Attacking and insulting members isn't cool.

March 12, 2003 7:25 AM

Why is it necessary to attack and insult?
posted by tolkhan to Etiquette/Policy at 7:25 AM (45 comments total)

I legitimately wanted to know why this was important. I'm sorry I didn't type out a long series of questions instead of just asking "How so?" but is that a reason to be rude and dismissive? It's a common occurrence here, and it does nothing to better the discussion. I could understand it and would agree that I deserved it if I was in the habit of making trollish comments, but I'm not.
posted by tolkhan at 7:25 AM on March 12, 2003

I was just trying to get this posted. Quonsar went WAY out of line by slamming a member for unrelated stuff on their blog.
posted by Irontom at 7:40 AM on March 12, 2003

I thought the buffy/whatever comment was chilly too. Brrrr. I can see the derailment thing a bit too though. Give the conversation some time to play out and maybe the reasons for discussion will become evident. Again, very chilly comments.

It is kinda early. Who needs a hug?
posted by folktrash at 7:44 AM on March 12, 2003

Because it was appropriate to only post one comment (if that) asking why the thread was necessary. If the first answer doesn't suit your needs, there will be others. In such a large community there will always be someone with special knowledge or interest in the subject. You would not have had to wait more than 50 minutes to read Ljubljana's response which (hopefully) provided your answer.

that being said, bad quonsar. bad.
posted by PrinceValium at 7:45 AM on March 12, 2003

Well, I think Quonsar did go a little too far in bringing unrelated blog articles into the discussion, but both he and jpoulos had a good point. Somebody's post is really the wrong place to be discussing whether or not the post should even be there.

That's what MeTa is for.

If nobody cares about the post, they won't comment. It will shrivel and wither on the vine. Leave it alone. It's like that parent complaining about what's on TV. If you don't want to watch, change the channel.

Just because you "legitimately watned to know why [the post] was important", doesn't mean you should be asking. The comments just started coming in...it didn't have a chance to build up steam.

g'well's post was a better way of going about it, educating members about why this might not have been the best FPP. You bust people being "rude and dismissive" as doing "nothign to better the discussion", but how were your comments any better?

Bottom line, if you don't like it, don't comment.
posted by taumeson at 7:45 AM on March 12, 2003

You're all a bunch of crybabies who can't deal with the evident and obvious, IMHO.
posted by zerofoks at 7:47 AM on March 12, 2003

This MetaTalk thread would have been stronger if you had skipped the "attack" link, which wasn't, and stuck with the "insult" link, which was, admittedly, uncalled for. Then again, with just the one instance, it would have been a different question, i.e. "why is it necessary for quonsar to look at my blog and drag it into an unrelated thread?" and it would have been apparent that there wasn't much point discussing it.
posted by soyjoy at 7:51 AM on March 12, 2003

I agree. I should have waited longer. I realized I was being misunderstood without realizing I was just not being clear and commented again too quickly.

Ljubljana's comment and some nice email sent to me gave me good information.

Quonsar, on the other hand, made me cry, but I called my mommy and she said it'd all be ok.

on preview: taumeson, I wasn't questioning whether the post should I have been there. I asked, very poorly, for information about why this is important. I don't keep up with what's happening in the Balkans, and had no context for why this is significant.
posted by tolkhan at 7:52 AM on March 12, 2003

wah! wah! how many times have quonsar's occasionally serious offerings been scorned with reference to his blog? 'way out of line' is where q lives. tough shit.
posted by quonsar at 7:52 AM on March 12, 2003

ok, what's wrong with referring to people's web sites. is it just that the reference was unrelated? or is there some big taboo here? personally my unkempt and not very exciting site reflects me - that's why i made the damn thing - and i'm quite happy for people to judge me by it (although some bits are rather old - also like me). am i a minority? do most people have sites that are totally unrelated to what they are? or they want to be treated here on mefi as some aethereal being with no other existence? i am seriously confused about this whole "don't laugh at my site" thing...
posted by andrew cooke at 7:53 AM on March 12, 2003

i ask the above because i once bashed quonsar using his site and he complained about it.... (just saying)
posted by andrew cooke at 7:55 AM on March 12, 2003

I was tempted to do a MeTa callout when someone recently called me a stupid American, and when someone called me insane (he said that people who suffer from MCS [chemical allergies] are insane). (Literally on both these statements--I'm not exaggerating them. Both out of the blue in otherwise civil discussions, too.)

So far I've just shook my head (or lost it in the thread) over some of the ignorant generalizations I've heard. I think there was another thing recently that had my hand hovering over the MeTa 'post' button. . . I'm glad I've forgotten it now.

I'm never sure if it's best to be thick-skinned, or if it's time for us to assert a more civil atmosphere on "the" Mefi.

(Disclosure: I thought quonsar's comment was more lighthearted and funny than insulting. I laughed but didn't think any the less of tolkhan. Then again, I'm a Buffy fan too.)
posted by Shane at 7:56 AM on March 12, 2003

tolkhan: on preview: taumeson, I wasn't questioning whether the post should I have been there. I asked, very poorly, for information about why this is important. I don't keep up with what's happening in the Balkans, and had no context for why this is significant.

Woah...that really does put a much different spin on everything. "not being clear", indeed! heh. My apologies.
posted by taumeson at 8:09 AM on March 12, 2003

I'm never sure if it's best to be thick-skinned, or if it's time for us to assert a more civil atmosphere on "the" Mefi.

I think thick skins is the preferable alternative.
posted by JohnR at 8:19 AM on March 12, 2003

i once bashed quonsar using his site and he complained about it....'
complained? i highly doubt that. more likely i just called you an assumption-making conclusion-jumping moron or something. :-) for certain, i posted no metatalk about it.
posted by quonsar at 8:26 AM on March 12, 2003

quonsar,
your shit is cold, but that's a beautiful thing.
posted by condour75 at 8:32 AM on March 12, 2003

I'm sorry I didn't type out a long series of questions instead of just asking "How so?" but is that a reason to be rude and dismissive?

My guess is that "how so?" followed immediately by "what about this national leader's assassination merits conversation?" appeared rude and dismissive, so people replied in kind.

As you said, "I asked, very poorly, for information about why this is important." If you were genuinely interested, it probably would have been a good idea to take the time to type out at least a few questions, if only to avoid being mistaken for someone who didn't care.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 8:42 AM on March 12, 2003

"Why is it necessary to attack and insult?"

Your referenced examples are mild for MetaFilter. It's not necessary, it's just the nature of the place. We're snarky elitist bastards. Would you prefer it if we were polite and respectful and we didn't beat each other of the head with lame rhetoric?

I don't think that's going to happen.

And I think I need to call bullshit on this:

"I legitimately wanted to know why this was important."

Riiiiight.....

Not to be a jerk, but are you dense? No, really. I'm sincerely wondering if you lack common sense.
posted by y6y6y6 at 8:58 AM on March 12, 2003

tomcosgrave did set the tone by saying: "I know some people are going to cry Newsfilter, but I believe this is worth posting." tolkhan, it seems to me, rose to the challenge or took the bait, depending on how you look at it. I don't think tomcosgrave needed to say that in the initial post.

(I just said something similar in the next thread. Is this ever going to be complicated.)
posted by mcwetboy at 9:04 AM on March 12, 2003

I find tolkhan's behaviour unacceptable. Quonsar's backlash was perfectly justified considering tolkhan's idiotic and trollish comments that did nothing but distract and frustrate people who wanted to discuss a very serious world event.
posted by azazello at 9:04 AM on March 12, 2003

I think thick skins is the preferable alternative.
Heh--probably, "vilejohn." On the other hand, I recently called someone an asshole on Mefi for the first time. And it felt so good! Shame on me...
posted by Shane at 9:05 AM on March 12, 2003

I just don't get the tone. Why would anyone pay attention to anything Quonsar says when he just seems mean-spirited?

Seems to me that tolkhan had a valid question, but perhaps one that was brought up ill-advisedly early in the proceedings. The assassination is indeed a very major happening, with all sorts of potential repercussions, and to step away and analyze it from a detached, "Why is this important?" viewpoint, in a sense devalues the incident. That made tempers rise a bit.
posted by Kafkaesque at 9:15 AM on March 12, 2003

Azazello, I think tolk was being jerky too, but I don't see anyone ever being justified to lash out in an insulting way like that. Tolk could have called his mother a nasty name and Quonsar could have just calmly said that it was inappropriate and that it was not relevant to the discussion. Who would have ended up looking like an ass then? He could have just pointed out that Tolkhan was being a nuisance, but he had to throw in a little insult with it, that was uncalled for.
posted by Pollomacho at 9:16 AM on March 12, 2003

And while I feel that the News posts don't have a real place on MeFi, if there are going to be News posts, then this is about the most worthy one for discussion I could think of. All this is just my opinion, of course.
posted by Kafkaesque at 9:17 AM on March 12, 2003

I'm glad quonsar offered up some well-deserved ridicule for tolkhan's contributions to that discussion. It's hilarious to think that someone who found hundreds of threads worthy of comment needs to be told, in exacting detail, why the assassination of a world leader is important enough to be worth a mention here.
posted by rcade at 10:59 AM on March 12, 2003

If this thread gets +75 replies, I am declaring anyone who contributed to it an retarted and insane bloody vaginal fart!
posted by zerofoks at 11:39 AM on March 12, 2003

I didn't need "exacting detail [about] why the assassination of a world leader is important enough to be worth a mention here." I wasn't making a comment about the worthiness of the post. I've said that above.

But yeah, I see it now. "I believe this is worth posting" was a defense of the post, not a comment on the article's subject, and my question was on the subject. 'This is important,' doesn't tell me in what way it's important.
posted by tolkhan at 11:40 AM on March 12, 2003

The problem with your question is that it could be asked over and over again in more than 24,200 different threads. While that might be an interesting test of server resources and communal patience, I'm guessing it wouldn't be the most enthralling reading in the world. MetaTalk was created for a question like that. If you have to ask, come here so that you don't annoy the people who already know the answer.
posted by rcade at 11:46 AM on March 12, 2003

if they can't stand the splash of water on their faces.

There's a difference between splashing water and pissing in someone's face. Some people can't, won't or don't see the difference though and so its just best not to have such a bite. Ease up on people, there's no need to crush somebody for being a dufus, just let them know they're a dufus, why and move on, don't add in a couple of jabs at what you assume is their personality from your limited knowledge of them from here. Otherwise you're no better than the other assumption-making conclusion-jumping moron.
posted by Pollomacho at 11:50 AM on March 12, 2003

It's your populist duty to help them to understand

Exactly, that's why I said: let them know they're a dufus, why and move on there's no need for name calling and insults to boot. If somebody is already a chowder head, do you think they are going to get the subtlety of a sarcastic crack or NOT feel existentially crushed by a Buffy crack? No, they are a chowder head, just tell them why they should shut up and leave them alone, eventually they will either figure it out for themselves, move on or become ignorable background noise. Tormenting them only leads to strings of MeTa posts about etiquette and NewsFilter, blah, blah, blah.
posted by Pollomacho at 1:45 PM on March 12, 2003

*kaibutsu feels squemish, as he is well on his way to becoming a queef.
posted by kaibutsu at 1:47 PM on March 12, 2003

hmmm let's see... humanity on the brink of war/horrific world events leading to polemic discussions which end in insult flinging versus buffy the vampire slayer. one will always be with us in pretty much the same detail as it has been since the dawn of time. the other is over in just 5 episodes, never to return. buffy wins...!

*runs off to make a buffy weblog layout while viewing season 3 dvd*
posted by t r a c y at 1:56 PM on March 12, 2003

MetaTalk: It's your populist duty to help them to understand.*

*Never did one of these before: this one seems outstanding. Thanks, ed!
posted by dash_slot- at 2:01 PM on March 12, 2003

Nice user page, t r a c y!
posted by timeistight at 2:16 PM on March 12, 2003

LOL! that's definitely one of the better taglines, ever.

thanks arthur, i adapted my userpage formatting from taz and bargle's pages.
posted by t r a c y at 3:30 PM on March 12, 2003

ok, what's wrong with referring to people's web sites?

Does what one writes in on their personal site impeach their ability to make an argument here? No. End of story.
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 4:59 PM on March 12, 2003

Why is it necessary to attack and insult?

Trick question; It is not necessary to attack and insult.

Unless you're French. Then it's just your nature. [/kidding]
posted by Shane at 5:06 PM on March 12, 2003

Yay! I got attacked for attacking! Do two wrongs make a right? Do three lefts? Am I losing the plot? Should I have been asleep three hours ago but can't because I'm going insane? Probably.

And I got defended too! [ta soyjoy]

I wasn't expecting that after my recent MeTa thread.

Can I go propperly insane now?

Will you all promise to ignore what I say today? Thank you.
posted by twine42 at 6:10 PM on March 12, 2003

Oh no... I was completely wrong... no-one was taklking about me at all...

wow... I didn't realise I could feel smaller, or that it could be my own doing.

Hurrah!
posted by twine42 at 6:29 PM on March 12, 2003

That's good; I thought I was going crazy.

Wait. I am going crazy, but not from anything twine42 said.
posted by soyjoy at 6:31 PM on March 12, 2003

Does what one writes in on their personal site impeach their ability to make an argument here? No. End of story.

if they're saying one thing on their site and another on mefi are we just supposed to stand back in awe at the wonderful rhetoric? if this was "for real" then it would be quite reasonable to say "but in the pub last night you said..." if someone contradicted themselves later, no matter how well argued their later point was.

it seems to me that it is only poor argument (using references to web sites to make ad hominem attacks, for example) that are wrong, not using web sites per se.

and stuff your pompous little "end of story" where the sun don't shine, pal.
posted by andrew cooke at 6:42 PM on March 12, 2003

being serious, I think I'm going nbuts today... please ignore my posts...

But in a small way I'm glad I chould share the love a little Soyjoy. ;)
posted by twine42 at 6:46 PM on March 12, 2003

Somebody needs some sack and stick justice.

I just can't decide who.

Probably tolkhan, though. "Why is this important?" indeed.
posted by geekhorde at 11:21 PM on March 12, 2003

Different situation. And yeah, I think we ought to keep what our commenters have written on their own, or other sites, out as much as we can. What's the argument for including it, that you can look smart when you call someone on what they wrote long ago, or for another purpose?
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 2:17 AM on March 13, 2003

What's the argument for including it, that you can look smart when you call someone on what they wrote long ago, or for another purpose?

The last time I looked around, folks were still permitted to change their minds and were still allowed to argue a devil's advocate point of view as well. It may actually be a sign that you understand an issue quite well if you can fully argue from both sides. What happens in a post happens in the post and doesn't carry to another post, its irrelevant so why should what goes on at someone's user profile page or web site have any relevance?
posted by Pollomacho at 7:31 AM on March 13, 2003