mod positions and policy. And you're cocking your head at something I don't believe any mod in this thread has said.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:18 AM on October 7, 2015


The post that inspired this Metatalk thread is the perfect illustrative example of my least favorite style of Metafilter FPP. The post is classic, "I AM SO MAD ABOUT THIS THING AND YOU SHOULD BE TOO!!!!". The follow-up comment from the OP in the thread, along with Nevin's comment by proxy here, make it rather clear that this was going to be one of those threads where the majority of comments are people competing to see who could be the most righteously outraged out of all the many people who are righteously outraged. Good deletion, great showing by Joe in Australia how the same topic could be done well.
posted by The Gooch at 8:22 AM on October 7, 2015 [7 favorites]


You seem like you're getting worked up about this and I'm not arguing with anything.
posted by phearlez at 8:29 AM on October 7, 2015


Good deletion, good replacement, but if anybody cares about my opinion (you're welcome not to) it's still a pretty crap thread, and I wonder whether there's any way for it not to have been.
posted by escabeche at 8:46 AM on October 7, 2015


> You seem like you're getting worked up about this and I'm not arguing with anything.

Do you have even the faintest idea of what Cortex, and all the mods, have to put up with every day in the way of users questioning their judgment in ways varying from subtle innuendo to straight-up "you're fascist oppressors"? I'm not saying their judgment should never be questioned, I've done it myself, but to sneer about how "You seem like you're getting worked up about this" is just plain shitty. Try to put yourself in the other person's shoes for a moment.

Also: lousy post, good deletion, many thanks to Joe for an improved version.
posted by languagehat at 8:47 AM on October 7, 2015 [29 favorites]


phearlez: I cock my head a little at the idea that we can be cool with that leaning in one place and not the other.

Well, that's... nice to know, I guess. *shrug*
Honestly, what kind of a response are you looking for here?

I think we have several subjects that at one point couldn't have been "part of a productive post" but the community made an effort on it. I question that we couldn't, if we wanted to, do so here.

That's a nice big 'if' you've got there.
posted by Too-Ticky at 10:12 AM on October 7, 2015 [1 favorite]


I've put together another post with some added background and some extra links.

That's a better post. The comments are, of course, useless.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 12:19 PM on October 7, 2015 [1 favorite]


"But this is just another example of why displaying titles on the main page has always been a bad idea."

Always great to hear an opinion and the conviction. Though, having titles on an FFP considered bad? I disagree.


Your opinion is wrong. I am going to have to take the extreme step of not favoriting that comment.

nom de poop

..is wrong about that. We may have to have a separate meta discussion on that issue because there are strong positions on both sides.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:17 PM on October 7, 2015 [1 favorite]


but it's honestly pretty ridiculous to assert that the reason titles are bad are because people might choose to editorialize in them. i mean, in that case it really doesn't matter if it's on the front page or just in the fpp and the url - it's against the guidelines either way. the issue is that he chose to type it, not that it was displayed in one more place.
posted by nadawi at 3:03 PM on October 7, 2015 [4 favorites]


(I'm not being serious there. It's a personal pet peeve I joke about, sorry for not making that clear.)
posted by Drinky Die at 3:09 PM on October 7, 2015 [1 favorite]


I took it as kidding on the square.
posted by gingerest at 3:25 PM on October 7, 2015


but to sneer about how "You seem like you're getting worked up about this" is just plain shitty. Try to put yourself in the other person's shoes for a moment.

Get this man a shoe and a table at the UN.
posted by GuyZero at 4:39 PM on October 7, 2015 [2 favorites]


I took it as kidding on the square.

It's kind of that because I do dislike titles but that comment was not meant as serious criticism.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:11 PM on October 7, 2015


It's a bad sign when the OP is also the angriest person in the comments.
posted by John Cohen at 8:47 PM on October 7, 2015 [8 favorites]


It sure is.
posted by jessamyn (retired) at 7:42 AM on October 8, 2015 [3 favorites]


I'm not against the deletion, but maybe if you're an American you can back off a bit and refrain from commenting about how angry you think people should be about this.
posted by ODiV at 8:09 AM on October 8, 2015


I'm not saying people shouldn't be angry about the bombing. Contrary to what you seem to think about "Americans," I do care about this; I set a certain amount of my paychecks to be donated to Doctors Without Borders; and I'm beyond angry about the mass killing of heroes who I've been funding.

I'm not making a substantive point about war, but a procedural point about Metafilter: it's a problem for the OP to go into the comments harshly condemning other commenters for not having the exact right views, especially after posting a heavily slanted FPP.
posted by John Cohen at 8:32 AM on October 8, 2015 [7 favorites]


Yeah, sorry John. I'm touchy and upset about this. It wasn't about you and I apologize.

I do think that for other threads we're absolutely fine with harsh condemnations and even deletions for not having the "exact right views". I guess I had just assumed that this kind of thing would be one of those situations. I don't really think one to one comparison of posts and discussions really gels with the moderation style and the community though and I don't think going through and saying, "But what about THIS post!?" really helps anyone, so I guess I shouldn't have brought it up.

Regardless, the bombing deserved a better post and it got one.
posted by ODiV at 8:42 AM on October 8, 2015 [2 favorites]


Late to this party, only just seen it.
For those trying to equate the post with the comment, you are way off.
In fact I scrapped a couple of links because they came from what is perceived as very left wing publications and as what we outside America tend to think is centre / centre left the US thinks of as pink commie filth.
I first read about this incident shortly after it happened. My initial reaction was there they go again, another friendly fire incident, and then as the official story kept changing I realized that the "mistake"was not a mistake at all. But then I am outside the goldfish bowl and regularily read news that is not from the US mainstream dross media.
There are turning points in many conflicts and maybe this could be one of them.
Shortly after I made the FPP someone commented and I quote :
If they have certain enemy wounded there, this hospital is a very valid enemy target
That is when I mildly went off. Fuck that shit. Really.
Deleted comment. meh. Deleted post. meh.
Joe's post is much better than mine though but I still hold that this "mistake" was deliberate, and that people who think that bombing hospitals is OK are akin to the stuff I scrape off my shoe.
posted by adamvasco at 3:40 PM on October 8, 2015


Shortly after I made the FPP someone commented and I quote :
If they have certain enemy wounded there, this hospital is a very valid enemy target
That is when I mildly went off. Fuck that shit. Really.


Because of the bit of that comment about "America's Loyal Press" I think it was meant to be ironic? The point of making a comment like that eludes me but the point of a lot of comments people make eludes me.
posted by atoxyl at 6:38 PM on October 8, 2015


Sometimes we all just want our feelings acknowledged and to be certain that they aren't misunderstood. Doubly so if they're angry feelings.
posted by Going To Maine at 6:49 PM on October 8, 2015 [1 favorite]


Sometimes we all just want our feelings acknowledged and to be certain that they aren't misunderstood. Doubly so if they're angry feelings.

Sure. But that doesn't work well here. Even moreso when "I am angry!" comes with "Be angry with me!" and is shortly followed by "Why aren't you as angry as I am? What's wrong with you?", which is a frequent and predictable path.
posted by gadge emeritus at 9:35 PM on October 8, 2015 [8 favorites]


I agree completely with gadge. The "Why aren't you as angry as I am? What's wrong with you?" endpoint shows up far too often in far too many contexts as it is.
posted by Justinian at 10:23 PM on October 8, 2015


But then I am outside the goldfish bowl and regularily read news that is not from the US mainstream dross media.

*slowclap*
posted by Xavier Xavier at 4:46 AM on October 9, 2015 [5 favorites]


Metafilter: pink commie filth.
posted by quonsar II: smock fishpants and the temple of foon at 7:11 AM on October 9, 2015 [2 favorites]


I kind of agree with not reading too much into adamvasco getting angry in the comments about someone else saying "If they have certain enemy wounded there, this hospital is a very valid enemy target", because holy shit.
posted by reprise the theme song and roll the credits at 7:38 PM on October 10, 2015 [11 favorites]


« Older Very old post about finding stars and...   |   Questionable FPP deletion. Newer »

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