copious vitriol May 2, 2003 1:35 AM   Subscribe


You know, though my political point of view is a bit closer to hincandenza's than hama7, I can see what hama7 was getting at, and it didn't seem to warrant the copious vitriol quoted above. At any rate, this doesn't seem like a way to conduct any kind of discussion worthy of the name.

Is this kind of bile really necessary?
posted by Vidiot at 1:37 AM on May 2, 2003


People are mean to one another sometimes...

(It's best to develop a little thicker skin).
posted by cadastral at 2:07 AM on May 2, 2003


Yeah ... that last sentence crossed the line.




/kidding.
posted by RavinDave at 2:08 AM on May 2, 2003


My goodness, hincandenza, such hate you spew! ;-P
posted by mischief at 2:12 AM on May 2, 2003


In the case of hama7, it looked perfectly reasonable to me. Understated, even.
posted by salmacis at 2:35 AM on May 2, 2003


yeah, those pud-whacking jingoistic nationalist types sure do suck
posted by cohappy at 2:38 AM on May 2, 2003


I agree that hincadenza's comments were unexpected and a trifle over the top, but not really out of character.

I also apologize for meandering somewhat from the theme of the thread. I just see racial divisiveness and race-based preferentialism as anti-American, illegal, and unconstitutional.
posted by hama7 at 3:05 AM on May 2, 2003


*sigh.*

you know, hincandenza, spewing hate isn't likely to help convince someone that you're against hate; In this case, the hatred inherent in racial segregation. We should be working against all kinds of hate, be it found in race issues, hama7's wierd ideas about politics, or even ourselves.
posted by kaibutsu at 3:19 AM on May 2, 2003


Let's lynch hincandenza


ps
racism = very sensitive issue. flame wars between users are very likely

highly partisan/militant/vocal/extreme users are more likely to get flamed. I think that if a user has an e-mail address, flames should better be e-mailed privately (I know this for a fact since I receive, um, "feedback", positive and otherwise, from other users a lot).
but as I said, racism is a sensitive issue, and bad things can happen to those who, from the left or the right, express extreme points of view. we don't udually do racism threads very well here, same as I/P, abortion, etc
posted by matteo at 3:20 AM on May 2, 2003


Anyone remember hincandenza vs. aaron, way back when?

Good times, good times. You know, or not.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:28 AM on May 2, 2003


(It's best to develop a little thicker skin).

I don't know about that, I don't think that Hama7 needs to be overly sesitive to find some lacking standards in that paragraph.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 3:48 AM on May 2, 2003


That's exactly what I was thinking, stav.
posted by adampsyche at 4:36 AM on May 2, 2003


i'll opt not to step into the right or wrong fray, but i have to say that linguistically speaking, hincandenza's comment was a work of flame art, a masterpiece of vitriol. i enjoyed it.
posted by quonsar at 4:36 AM on May 2, 2003


I have to say that, despite my feeling that the comment was out of line, it was certainly a well-written out of line comment and I had some guilty pleasure in reading it.

Sorry, I mean it was bad bad bad and hincandenza should be reprimanded.
posted by dg at 5:17 AM on May 2, 2003


Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, enter exhibit a.
posted by adampsyche at 5:43 AM on May 2, 2003


hincandenza is the anti-hama7, and vice versa.

It did seem ironic that such vile words could be used against somebody in the spirit of peace, love and harmony towards all of mankind. Perhaps hinc was exaggerating his passion to make his point? Either way, while it was a wonderful example of flaming at its best and I am most impressed, it still doesn't belong in a forum that promotes discussion over argument.

hama7, I'm curious, but how do you handle the vitriol that is sent your way on weekly, if not daily basis? Do you take it personally or do you handle it as people having opposite ideological viewpoints? In other words, at the end of the day, would you have drinks and pleasant chat with your naysayers and detractors, no harm done?

on preview, perhaps hincandenza really does mean what he says, adampsyche...the two faces of hinc, one good, one evil...
posted by ashbury at 6:04 AM on May 2, 2003


I think the problem is that hama7 is just so damned thick skinned! I'm sure his (in many people's view) warped understanding of the world infuriates me as much as it does hincandenza, I guess I've just gotten past vitriolic flames. They never do any good, and as this meta shows, people end up more offended by the outburst than they do by hama7's rhetoric. I guess one just has to accept that hama7 thinks the way he thinks quite genuinely, and I assume it must be for some good reason (harrassed by commies as a small child?) Just like I genuinely feel how I do for good reasons; a healthy, free upbringing in one of hama7's so dreadfully oppressive socialist countries, and a life touched and enhanced by multiculturalism.
posted by Jimbob at 6:28 AM on May 2, 2003


I just see racial divisiveness and race-based preferentialism as anti-American, illegal, and unconstitutional.

And you linked to a set of articles which were outrageous, racist, suggested that those promoting racial integration were Communists, and that the idea of non-white-Europeans being allowed to celebrate their history (many of whom encompassed much of it around, you know, being forcibly removed from it by said white Europeans) was a stain of Amercan society. There's a line for dismissing things you find unbelieveable horrible with civility and hincandenza crossed it. It wasn't like he called you an idiot over your favorite beer.

I don't agree with the tone of hincandenza's comments, at least not when written down in public, but as others said this became a discussion about racism and hama7, to use his words, "meandered out of the theme" to explain how he didn't like the study of culture in ethnic people... or at least, if that's how hincandenza interpreted it, I can understand the level of outrage.

I think bursts of outrage like hincandenza's are those that you give to trolls and people deliberately starting a flame war... I don't think that hama7 is a troll, because, sadly, I'm pretty sure he honestly believes everything he said in this thread. It's ironic, because I think a lot of people were thinking exactly what hincandenza wrote. I know I was.

There is no doubt that hincandenza has skin so thin it's transparent, and as proven by other threads he's once again snapped far too quickly. But actually writing stuff like his as your response does something much worse than trolling: it validates the opinion of the person you attacked through sympathy. I have to mark that as my ulitmate regret here, because much as I disapprove of the tone in which hincandenza responded, there's no way I can defend what hama7 wrote to inspire it.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 6:55 AM on May 2, 2003


hincandenza consistently satisfies every troll criteria that I'm familiar with. The fact that people continue to rationalize his outrageous and deliberately provocative bile baffles me.
posted by MrBaliHai at 7:34 AM on May 2, 2003


Multiculturalism and political correctness as boogeysmonsters are the inventions of right wing moral entrepeneurs like Dinseh D'Souza carving out careers for themselves. And consider Dinesh D'Souza:

When one knows a little about the biographies of these conservative pundits, one's uneasiness about the content of their arguments is heightened. One wonders how Mr. D'Souza can pooh-pooh the concerns of black students about racist speech, given his own background. When D'Souza was a student, the campus newspaper he edited published a "joke" photograph of a lynched black student hanging on the Dartmouth campus. Similar "jokes" included publishing the names of gay students who did not wish their sexuality to be a matter of public discussion -- after those names had been taken from a list stolen from the gay student organization's office. When D'Souza attained the mature status of a graduate student at Princeton, he wrote an article which revealed the details of a woman student's sex life without her consent. The article was written for a magazine, Prospect, founded by "Concerned Alumni" not long after Princeton started to admit women. The person selected as editor of that magazine during Mr. D'Souza's time there was . . . Dinesh D'Souza. As Louis Menand put it in a book review written for The New Yorker, "It is not pleasant to see a man who did so much to poison the wells now turning up dressed as the water commissioner, and it will be apparent to most people who read Illiberal Education that the book's promise of balance is a false one."

This is pretty much the hallmark of people who write this bogus screeds for these foundation funded "alternative" right wing college newspapers and the contributions they make are indeed poisoning the wells--as they well know. People who attempt to argue these phony concoctions on as if they had any merits are wasting their time.

If one is the second or third most prolific poster, depending upon the week, and continually makes outrageous statements or links to such tripe, then this sort of thing will happen at more or less regular intervals. hama7 knows good and well the effect his comments and links have on people, knows he is throwing gasoline and not water on a fire. My advice is to either ignore his trolls or examine his motives for making them. He's interested in interesting things when he makes post but he can't seem to help himself with the race baiting in the threads when his buttons get pushed. Fascinating from the clinical viewpoint.

If one can't resist responding, here is James Boyle's The PC Harangue and here is the late Steve Kangas's The Long FAQ On Liberalism. Behind the Culture War to Restore Traditional Values and its links page provide bombs to throw back. There is more sensible information out there, free of bogus distortions and racist innuendos, if one bothers to look. What annoys me about this whole PC and Multiculturalism debate is that progressive people have let themselves be bullied into silence by a passively accepted myth.

PC--booga booga! As James Boyles notes, it was never a screed but more a mocking of zealous excess by their more sensible left wing peers. Facts, not flames, are an appropriate response to these political straw men of PC and multiculturalism. Don't let your opponents define these terms. Not that I've followed this advice in the past...
posted by y2karl at 7:46 AM on May 2, 2003


You know, though my political point of view is a bit closer to hincandenza's
one od this person political thoughts on MeFi was to let the terrorists come and "finish us off" is this what you believe?. I wanted to rip Hincandenza also but instead "prayed for him" I suggest you do the same vidiot. This willy-nilly front page bantering is beyond childish at this point, it is the foundation of the erosion of this site. Me, i love a good posture, snit fight once in a while but this is moot really. The only one who can do anything about this stuff is the site administrator.

I hear alot of "I thinks" around here. You know, when it comes down to it, what one thinks concerning these matters is also moot.
posted by clavdivs at 7:57 AM on May 2, 2003


od=of
posted by clavdivs at 7:59 AM on May 2, 2003


take odd, you hoser
posted by y2karl at 8:04 AM on May 2, 2003


and here is the late Steve Kangas's The Long FAQ On Liberalism.

hmmm...that would explain the unanswered Emails.
posted by dgaicun at 8:06 AM on May 2, 2003


Perhaps there needs to be a "count to 10 before posting" button.

I can't believe hincandenza wrote all that out, then previewed it, and still thought it was a good idea to hit post.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 8:22 AM on May 2, 2003


I actually think that response was long overdue, if unintentionally validating of hama7's position/existence.

The reason hama7 exhausts me so much is that the poison he spews should not go unchallenged. Thankfully, I suppose, it's factually untenable, and therefore relatively easy to deflate, but there is so damn much of it.

You may have noticed that I'm not posting here much anymore. This, it is true, is partially because I have a lot on my plate right now, and partially because I had already decided I needed a MeTimeout.

But it's largely because of hama7 - I simply dread opening a thread and seeing what new rationale for oppression/apologia for power he's come up with.

Now, it's true that in order to be interesting, a community needs wild cards and outliers, and debate means nothing without a principled opponent. But there is seemingly no thread hama cannot turn into a disquisition on his favorite topics, and it's siphoned much of the joy out of this place for me.

hama7, my hope for you is that one day you find yourself helpless in the face of an arbitrary and capricious exercise of unbridled power. And I hope you remember what it feels like, and how often you've wished this on your fellow humans without the slightest concern for what it does to them - or to those who wield the power.

I'm about done here.
posted by adamgreenfield at 8:23 AM on May 2, 2003



Multiculturalism and political correctness as boogeysmonsters are the inventions of right wing moral entrepeneurs like Dinseh D'Souza carving out careers for themselves.

better start deleting your Phrack files Karl;)

oh...BTW. Have we reversed roles here karl. I remeber the time when i would just make a bland, non-qualifying statement just to...whatever. If it was in humor or jest...well, i love you, if it was an attack, i still love you.

bbtw, keep posting your good posts karl. fuck opinion. you got good stuff.
posted by clavdivs at 8:28 AM on May 2, 2003


No-o-o, it was an obvious trope on Bob and Doug MacKenzie.
posted by y2karl at 8:38 AM on May 2, 2003


A "d" thang, in other words.
posted by y2karl at 8:39 AM on May 2, 2003


one of this person political thoughts on MeFi was to let the terrorists come and "finish us off" is this what you believe?.

No, clav -- I don't agree with everything either poster says...I'm just saying that I generally see things from the perspective of the left, as it seems that hincandenza does and hama7 does not.

To clarify my purpose in starting this thread, I think that flamewars are entertaining to read, but that they ultimately don't do this site and community any favors. What I found irritating in hincandenza's post was that so much of the bile within was directed at hama7 personally, and in some of the basest possible terms.

Pretty much all I'm saying is that it's possible to have a good -- and entertaining! -- discussion without saying things like "God, I fucking hate you." And, saying stuff like that doesn't really do anything, other than a.) make one user (presumably) feel better for getting it off his/her chest; b.) piss another user off; c.) in many cases, de-rail the argument, because the focus has shifted from the ideas under discussion to the personalities and tactics involved; d.) weaken the community slightly in some unquantifiable way.
posted by Vidiot at 8:40 AM on May 2, 2003


And, saying stuff like that doesn't really do anything, other than a.) make one user (presumably) feel better for getting it off his/her chest;

Perhaps. Enraged thinking happens in its own universe and has its own logic and truths. I rarely feel better ''getting it off my chest''--I usually feel dirty and stupid when the blood's left my eyes. Anger is a problem for us all, I think.

I did not have that much online experience before I joined here and it continually amazes me how easy it is to get angry and be nasty to faceless words on a screen here or to write awful emails--even to people you know and love in the real world. This place does better than most but I still read things here that, for the saying, would get you killed in bars, at wedding receptions, family dinners or in church. It's a wonder.
posted by y2karl at 8:57 AM on May 2, 2003


god forbid some of you went to a bar and let loose.
posted by Frasermoo at 9:04 AM on May 2, 2003


I am sure we are mild and inoffensive in real life, with the exception of Miguel, who tortures small animals and frequently shoves women pushing babies in strollers in front of oncoming busses.
posted by y2karl at 9:10 AM on May 2, 2003


On a side note, I think making a catchphrase out of "God, I fucking hate you" would be kind of amusing. Kind of like opening every comment with "hama7, you ignorant slut."
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 9:13 AM on May 2, 2003


buses? i thought migs was limiting this activity to mopeds only.

:)
posted by clavdivs at 9:19 AM on May 2, 2003


God, I fucking hate you guys.

/Cartman
posted by hackly_fracture at 9:20 AM on May 2, 2003


Those of you who are defending (however sheepishly) hincadenza's nasty outburst, cut it out. It's indefensible, regardless of what hama7 may have said. And hama7, though full of extreme ideas that he takes pleasure in expressing provocatively, is not (as I used to think him when I first came here) an asshole. He's perfectly pleasant via e-mail. He just likes being provocative in public, and doesn't seem to care whether it "hurts his cause." I don't understand it, but there it is. And those of you who are so outraged should stop and consider the many lefties here who are just as fond of being provocative; are you as outraged by them? Run a hypocrisy check, please.

I rarely feel better ''getting it off my chest''--I usually feel dirty and stupid when the blood's left my eyes.

Um, then maybe you should stop doing it. You keep saying this, and you keep flying off at the handle. Time to learn how to step away from the computer and cool off, n'est-ce pas, compadre? You're not doing your cause any favors, either.
posted by languagehat at 9:21 AM on May 2, 2003


Er, that's flying off the handle. (Or running off at the mouth, which is different, although you do that too.)
posted by languagehat at 9:25 AM on May 2, 2003


Maybe you should save that for when I lose it and need it, no? That everyone is always responding to something someone previously said here is another thing I notice. People can seem quite patronizing at times.
posted by y2karl at 9:30 AM on May 2, 2003


Those of you who are defending (however sheepishly) hincadenza's nasty outburst, cut it out.

Another example of responding to another day's comments: no one is excusing hincadenza's outburst in this thread. It's the subject of the post, if you will.
posted by y2karl at 9:51 AM on May 2, 2003


hincandenza's comment was brilliant. this is the only thing i like about metafilter, the wonderfully articulate invective. that is special, isn't it? such things have value. they enliven these earnest and otherwise tedious discussions. well done that man.
posted by mokey at 10:08 AM on May 2, 2003


y2karl: Huh? Plenty are excusing his outburst.

Examples:

In the case of hama7, it looked perfectly reasonable to me. Understated, even.

or

I actually think that response was long overdue, if unintentionally validating of hama7's position/existence.

Not picking on those two comments, just an example of people excusing or even out right agreeing with the filth hincadenza spewed.

languagehats' comments were welcome and overdue in this thread.
posted by Plunge at 10:14 AM on May 2, 2003


Entertaining, articulate, and profane flames aren't objectionable in and of themselves -- but I like them much better when they're addressed at ideas and points, not at people.
posted by Vidiot at 10:25 AM on May 2, 2003


Am I the only one who ignores the flaming? I'm not really interested in one member cursing and carrying on at another-unless they are clever and funny about it, which is rather rare.
posted by konolia at 10:49 AM on May 2, 2003


You may have noticed that I'm not posting here much anymore.

THAT should be the fucking tagline. Yeah, I'm losing sleep over it, worrying what I could do to make this place better for you.
posted by jonson at 10:58 AM on May 2, 2003


Mom, he gored my ox--I've got an owie!
posted by y2karl at 11:23 AM on May 2, 2003


Mom, he gored my ox--I've got an owie!

Math gives me an owie. math...owie!
posted by Shane at 11:33 AM on May 2, 2003


That was the most disgusting post I've ever read. It had it all: hatred, intolerance, (presumed) superiority, baseless allegations. And the fact that hincandenza clearly expended great time and effort composing it makes it that much more pathetic.

Look, I know it's Matt's sandbox, but hincandenza just dropped a huge steaming turd right in the middle of it. If I were Matt, I'd probably want to clean the place up a bit.
posted by pardonyou? at 11:37 AM on May 2, 2003


Thanks, Plunge.

y2karl, I admit it might not have been the most appropriate time to slap your wrist—but then you turned around and justified it by immediately flying off the handle and making a completely inaccurate comment (go back and reread the thread, or just read Plunge's comment) because you felt bad. Seriously, learn to cool off.
posted by languagehat at 12:09 PM on May 2, 2003


I've always found it interesting that here at MetaFilter we give trolls a pass, but we jump all over people who fall for the troll. The cause is frowned on, but the effect is a serious no-no that will get you roundly condemned.

hincandenza did *exactly* what hama7 wanted. The whole point of hama7 is nurture posts like that. Yet we attack hincandenza.

It's like some jerk is going around peeing on people's shoes. Everyone is expected to just roll their eyes and frown. But the minute someone blows up over it and goes off on the guy, everybody shakes the urine off their shoes and piles on the jerk's latest victom.

The proper response to hincandenza is, "Why did you give him exactly what he wanted?"

To prevent syphilis you teach people to avoid STDs. To prevent trolls you teach people to avoid taking the bait.
posted by y6y6y6 at 12:29 PM on May 2, 2003


I agree that hincandenza's action was wrong, which is the reason that I've restrained myself so many times from doing the same. Though at the same time, the fact remains that I've had to restrain myself so many times from doing the same... (head explodes)
posted by The Michael The at 1:51 PM on May 2, 2003


Though sometimes, y6^3, when a limb has gone gangrenous, you remove the limb. Just saying.
posted by The Michael The at 1:53 PM on May 2, 2003


Though sometimes, y6^3, when a limb has gone gangrenous, you remove the limb. Just saying.

Are you talking about hama7 or hincandenza?
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 2:26 PM on May 2, 2003


but then you turned around and justified it by immediately flying off the handle and making a completely inaccurate comment (go back and reread the thread, or just read Plunge's comment) because you felt bad. Seriously, learn to cool off.

I saw at least thirteen who more or less made some condemnatory remark vis-a-vis hincadenza's outburst, thirteen not endorsing or excusing it, versus two or three who more or less openly validated it--not counting stavros or quonsar, who did neither. How is that completely inaccurate? I would suggest that, on the whole, my remark was accurate. How is pointing this out flying off the handle? Since when are you now the telepathic authority on my mood and thinking? Seriously, know when to stop preaching.

He just likes being provocative in public, and doesn't seem to care whether it "hurts his cause." I don't understand it, but there it is.

No comment.
posted by y2karl at 2:31 PM on May 2, 2003


And if my reading is inaccurate to you, accept at least that it seemed to me the bulk of the comments, as well as the post, were about the inexcusability of hincadenza's remark, esthetic appreciations aside. Opinions may differ. As much as I appreciate the kind things you said about my post the other day, being accused of losing my temper when I haven't is irritating and smacks of you making yourself right by making me wrong out of pique. Now don't make me mad!
posted by y2karl at 2:37 PM on May 2, 2003


And now I apologize for going on--I just don't like being defined in the present for what I've said in the past. If that is the case, then there is no redemption. Being stubborn and blunt is not always being belligerent.
posted by y2karl at 2:52 PM on May 2, 2003


hincandenza did *exactly* what hama7 wanted. The whole point of hama7 is nurture posts like that. Yet we attack hincandenza.

That argument might hold some water if 1) hincandenza wasn't such an egregious troll himself and 2) hama7 didn't post so many wonderful links to art and culture in between his polemic brainfarts.
posted by MrBaliHai at 3:05 PM on May 2, 2003


I'm reminded of this recent quote from Ashbury:
There is another sense of smothering that I've been seeing lately. You can't seem to let anything go, you have an answer for everybody, about everything, each and every time somebody has something to say about you.

Karl, you know I love you for you music & philsophy posts. But in both MeTa & MeFi you somehow inexplicably end up the center of attention in threads that have nothing to do with you. You contribute massive chunks of prose just to explain yourself that comes across as strange rhetorical tail-chasing. Looking up, you've now posted three times just in the last twenty minutes. It's great that you have a lot to say about a lot of subjects, and many of us enjoy the information you offer, but surely you must realize that all the conspicuous behavior contributes to a certain...presence, that some have identified as "y2karlfilter". That seems like an epithet you would want to disprove, not fortify, no?

Feel free to flame me, but I'm saying it out of nostalgia for the easy-going threads about Rufus Thomas and Randall Jarrell--stuff I used to look forward to.
posted by dhoyt at 3:08 PM on May 2, 2003


That argument might hold some water if 1) hincandenza wasn't such an egregious troll himself and 2) hama7 didn't post so many wonderful links to art and culture in between his polemic brainfarts.

He's an egregious troll. He posts many wonderful links to art and culture in between his polemic brainfarts... they fight crime!
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 3:16 PM on May 2, 2003


xquzyphyr: I meant hama7.

That argument might hold some water if 1) hincandenza wasn't such an egregious troll himself and 2) hama7 didn't post so many wonderful links to art and culture in between his polemic brainfarts.

I hear that Hitler loved art and was an artist himself... not to compare hama7, but to discredit the argument.
posted by The Michael The at 3:18 PM on May 2, 2003


2) hama7 didn't post so many wonderful links to art and culture in between his polemic brainfarts.

Absolutely meaningless. If a troll is a troll, then their offering of candy makes no difference whatsoever. (and yes that does extend to y2karl as well.)

BTW, I think there needs to be some backing before accusation that hincandenza is a "troll". There's been ample evidence offered concerning hama7. What do you offer concerning hincandenza?
posted by Wulfgar! at 3:19 PM on May 2, 2003


Hey mathowie, could you add another counter to the MeTa and MeFi pages. Something a little more descriptive possibly?

This one could say: "62 Comments (2 new, 10 by y2karl)" or "62 Comments (2 new, 15% by y2karl)"
posted by eyeballkid at 3:24 PM on May 2, 2003


I hear hincandenza is a real nice guy in person.
posted by thirteen at 3:45 PM on May 2, 2003


thirteen: I hear hincandenza is a real nice guy in person.

Well, I can't imagine who's been telling you that! Absolute rubbish- this hincandenza fellow, met him at one of the Seattle MeFis, total jackass! Loud, uncouth, belligerent, ill-mannered, pretentious... truly a dreadful individual.

I will give him this, though: damned handsome fellow, though. Quite the ladies' man, as well- I hear he's a right devil between the sheets!
posted by hincandenza at 5:08 PM on May 2, 2003


I really don't think hama7 is a troll according to my understanding of the term. In other words, I don't think he posts links and comments just for the sake of infuriating others. I believe that he posts things that he believes that, as it turns out, are infuriating to many MeFi members.

Sometimes it is difficult to keep emotions out of our responses. I know I have gone off on people a time or two, and people have gone off on me. I think it is worthwhile for us to keep reminding ourselves that freedom of expression is one of the fuels that powers a site like MeFi. Lacking concrete proof that hama7 intends to do anything more than make his voice heard, I support his right to express himself. I suspect that he would support all of our right to express ourselves also.

Of course, I could be wrong. Maybe he is a troll. However, if he is a troll, he is our troll and brilliant at it. Doesn't that count for something?
posted by Joey Michaels at 5:15 PM on May 2, 2003


Isn't that kind of like saying "it may be a malignant tumor, but it's MY malignant tumor and it's brilliant at making me sick?"
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 7:16 PM on May 2, 2003


I guess the next time I feel like flying into a temper tantrum, hurling personal insults, hatred and invective at another MetaFilter member, violating every rule of acceptible conduct and civility, I should rermember that I am not to blame, but it's the other member's fault for making me so darn mad that I'm incapable of controlling myself, or my language.

How extremely logical and liberating. And surreal.
posted by hama7 at 9:49 PM on May 2, 2003


Stick with it, hama7. Other people's rages are their problem. Some faux liberals are quite often full of hatred for other human beings. I don't think the concept of diversity has fully dawned on them yet. Hincandenza has been expertly perfecting the diatribe for quite some time now - the object, as far as I can tell, is immaterial.

Studied indifference is the nuclear weapon of choice. Time is best spent on those you like and who like you. Wasting it with antagonism is just wasteful.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 10:00 PM on May 2, 2003


Sage words, Miguel. Many thanks.
posted by hama7 at 11:12 PM on May 2, 2003


Some faux liberals are quite often full of hatred for other human beings. I don't think the concept of diversity has fully dawned on them yet.

Studied indifference is the nuclear weapon of choice. Time is best spent on those you like and who like you.

Explaining to hama7 how some people don't accept diversity in a thread created as a result of his declaration of the evils of multiculturalism is quite possibly the most ironically hilarious thing I've read here.

But regardless, I'm glad we've now established the best way to counter self-perceived "faux liberalism" is to adopt an air of "faux condescending righteousness." That'll TRULY make MetaFilter a better place. Yep.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 11:34 PM on May 2, 2003


what XQUZYPHYR said.

also, it's interesting that Miguel has finally confessed his basic disinterest/contempt for everybody here except his fan club ("Time is best spent on those you like and who like you").

and the winner of the 2003 Cardoso Tolerance Award is...

hamas heaven!


what's the prize this year, a "Support Our Troops -- Kill A Liberal" sticker? A Jesse Jackson Halloween mask?

I won't mention the irony of your little lecture about wasting time, either, because before you'll drop your nuclear indifference on me killing me instantly, I'd like to preemptively add that I sincerely like you and Carlos, because you're so much richer, more famous, smarter, more successful, better traveled, better read and more handsome than everybody else here. Not to mention your modesty.
posted by matteo at 2:32 AM on May 3, 2003


Egofilter.
posted by ginz at 3:27 AM on May 3, 2003


... and the MeFi implosion begins.
posted by Space Coyote at 5:16 AM on May 3, 2003


Don't worry, Miguel, people are just kicking you out of sheer habit.

To the ones doing the kicking, you have an interesting way of interpreting what to me are innocent words. No wonder this place is like World War III so much. I mean, take a deep breath and go get a hamburger or an enema or something.
posted by konolia at 5:27 AM on May 3, 2003


*steps gingerly over the chicken poo, not unlike Tiny Tim but puffing a big Robusto, to pluck a bunch of wildflowers to offer konolia* ;)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 5:47 AM on May 3, 2003


Chicken poo?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:48 AM on May 3, 2003


ah, Miguel's bodyguards are so nice and caring...

the "go get an enema" cheerful suggestion is especially cute -- I understand you anal-retentives actually need the procedure, so I consider it a compliment! Thank You!

and konolia, before you throw a fit because some ugly bully mistreated your little buddy, don't worry. As I have said, I like Miguel and his doppelgangers. Very often, he is funny. I just don't think that his "hama7's critics don't accept diversity" was very funny. But you know, he's probably recruiting a new member of his fan club, so what can you do.
I didn't mean to hurt your feelings, konolia et al. Miguel is Great.
posted by matteo at 6:24 AM on May 3, 2003


Ya know, after reading this all over the last couple days and staying way the hell out of the mess, I just wanted to say that I hope nobody talks to anybody the way Hincandenza talked to Hama. Look: I find nearly every link on Hama's user page offensive, racist, paranoid, or at the very least fallacious, his politics are unfathomable to me, and his own behavior in the thread rather illogical, but big deal: vicious personal attacks are a useless and community-destroying response, and they should not be tolerated. Escalating illogic with more fallacy is totally counterproductive: mostly we just end up in MeTa blabbing about it. And Hama, I'm sorry you got treated like that. Now stop being such a hater. ;)
posted by RJ Reynolds at 7:51 AM on May 3, 2003


*stops and smells the flowers, then takes Miguel out for a hamburger*
posted by konolia at 7:58 AM on May 3, 2003


*carefully wipes fingerprints from his 'hama7' and 'hincandenza' logins, returns them lovingly to the mantle for another day.*
posted by quonsar at 1:08 PM on May 3, 2003


hama7 didn't post so many wonderful links to art and culture in between his polemic brainfarts.

I'm convinced that there are actually two people who share the same account. There must be.
posted by adampsyche at 1:31 PM on May 3, 2003


[Apologies for inexcusable length]

I just don't think that his "hama7's critics don't accept diversity" was very funny

Why Matteo, I like you too! We Latins must stick together [it says here in my very quotable Catullus*] but, for the life of me, I couldn't find the bit where I said "hama7's critics don't accept diversity".

I was particularly interested in finding this passage because I disagree with it profoundly, for it is a shocking, stupid thing to say. And yet you say I said it and, what is worse, say you don't think it's funny, implying that I might find it funny.

Apart from hincandenza, all hama7's critics (the ones I can remember) do accept diversity. As does hama7. Accepting diversity is not particularly difficult.

Then I found this passage - funnily enough the last thing I'd written:

Some faux liberals are quite often full of hatred for other human beings. I don't think the concept of diversity has fully dawned on them yet.

I've highlighted the important words. But I'll recap: I wasn't saying that Metafilter's liberals were false. Just that some false liberals - you know, out in the big world - don't accept diversity. Because...ready for the punchline, amico mio?... if they were real liberals, of course they would accept diversity. What can possibly be disputable about such a bland, true assertion?

As far as I can remember, hincandenza is the only faux liberal I can think of here on the Filtro. There may be one or two more, but who knows? You're not - more like a ferocious art-lovin' embittered socialist freethinker who, like most intelligent people, is often in two minds about everything.

So please, please don't quote me without actually using the words I used. It can be - as I've said before - quite revealing.

"hama7's critics don't accept diversity"

is not the same as

"the concept of diversity has not fully dawned on some faux liberals" [paraphrase

*Just to show there are no hard feelings, but proud of the Celtiberian reference contained therein:

Egnatius, quod candidos habet dentes,
renidet usque quaque. Si ad rei ventum est
subsellium, cum orator excitat fletum,
renidet ille; si ad pii rogum fili
lugetur, orba cum flet unicum mater,
renidet ille. Quidquid est, ubicumque est,
quodcumque agit, renidet: hunc habet morbum,
neque elegantem, ut arbitror, neque urbanum.
Quare monendum est te mihi, bone Egnati.
Si urbanus esses aut Sabinus aut Tiburs
aut pinguis Vmber aut obesus Etruscus
aut Lanuvinus ater atque dentatus
aut Transpadanus, ut meos quoque attingam,
aut quilubet, qui puriter lavit dentes,
tamen renidere usque quaque te nollem:
nam risu inepto res ineptior nulla est.
Nunc Celtiber es: Celtiberia in terra,
quod quisque minxit, hoc sibi solet mane
dentem atque russam defricare gingivam,
ut quo iste vester expolitior dens est,
hoc te amplius bibisse praedicet loti.


[And the translation:]

*Egnatius, because he has bright white teeth,
always smiles: If someone comes to the defendant's
bench, when the speaker arouses weeping,
he grins; If there is weeping at the funeral pyre of
a dutiful son, when the bereaved mother laments her only son,
he grins. Whatever it is, wherever he is,
whatever he is doing, he grins: he has this disease,
neither elegant, as I think, nor refined.
Therefore I must warn you, my good Egnatius.
If you were a city man or a Sabine or a Tiburnan
or a thrifty Umbrian or a fat Etruscan
or a swarthy or toothy Lanuvian or
a Transpadane, to touch on my own people as well,
or anyone you like who cleans his teeth with clean water,
I still should not want you to smile on all occasions:
for nothing is more silly than a silly smile.
Now you are a Celtiberian: in the land of Celtiberia,
whatever each man has urinated, with this he is accustomed
in the morning to rub his teeth and gums until they are red,
so that the more polished those teeth of yours are,
the more urine they proclaim you to have drunk.

posted by MiguelCardoso at 2:10 PM on May 3, 2003


if they were real liberals, of course they would accept diversity. What can possibly be disputable about such a bland, true assertion?

The implication is that a "real" liberal would be locked in some paralysis of relativism that would prohibit them from passing judgement on the ideas of another. Liberalism is not postmodernism.
posted by eddydamascene at 4:11 PM on May 3, 2003


so that the more polished those teeth of yours are,
the more urine they proclaim you to have drunk.


ah, so Miguel drinks Scotch and smokes cigars to stain his blindingly white teeth?
posted by Vidiot at 10:08 PM on May 3, 2003


« Older Music entering blogs   |   How do I do IRC? Newer »

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