MeFi callout for anti-semitism August 29, 2003 7:55 PM   Subscribe

Hmm..... It does fit in with riptide's posting history which consists of mostly short, useless, and sometimes offensive comments.
posted by rdr to Etiquette/Policy at 7:55 PM (88 comments total)

"Egyptians and nimrods and jewdog fuckings, these are a few of my favorite things..."
posted by quonsar at 8:10 PM on August 29, 2003


Seriously?
posted by angry modem at 8:11 PM on August 29, 2003


I don't think I've ever seen such undisguised racism on MeFi. And, as rdr points out, it seems to be of a piece with all eight of riptides comments.
A somewhat low volume, slo-mo troll or someone with a severe social skills deficit?
posted by thatwhichfalls at 8:25 PM on August 29, 2003


A somewhat low volume, slo-mo troll or someone with a severe social skills deficit?

Inclusive or.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 8:44 PM on August 29, 2003


I don't think I've ever seen such undisguised racism on MeFi.

At first I laughed at you for this, then I was prepared to publish my laughter. But then I saw his "zionism=racism" comment and now I don't know. Maybe it wasn't sarcastic.
posted by dgaicun at 8:59 PM on August 29, 2003


Yeah, I've come full circle. The law-suit was so obviously ridiculous, that his "good for them" comment has to be a farce...
posted by dgaicun at 9:04 PM on August 29, 2003


Like its other incestuous siblings islam and christianity, judaism has become more political in nature than religious, so how can one oppose the political elements without being labelled a bigot?
posted by mischief at 10:23 PM on August 29, 2003


mischief, I think the phrase "jew dogs" makes it a little less than political.
posted by angry modem at 3:24 AM on August 30, 2003


How so? Here in the US, Republicans are often referred to as 'sons of bitches'.
posted by mischief at 3:46 AM on August 30, 2003


I think the phrase "jew dogs" makes it a little less than political

I'm interested in why rdr, thatwhichfalls, and angry modem don't think the most likely assumption is that he was mocking the law-suit as racist, rather than him literally making a bold, violent racist statement? I am asking that as an honest question?

In my mind this is a common form of humor and sarcasm* I see, and I see it here a lot. It would seem that even if he didn't like jews all that much, it would be extremely unlikely for anybody to make such a uncommonly violent statement on such a forum, and in such a thread if it wasn't in jest.

The only thing that made me perhaps second-guess my opinion is that to really believe zionism=racism speaks to me as an extreme position, that seems a uniquely critical standard towards any ethnicity. But I realize that's a some-what common opinion for many people to the left of me, which they apparently don't think represents any sort of double-standard, so I'll reserve judgement for now and go back to the "default" assumption that this guy is a just a normal left-wing guy who likes to leave short snarky comments (like a lot of users), complain about percieved abuses of the haves on the have-nots, and mock racists.

*mocking outrageous positions by repeating them back but intensifying their content, or "reading between the lines".
posted by dgaicun at 5:15 AM on August 30, 2003


As we all know, the written word used as conversational tool is one of the worst ways to impart sarcasm, since nobody can tell if you're being sarcastic or not. I always appreciate < > signs to indicate whatever it is the poster is trying relay. Either way, riptide should know, assuming he has a halfway working brain, that that kind of comment is inciteful, to say the least.
posted by ashbury at 5:50 AM on August 30, 2003


"I'm interested in why rdr, thatwhichfalls, and angry modem don't think the most likely assumption is that he was mocking the law-suit as racist, rather than him literally making a bold, violent racist statement?"

Yep, it can be tough to tell what's intended as irony or sarcasm. In the absence of a clear indication I think the posters history provides some context.

"Zionism is racism. Israel is a police state. Put that in your bong and smoke it."

Coming from someone who feels that strongly about Israeli politics (and I'm not condoning nor disputing his position), the term "jew dogs" probably is notnot intended to be ironic and we can take it as a "bold, violent racist statement".
posted by cedar at 8:03 AM on August 30, 2003


Er... I may be stepping into a monster-sized trap here, but isn't Israel a effectively a police state? The entire country is crawling with police and military and I'm under the impression that one can expect a pat-down and questioning at any time.

And isn't Zionism generally a racist movement? Despite whatever disclaimers Zionists wish to make, their actions appear to be racist. The creation of a Zionist state resulted in the displacement of a settled people, forcing them into refugee camps; and a Palestinian citizen in Israel isn't treated as an equal to an Israeli citizen.

Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...
posted by five fresh fish at 9:06 AM on August 30, 2003


Dude, "sons of bitches" is not the preferred nomenclature. "Greedy black-hearted motherfuckers", please.
posted by trondant at 9:41 AM on August 30, 2003


Coming from someone who feels that strongly about Israeli politics . . .

The typical response I get is that Israel is not synonymous with Jews, so that nothing should be inferred from negative statements about it. In fact, I am told, such statements are the ultimate in anti-racism.
posted by dgaicun at 9:45 AM on August 30, 2003


Is it worth point out that you've given this kid exactly what he wanted - his Fifteen Minutes are ticking away with every portentous post to this thread... Every once in a while he crops up, says something the self-deputized MetaFilter Content Police find objectionable and he gets the attention he so obviously craves but doesn't get in Real Life...

Look, Israel is a police state, at least it has been the past four or five years; Zionism is, by definition, racist and exclusionary, particularly as it's been playing itself out in the Middle East in years since 1967. To deny this does nothing to dispute or refute it - in fact, denying it merely makes the denier look like they've simply not been paying attention. "Fucking jewdogs" on the other hand, is juvenile and irrelevant and not funny - even if it was intended to be.
posted by JollyWanker at 9:59 AM on August 30, 2003


Discussions of whether or not Israel is a police state should not arise from someone using the expression 'Jew dogs'.
posted by Space Coyote at 10:48 AM on August 30, 2003


Zionism and Israeli politics are not the point.

If he had said "land grabbing Zionist dogs" that would be one thing. As much as I might disagree with that statement I would view it as an opinion on Israeli government policy. But he didn't say that, he said "Jew dogs" which is quite a different thing.

As Jolly Wanker pointed out, feeding the troll isn't helping anything. However, speaking out about racist/bigoted/prejudiced statements isn't quite the same thing as being the "MetaFilter Content Police'. You would prefer things like this went unchallenged ?
posted by cedar at 11:21 AM on August 30, 2003


But did you challenge it? No. You haven't posted to that thread at all.

But Quonsar, Ashlar, and Angry Modem did. They didn't even feed the troll: two of them mocked him, and one swore at him. And that's all the attention he deserves.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:24 PM on August 30, 2003


Israel may (or may not) be a police state, but that's beside the point. For those who are having a hard time distinguishing between "Israel" and "Jews," imagine someone using the N word to disparage the Liberian ex-president. I'm all for subtle irony, but racist comments must be clearly tagged. This one isn't.

On preview: nice to see you again 3F.
posted by squirrel at 12:28 PM on August 30, 2003


five fresh fish: "But did you challenge it? No. You haven't posted to that thread at all."

Yes, I have challenged it, in this thread. I don't see anything to be gained by carrying on in a particular thread about a quick one-liner post obviously intended as flame bait.

Isn't that what MeTa is for? Isn't it better to discuss here (I see that this has been mentioned in the thread and riptide has chosen not to defend himself) than to discuss in the blue where there are people who may care more about the content than the troll droppings?
posted by cedar at 12:39 PM on August 30, 2003


Advantage: cedar.
posted by squirrel at 1:11 PM on August 30, 2003


squirrel: for the longest time, my browser wasn't compatible with ColdFusion's login script. Made it difficult to attend MeFi. And then I was on holidays. And then my wife got run over by a truck. Things are finally returning to normal.

cedar: I doubt riptide even knows this thread exists, which means you haven't made a jot of difference to his future posting behaviour. That makes this meta-thread just an exercise in masturbation. Lots of fun, but not productive.
posted by five fresh fish at 1:54 PM on August 30, 2003


3F: I doubt riptide even knows this thread exists, which means you haven't made a jot of difference to his future posting behaviour. That makes this meta-thread just an exercise in masturbation. Lots of fun, but not productive.

Look at it this way. This thread has been posted in the original-- if he doesn't know it exists that only affirms my believe that he is a little more than a hit and run troll. In that case I (and anyone else reading this) have learned something about a fellow member.

Though it may not affect his future posting, it establishes a record and may help rid us of future bigoted crap. Believe it or not, I'm actually pretty tolerant and rarely care what people post, but when it comes to outright hatred I have a problem. I think it's a good place to draw the line.

And like masturbation; I enjoyed it and that, my friend, is reward enough.
posted by cedar at 2:09 PM on August 30, 2003


Oh yeah, sorry about your wife but I had to laugh. I was digging through old .mp3's and right around when I read that I hit the H's,

"Tire tracks all across your back...."
posted by cedar at 2:12 PM on August 30, 2003


This agression will not stand, it's time to draw a line in the sand and say "beyond this line, you do not cross!"

In other words, joking or not, the account is banned.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 4:05 PM on August 30, 2003


It least something good came out of this depressing thread.
posted by timeistight at 4:30 PM on August 30, 2003


*throws confetti*
posted by konolia at 5:19 PM on August 30, 2003


Trollfilter
;)
posted by inpHilltr8r at 5:27 PM on August 30, 2003


Advantage: mathowie.

FFF, welcome back, and sorry to hear about your wife. Hope she's doing OK.
posted by languagehat at 5:59 PM on August 30, 2003


my jew dog's breath smells like riptide.
posted by quonsar at 6:41 PM on August 30, 2003


Mark it fucking ZERO!
posted by squirrel at 8:38 PM on August 30, 2003


Over the line dude!

AM I THE ONLY ONE AROUND HERE WHO GIVES A FUCK ABOUT THE RULES?
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 10:29 PM on August 30, 2003


Yes
posted by cedar at 12:00 AM on August 31, 2003


Banhammer HUNGERS!
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 4:19 AM on August 31, 2003


Ignatius: Don't you mean "da RULEZ"?
posted by Johnny Assay at 10:59 AM on August 31, 2003


Ok, mr. "joking or not the account is banned" answer me this. In this recent thread about technology displacing unskilled workers the user known as aramaic, offered this comment:

"Easy solution: liquidate the excess population. I personally recommend packing them into shipping containers, and dumping said containers into the ocean. No fuss, no muss, and a whole lot cheaper than wars or civil unrest (the typical approach to these sorts of situations)."

My question to you is, if the context of a religious insult, be it a genuine insult or even the lampooning of a genuine insult, is so irrelevant, then why is the same standard not applied to statements of mass-murder? Is calling one demographic "dogs" more inexcusable, even if joking, than talking about the forcible drowning of another?

You say "a line has been drawn in the sand" but is the nature and placement of that line a gamble for us to find at best?
posted by dgaicun at 11:07 PM on August 31, 2003


In advance, I know aramaic was obviously joking. I had to wait less than a day to find a new comment like this, because, let's face it, comments such as this are found daily on Metafilter. Either ban this common type of "gen-x" humor or admit that you banned riptide out of emotionalism or expedience or some other type of careless free-form standard, but don't pretend it revolves around something so coherently demarcated as a "line".
posted by dgaicun at 11:18 PM on August 31, 2003


Is calling one demographic "dogs"* more inexcusable, even if joking, than talking about the forcible drowning of another**?

Yup. *The first 'demographic' is a racial one (generally accepted, even if the anti-Zionist emotion is said to be different to anti-Jewish, it's still racial); **the second one is generally misanthropic, clearly satirical, and even if it doesnt' tickle your funny bone, no specific group is targetted. It's different, no?
posted by dash_slot- at 12:35 AM on September 1, 2003


dash,

You're wrong, a specific group was targeted; the "excess population" clearly refers to the unskilled laborers who will have no place in the job market according to the linked article. It doesn't matter if it was "clearly satirical", as it was never established why the self-professed anti-racist riptide's comment wasn't satirical beyond opportunistic appeals to his common left-wing opinion towards Zionism. And in fact Matt drew "a line", and said it didn't matter if he was joking or not, anyway. So both of your objections fall flat.
posted by dgaicun at 2:05 AM on September 1, 2003


I missed the part where we all entered into some sort of remedial debate club.
posted by Mid at 8:20 AM on September 1, 2003


dgaicun makes a point: we have a nasty double standard.

Religion and race are treated like fragile explosives. Everyone is supposed to tip-toe around them out of fear that someone might take offense.

Yet we don't tip-toe around other subjects. Heck, we even say cruel or vicious things about any number of other subjects and no one blinks an eye.

"Easy solution: liquidate the Jews. I personally recommend packing them into shipping containers, and dumping said containers into the ocean. No fuss, no muss, and a whole lot cheaper than wars or civil unrest (the typical approach to these sorts of situations)."

Oh, the horrors! But change the words, and it's treated rather less seriously:

"Easy solution: liquidate the WASPs. I personally recommend packing them into shipping containers, and dumping said containers into the ocean. No fuss, no muss, and a whole lot cheaper than wars or civil unrest (the typical approach to these sorts of situations)."

And change the words again, and no one will blink an eye:

"Easy solution: liquidate the excess population [unskilled labourers]. I personally recommend packing them into shipping containers, and dumping said containers into the ocean. No fuss, no muss, and a whole lot cheaper than wars or civil unrest (the typical approach to these sorts of situations)."

Now, of course, some of this is to do with past history. Liquidating the excess population is a Swiftian proposal, whereas the famous H-man actually tried to liquidate Jews.

Nonetheless, it's still a double standard. I haven't tried to ever liquidate anyone... but were I to suggest such, I'd better be real careful about what group of people I choose. Pick the wrong group, and I'll be the one getting liquidated by the MeFi pile-on.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:13 AM on September 1, 2003


This banning really shows mefi up for the farce that it is.

Community? Moloch!
Fair and balanced? Moloch!
Logic, reason? Moloch!

Moloch!Moloch!
posted by carfilhiot at 10:43 AM on September 1, 2003


Point taken, FFF & dgaicun. It isn't a clincher though.
What to do about in the Mefi situation? Are we not allowed to poke fun at unnamed mixed groups of various ethnicites, sexualities, genders, ages & disabilities? Where then is the Line Of Humour?

The thing about racist/sexist/homophobic jokes is that they say 'all members of the target group are foo' [where foo = something undesirable]. Members of that group [whether self-identified, or by birth, chromosome, whatever] are often justifiably outraged. If an unskilled worker said 'Hey! I'm in that group! He wants to drown me!' - would you not, in your crabbiest moment, simply recommend relocation, retraining, college? Is there anything that group member can do to exit membership of the group?

That's where the difference lies, I think.

mathowie does an unpaid job here, which few people have the character and skillset to match to the tasks. I'm not persuaded that this criticism is valid, but I am sure that carping at the execution of his decisions - on dodgy grounds, too - does not add to the desire to freely maintain Mefi for long.
posted by dash_slot- at 11:05 AM on September 1, 2003


This is ridiculous: "He can't possibly have meant to post a blatant racial slur, so it must have been a joke."

There's nothing in riptide's sparse posting history to indicate that he even has a sense of humour. He joined almost one year ago and immediately posted a comment attacking Israel. He's contributed nothing useful since then. I say "good riddance".
posted by timeistight at 11:30 AM on September 1, 2003


I can see the point that dgaicun and f3 are getting at, but I disagree. There is a difference when the poster is clearly joking. The drowning proposal was an obvious Swiftism, and the group implied was in fact not really relevant to the larger point. Riptide, on the other hand, was not joking. He was denigrating a specific group on the sole grounds of their ethnicity.

If an unskilled worker said 'Hey! I'm in that group! He wants to drown me!'...

See, that's the difference: few would walk away with the sensation that aramaic actually hates unskilled workers. Just the oposite, in fact. And those who don't get the joke are just as likely to be offended by fatbobsmith's soylent green reference two comments later.

I agree with your general assessment that MeFi justice isn't always crystal clear and predictable, but our membership here entitles us to nothing of the kind.
posted by squirrel at 12:12 PM on September 1, 2003


My point wasn't that Matt is unfair or that we shouldn't have fun on MetaFilter.

It's that we have a double standard. And that it, perhaps, is a silly double standard. It's okay to write Swiftian prose about WASPs, but not about Jews? That should cause you to raise one eyebrow momentarily, even though we all do know and recognize that one is edgy humour and the other is simply not funny at all.

What I find interesting is that virtually everything possible is a ripe target for joking, no matter how terrible or tacky the original event. "Black humour" even has an identified lifecycle, but while it's now semi-permissible to joke about the white-collar executives who fairly recently died by the score in the WTC, it's not permissible to joke about Jews, even those who didn't die in the concentration camps. There's no statute of limitations allowed for some tragedies, it seems, and some tragedies seem to exonerate for all time an entire culture/country/race from being the subject of a joke.

There's plenty of sick humour that we are allowed to joke about. We've all heard, and probably told, nasty jokes about dead babies, the various names of limbless people in awkward situations, various nationalities and their sheep, blondes, and insert-your-ethnic-group-here.

But we dare not joke about Those We Dare Not Joke About.

I find this dichotomy interesting.
posted by five fresh fish at 1:16 PM on September 1, 2003


FFF: you're missing my point. It's NOT a double standard.

I can't ungay myself, dabitch can't ungirl herself, PP can't unjew himself. But a white-collar or blue collar worker CAN choose a different job ( - very few non-religious occupations are deemed vocations these days), or acquire the skills necessary for that job.

So jokes about how boring accountants are may one day result in my accountant sister becoming, I dunno, a journalist. She'll never change her gender when Jim Davidson tells one of his horrific misogynist 'jokes'.

Further, tho' I see no jokes about WASPS here (or is that by extension - I'm not sure), are WASPS a real ethnic group? Can a good ole southern boy be a WASP? Can a southern girl? I ask from ignorance, as we don't call people wasps this side of the pond.
posted by dash_slot- at 1:32 PM on September 1, 2003


Hmm . . . dash,

People can't change their religion?? Interesting world you live in.

And your, 'they can just work harder' nonsense sounds like shameless Republican apologetics. Next time you see a homeless man or a family living out of their car, do me a favor d_s, walk on over and tell them how easy it is to go to the library, pick up some books and learn an advanced trade. Pat em' on the head and tell them they'll be back on their feet in no time. Honestly. . .
posted by dgaicun at 1:58 PM on September 1, 2003


PP can't unjew himself. But a white-collar or blue collar worker CAN choose a different job

hehe, that must be one of the funniest things i've ever seen on mefi.
posted by carfilhiot at 2:07 PM on September 1, 2003


No, I didnt mean it that way: Ariel Sharon could become a hindu tomorrow, and his ethnicity would not change, as jewishness (as I understand it) is not simply a religion.

I'm not bothered by your 'republican apologetics' charge - my record here and elsewhere stands transparent there. It made me laugh out loud. Creeping automation will probably affect us all - but not cataclysmically: by degrees. We will have time to adapt. Surely those '60s FORTRAN programmers retrained in C?

O, and when I pass by the guy trying to sleep in the phone box, I'll likely do what i did last time: offer him a meal, a bath & a sofa for the night. As well as sponsored sleep-outs and supporting the work of homeless charities I know of in my home town. Unlike many here, I've been homeless, and I've retrained in order to stay employed.
posted by dash_slot- at 2:19 PM on September 1, 2003


He's contributed nothing useful since then. I say "good riddance"
gee, so you in your book tit (ahem nice:) you dont actually have to say anything bad, just being 'useless' should be a banning offence. hmm but how do we rate a persons contribution. perhaps we should set up a committe to rate each persons contribution, so we can all know just how close to god we are or alternatively, how useless we are.

even if it wasnt a joke (which i think it was), so what? why are people so fucking sensitive to words on a page. It's not like its gods bloody truth or anything.

if someone wrote 'fucking english dogs', do you think i'd give a shit? hahahaha.

why do i think it was a joke? merely because people who actually believe shit like that, normally tend to post far more frequently.
posted by carfilhiot at 2:31 PM on September 1, 2003


Well that was probably over-the-top anyway. Sorry bro ;)

Anyhow, 'ethnicity' is no more essential than class. I think you're picking at nits to make the contradictions go away, but they appear as bright as ever.
posted by dgaicun at 2:32 PM on September 1, 2003


That last comment was for dash_slot. And I agree with carfilhiot, I think this mostly had to do with weeding out members Matt didn't personally like, using the emotional charge of his statement as a convenient precedent; much more than it had to do with this mythical "line". If it was something so obvious a "line", then matt would have no trouble telling us what that line is.
posted by dgaicun at 2:38 PM on September 1, 2003


OK, well lets agree to disagree. But it isn't in my mind picking at nits: people in minority groups are still experiencing prejudice (which needless to say is sometimes painful).

Some of what you say about ethnicity rings true - and I remember we've had decent discussions on that topic here. My nationality is different to my ethnicity: whatever. But if my nationality & my ethnicity & my religion were closely interwoven, I might not be so carefree about it.

The comment by riptide was ignorant and unfunny. S/He's doubly damned for that.

on preview: weeding out members Matt didn't personally like... I doubt riptide has even crossed matt's radar! The 'line' is clear to me: offensive racial slurs are verboten. What's not to like?
posted by dash_slot- at 2:47 PM on September 1, 2003


There are plenty of jokes about people or situations that can not be changed. They are not part of the Things We Can Not Joke About in that same unique way as applies to Jews and some races.

Here's a two-for-one that is about the death of innocents and mocks a handicapped fellow:

"Why didn't Superman stop the planes from hitting the Trade Towers?

Because he's a quadriplegic!"

This is acceptable, but a joke about concentration camps isn't? Although I understand that there is a line, I do not understand why that line exists.

(Actually, I do know why it exists: social programming. There are active socio-politico special interest groups that raise a hue and cry if you joke about Jews or Blacks. There are no voices raised if you joke about Chris Reeves, and few raised if you joke about the WTC.)
posted by five fresh fish at 2:47 PM on September 1, 2003


"Why didn't Superman stop the planes from hitting the Trade Towers?

Because he's a quadriplegic!"
This is acceptable.


Ri-i-ight....
posted by dash_slot- at 2:49 PM on September 1, 2003


I officially give up.
posted by dash_slot- at 2:50 PM on September 1, 2003


Good point FFF. It's an interesting topic to explore. It makes one wonder about the whole 'conspiracy' thing. criticism/jokes of/about jews is such a taboo subject. largely because anyone who attempts it gets their ass nailed to the wall (like here). maybe bobby fischer not so crazy after all.
posted by carfilhiot at 2:57 PM on September 1, 2003


aw cmon dash_slot, agreeing with each other is no fun
posted by carfilhiot at 2:59 PM on September 1, 2003


. . . ok, perhaps this discussion hasn't floated in a direction best suited to my argument.
posted by dgaicun at 3:55 PM on September 1, 2003


dash_slot: pffft! I suppose you've never told a dead baby joke, either.

Anyway, my point was a riff off dgaicun's point, which is that there is no sharp line in the sand, there is a double standard, and that what one person finds funny, others might not.

I'll shush, now, so that he can get back to that point. :-)
posted by five fresh fish at 5:04 PM on September 1, 2003


F3, I think I know exactly what you're talking about regarding those groups for which humor is apparently forbidden. That's a much bigger issue than this specific case. Riptide is not joking about Jews here, he's expressing hate for them.

Riptide uses "Jew" as a disqualification from humanity in itself. It doesn't matter so much what he was saying about Jews because their Jewishness per se is presented as evil suficient. Many people see this difference immediately and have no trouble categorizing it.

As for our freedom to laugh at other people, I don't think that's at issue here.
posted by squirrel at 5:23 PM on September 1, 2003


I'm not sure which I find dumber, the idea that antisemitism is somehow the same as jokes in bad taste or the idea that Matt somehow owes people a set of consistent rules that everyone will accept without demur.

perhaps this discussion hasn't floated in a direction best suited to my argument

This thread has floated down the toilet, through the sewers, and out to sea.
posted by languagehat at 5:29 PM on September 1, 2003


languagehat,

Matt doesn't owe us shit. MetaTalk is here and I'm using it for what its for. Its not "dumb".

Matt said there was a line, and that's a whole lot of BS. I have every right to protest his policies and decisions. Whether he cares or not or wants to listen is his prerogative.

Also, once again:

a) what is your proof that riptide's statement wasn't intended, like aramaic's post, as a send-up of a horrible position. Why do you assume riptide is antisemitic but not that aramaic is some extremist social darwinist? Seriously languagehat, answer me.
posted by dgaicun at 5:47 PM on September 1, 2003


From riptide's posting history:

Most of the comments here (e.g., "pretty trite stuff," "mildly interesting") show that a great number of Metafilter posters are arrogant, self-important assholes.

How to Win Love and Influence Posters on MetaFilter, by Riptide.
posted by orange swan at 6:11 PM on September 1, 2003


... the idea that antisemitism is somehow the same as jokes in bad taste...

Not at all. Like all hate speech, anti-semitism is unacceptable.

When does a tasteless joke become hate speech?
posted by five fresh fish at 6:22 PM on September 1, 2003


Don't be so thick. It wasn't a joke.
posted by timeistight at 6:43 PM on September 1, 2003


Don't be so thick. It was a joke.
posted by carfilhiot at 7:12 PM on September 1, 2003


[orange swan]
so you just wanna ... get along eh? you know i once knew a woman who was so into that book. she kept calling me 'faude' *all* the time, like every sentence :) i hated it. she had a boyfriend who was mentally abusive towards her too. it's a shame when people just have to be loved.

BTW - you took the quote completely out of context. If you read the whole 'woody' thread, for my money riptide was actually spot on, as regards the sentiment expressed towards woody's article. I even commented on it myself.
posted by carfilhiot at 7:16 PM on September 1, 2003


Don't be so thick. It was a joke.

What matters: mathowie didn't think so.
Mark it zero. Next frame.
posted by squirrel at 8:21 PM on September 1, 2003


What matters: mathowie didn't think so.

Actually he said that its joke status was irrelevant.

The word "joke" is misleading anyhow. Perhaps 'ironic' is more fitting.

Matt also said there was a "line", is it so horrible to want to know a little bit more about this "line"? Does the line end at animal-based insults? Nasty words for religious groups? Apparently the "line" doesn't end at comments that recommend murdering all the poor people. I think its only justified to want to know where my sarcasms are not allowed to tread, esp. in a zero tolerence environment.
posted by dgaicun at 8:36 PM on September 1, 2003


Truth is, I don't care at all where the line is. I expect that I'm a useful-enough contributor to MeFi that I'd get a slap upside the head as a warning. Riptide, on the other hand, was useless from the get-go.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:13 PM on September 1, 2003


I agree. That's why the line is imaginary. Riptides real crime was his expendability.
posted by dgaicun at 9:18 PM on September 1, 2003


Riptides real crime was his expendability.

You've finally broken the code, buddy boy. Welcome to the insider's club. Now that you've passed the first test, perhaps you'd care for a cigar.
posted by squirrel at 10:25 PM on September 1, 2003


Ummmm....Squirrel, you do remember what side you've been arguing for, right?

I'll give you a hint: "Expendability" doesn't equal some line of conduct, it equals someone's status within a community.

Maybe Matt could start issuing out "bad boy" points to members according to their prestige within the community. They can then "cash-in" those points by making derogatory and violent remarks about the social group of their choice w/o reprimand or consequence. Oh wait, that must be how it works.
posted by dgaicun at 12:22 AM on September 2, 2003


Now that you've passed the first test, perhaps you'd care for a cigar.
:)

I wouldnt mind a cigar, squirrel.

I've slept on it and i think we all have a valid (flawed) viewpoint, because ultimately we dont know who riptide is, or what kind of person he is.

Still, banning was a kneejerk reaction and unjust, definately not a wise decision, and i use wise in the 'byblical' sense. on the other hand though, maybe i just like to stick up for underdogs and believe that people aren't as bad as they may seem to be.

whatever, unless we actually hear riptides pov, we will never know for sure.
posted by carfilhiot at 8:13 AM on September 2, 2003


Now we all understand why almost no one ever gets banned here.
posted by darukaru at 8:38 AM on September 2, 2003


I'm tempted to make a derogatory, inappropriate verbal comment or attack on dgaicun, just to prove my point, but now I'm a little paranoid about what Matt might do, so I won't.

Gee. I wonder if that invisible, moving line thing is such a bad thing after all. It's kept me civil. Hmmm...
posted by five fresh fish at 9:17 AM on September 2, 2003


I don't see a sword of Damocles hanging over anyone's head. Over time, mathowie has shown himself to be very tolerant and open-minded. If riptide had appeared here to articulate and defend himself, his banning might have been averted. And I would wager that even now riptide could make his case to mathowie via e-mail and get a fair hearing. I don't see any justification for portraying this as a sinister or reactionary development. Racist trolls who snark, run and then don't explain themselves can take that noise back to usenet.
posted by squirrel at 10:55 AM on September 2, 2003


Hear! Hear!
posted by dash_slot- at 3:44 PM on September 2, 2003


Huzzah!

(i still find the idea of "allowable humour" interesting.)
posted by five fresh fish at 4:39 PM on September 2, 2003


five fresh fish fucks fancy fags frequently for fun
posted by carfilhiot at 5:52 PM on September 2, 2003


its a joke! i promise! no not the pit noooooooooo|.........................
carfilhiot has been logged out.
posted by carfilhiot at 5:56 PM on September 2, 2003


Well, Matt allowed all the jokes in this thread about Israel being a police state.
posted by timeistight at 6:38 PM on September 2, 2003


Aw, carfiliot, you were supposed to keep us a secret.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:21 PM on September 2, 2003


Well, Matt allowed all the jokes in this thread about Israel being a police state.

uhm those weren't jokes tit.

sorry couldn't resist
posted by carfilhiot at 10:01 PM on September 2, 2003


They're jokes all right; you just don't get them.
posted by timeistight at 8:20 AM on September 3, 2003


« Older Link redirects to goatse   |   Changing Passwords Newer »

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