A thread on "mob character assassination" May 14, 2004 1:05 PM   Subscribe

This thread is leaving a bad taste in my mouth for a number of reasons. I don't really like the author of the FPP, and I have some pretty fundamental disagreements with his opinions. However, for the most part, the thread is less about the links than about mob character assassination.

To what degree should a long-standing history of conflict here and the author's identity be permitted to drive discussion?
posted by KirkJobSluder to Etiquette/Policy at 1:05 PM (214 comments total)

*studiously keeps his ten-foot pole away from thread in question*

I really have a hard time caring too much about this. The post was made to get a rise out of people, and it did. Maybe 111 gets off on it, or something.
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 1:14 PM on May 14, 2004


It's a troll in the classic sense of the word. The term is thrown around waaaaay too much online to the point where people think that the work troll means "anyone I disagree with", which is not at all.

A true troll post is a firebomb that's purposely tossed into a group known to react to controversy. This is a textbook example, regardless of who posted it. It's a ridiculous link and thuroughly debunked, so I'm ok with it sticking around. If 111 makes a habit of it, I'll talk to him/her and if he/she still doesn't stop, probably delete further attempts to troll the site, but for now it's fine and humorous in many ways. Bravo, 111!

The same could be said about the "MT is charging!?!?" post yesterday. The person posting it has a blogspot site, not an MT site, and made all sorts of crazy untrue claims that fueled the outrage from hundreds.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 1:20 PM on May 14, 2004


It's a troll in the neo-classic sense of the word. A classic troll is something much more interesting and clever.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:39 PM on May 14, 2004


Jeebus forbid anyone should disagree with the premise of the post and debate the manner in a reasonable, civil manner. That might actually make you look good.

Perhaps those of you complaining about the "troll" should reexamine why you stoop to his level.

If you don't like the topic, and don't have anything good to say, don't comment in it. 111's opinion wouldn't have been automatically "right" if his thread hadn't gotten any comments.

When you respond with ad hominems, the terrorists have already won...
posted by PrinceValium at 1:44 PM on May 14, 2004


It was a petty reaction to being called out on his homophobia in the meta thread a few down the page. It was also borrring: Stop me if you think you've heard this one before.
posted by The God Complex at 1:48 PM on May 14, 2004


PrinceValium: I concur.
posted by loquax at 1:50 PM on May 14, 2004


It's not humorous at all. The guy has called for my extermination.

What do you do when people make KKK or white-supremacist posts, Matt?

And TGC is right--it's his troll because of that MeTa thread. That doesn't make it ok.
posted by amberglow at 1:55 PM on May 14, 2004


The source of the link has already been discussed here and in other threads as well. There's nothing of value in the link, and the poster is morbidly obsessed with homosexuality.

Put another way: 111 walked into the room, lowered his pants, and dropped a steaming turd in the middle of the floor; most people don't feel obligated to dignify the excretion by discussing the texture of the turd.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 1:57 PM on May 14, 2004


it's a failed troll more than anything else. no one's frothing, there's no real controversy, just some pointing and laughing. not exactly the response most trolls hope for.
posted by t r a c y at 2:01 PM on May 14, 2004


Armitage Shanks: Put another way: 111 walked into the room, lowered his pants, and dropped a steaming turd in the middle of the floor; most people don't feel obligated to dignify the excretion by discussing the texture of the turd.

My concern is that there seems to be an overwhelming urge by people to throw their own poo right back. This is just as damaging a consequence of trolling as the frothing debate.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 2:15 PM on May 14, 2004


amberglow has a point.

I seriously doubt the thread would still be there and 111 would still be an active user if the thread's topic were "blacks are lazy and eat a lot of fried chicken" or "Jews are greedy and loan money at high interest".
gays, instead, seem to be a fair target for hate around here lately.
I like Matt a lot and he's been consistently right 99.9 % of the time all these years when it comes to edit and police the site (which is an almost inhuman stat). but I humbly remind you all that people have been kicked out of MeFi forever because they made fun of the overweight.
or because of comments they made on other sites, not in here.

(and no, I am not calling for 111 to be banned. I just think it was a shit post simply meant to give the finger to the community, and it represents a stain on this site's front page)
posted by matteo at 2:18 PM on May 14, 2004


Perhaps 111 just wanted to improve the google ranking of the link?

*removes tinfoil hat*
posted by gwint at 2:43 PM on May 14, 2004


gays, instead, seem to be a fair target for hate around here lately.

Oh please. That's ridiculous.
posted by Witty at 2:50 PM on May 14, 2004


matteo's right. It's an obvious double standard, and I think Matt should shut this down. Is it my place to call for a banning? oh god no. Am i gonna do it anyway? Absolutely.

It's disgusting, and MeFi shouldn't be a place for various bigots to vent their hate speech.
posted by John Kenneth Fisher at 2:51 PM on May 14, 2004


i'm surprised that everyone assumes an anti-semitic post would be deleted. i'd hope it would be met with clear arguments and thoroughly trounced (indeed, something like that happened a few months back with a post related to york university, didn't it?)

or maybe i'm too idealistic. i find it depressing that people with opinions i share become all authoritarian when someone says something that offends them. what happened to mefi's gloriously anarchistic position on the libertartian/authoritarian axis?
posted by andrew cooke at 2:59 PM on May 14, 2004


I spent a considerable amount of time contemplating why 111's "pro-minority" complaint rankled me more than his implicit gay-bashing. I did not explain, and hesitate to explain, because I intuit that it's one of those sorts of intellectual positions I take that's felicitous to none and alienating to most.

Certainly, in isolation, gay-bashing is no less offensive to me than racism. Certainly, to me, an implicit gay-bashing FPP is as objectionable as an implicit racist FPP. But there are my standards, and there are community standards, and they are not the same thing. More to the point, an egregious offense to my standards is distinct from an egregious offense to community standards. In this case, the offense against community standards is in addition to the offense against my views on homosexuality. MeFi's community standards are intolerant of gay-bashing, but not as intolerant as they are of racism. Should they be? That's another issue. But in this way MeFi is reflecting the culture(s) in which it exists—the acceptability of a prejudice against gays is open to discussion in a way that racism no longer is.

It's worth pointing out that for cultural conservatives like 111, this cuts both ways. If they want to claim that prevailing sensibilities make gay-bashing less objectionable than racism, then they must also aknowledge that prevailing sensibilities make so-called "reverse racism" less objectionable than racism. Conversely, if a leftist wants to argue for determining acceptability completely outside of the social context, then one's forced, for example, to concede the abstract equivalance of "reverse racism" to racism.

In fact, someone able to deal with a complex world isn't forced to adopt either viewpoint for all purposes. The key distinction is between moral and social acceptability. Racism, today, unambiguously violates both. I strongly disagree with, but can accept the "reasonableness", of homophobia—but I cannot accept the "reasonableness" of a bias against racial/ethnic minorities. It is not 1950. And, yes, it is 1960 with regard to gay rights—"Stonewall" does not have the significance to most Americans as, say, "Selma, LA." does. But we'll get there.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 2:59 PM on May 14, 2004


i hear occasional comments about america become a victim driven culture. is this what people are referring to? is it easier to run away offended and get "the powers" to shut them up than it is to confront people with the truth?

[on preview, i see eb is playing to the gallery again...]
posted by andrew cooke at 3:01 PM on May 14, 2004


It's a troll in the neo-classic sense of the word. A classic troll is something much more interesting and clever.

I wrote some time ago on the difference between what 111 does and the classic troll.
posted by mr_roboto at 3:03 PM on May 14, 2004


Is there anything more titillating than those who cannot seem to keep themselves from condemning rimjobs in a public fashion? I wish some of these types would take their brethren's advice and keep it in the goddamn bedroom.
posted by WolfDaddy at 3:04 PM on May 14, 2004


sorry, a correction - i think that post i was referrring to was actually someone claiming anti-semitism where people felt it was unreasonable. so i got that completely wrong.
posted by andrew cooke at 3:04 PM on May 14, 2004


I fully respect 111's right to say what he wants in his own space, andrew, where it reflects only his own idiocy.

But here the fact that we allow this blatant bigotry of the 'blacks have smaller brains' genre of pseudo-science, it's reflecting on all of us.
posted by John Kenneth Fisher at 3:05 PM on May 14, 2004


(I think that's Selma, AL, by the way)
posted by John Kenneth Fisher at 3:06 PM on May 14, 2004


Sadly this Meta-talk thread is pancaked by 111's own words in her last call out. The thread's call out was posted positively, yet it was in it that she had this to say about her whole thread; quote: "I found little of interest in the whole thread."
Sheessh! talk about pancaking yourself when you did nothing wrong in the poster's eyes.
posted by thomcatspike at 3:09 PM on May 14, 2004


People, have fun with this. It was a troll ... yes it sure was. So What? 111 attempted a coup of martyriffic proportion, but instead of a crucifixion, he got pasted with tomatoes. Hecklers rule in the land of comedy. If we try to paint this as anything other than a tongue in cheek attempt to justify idiocy, than we end up justifying the idiocy by our very impotent abhorrence of it. 111 posted ... nothing. Its an open thread. It doesn't threaten anyone because there's no substance to it.

So have fun. Poke Mr. all prime with sticks, because he invited you to do so. But please don't make this some kind of indictment against MetaFilter because we won't deal with serious issues. There is no issue here, only one member trying to justify his own ridiculous image.
posted by Wulfgar! at 3:19 PM on May 14, 2004


If it was a post with a study "proving" Jews cheat people, would your advice be "have fun with it"?
posted by John Kenneth Fisher at 3:24 PM on May 14, 2004


Wouldn't it make more sense to just disprove it... or attempt to anyway?
posted by Witty at 3:31 PM on May 14, 2004


111 is my all time favorite troll. Here he introduces a new twist. He discredits his own post. How could it be a troll? He's providing balance by giving us both sides of the argument. Very entertaining.

Not as much fun as the "Joe McCarthy was a great America" troll. And certainly not as subtle as his "Moslems are filthy and disgusting" troll. But a new twist nonetheless. Much fun.

And it's an obvious troll, but people still jump at the bait. Even posters who just panned the post as a worthless troll come back to refute his assertions a few comments later.

First rate trolling. Absolutely well executed. Well done sir.
posted by y6y6y6 at 3:31 PM on May 14, 2004


If you just ignored him (her? I always assumed he was male but a lot of posts called him a she) 111 would go away. Apathy towards him is like water to the Wicked Witch of the West. Ignore him and he'll shrivel up and go away.
posted by substrate at 3:32 PM on May 14, 2004


You may find this offensive, JKF, but yes, yes it would have been. There are some things that are so obviously wrong that they are worthy of derision. Would you give the time of day, and all your rational energies, refuting a post that shows proof that the moon is made of blue cheese, or that the world is flat? You can scream and rail and offer importance via your repulsion to bad ideas, or you can make fun of those that hold them, as the ideas themselves aren't worth your attention. Which do you choose?
posted by Wulfgar! at 3:38 PM on May 14, 2004


I see your point, truly I do, but I don't think this is nearly as 'obviously wrong' as it should be, and I think that by leaving this up, there are still a lot of people out there who would click the 'study' and say "hey, see, it IS a bad lifestyle!"

Tactics that would work to make a small prejudice look stupid may, when used on a large prejudice, simply help them get their hate message out better.
posted by John Kenneth Fisher at 3:42 PM on May 14, 2004


Like I said, I see and fully respect your point, so I'll pretty much drop out of this conversation (unless something new comes up) as I do see your view and I hope I made mine as clear.
posted by John Kenneth Fisher at 3:45 PM on May 14, 2004


"If it was a post with a study "proving" Jews cheat people,......."

See, he would never do that. It's too over the top. The only way he'd be able to pull that off is if he could find a study that was defensible. That is, one which we might feel the need to attack. Otherwise our reaction would just be to ignore it and move on. There would be no real flame bait we could get our teeth into.

The reason he used the gay "study" is that it's something we can legitimacy be pissed about. Gay bashing happens quite a bit in this country. Jew bashing however is pretty much off limits. At least here in the US. And if he'd just posted the study we still would have passed it by. Only by attaching the counter link could he reel us in.

I sincerely doubt 111 has any animosity towards gays at all. He just wants to shit in the room and watch everyone try and figure out whether it's a turd or not. The brilliance is that we always actually take up the debate. Is this a turd? Couldn't it be a Baby Ruth? Maybe he crapped by accident? Are turds really all that bad?

"Wouldn't it make more sense to just disprove it"

Hook, line, and sinker.
posted by y6y6y6 at 3:45 PM on May 14, 2004


amberglow, I don't see where 111 said he/she wanted you to die and rot in hell. There was simply a post to a crackpot's take on male-on-male sex, which everyone here has mocked openly. Every once in a while some crazy shit gets posted to MetaFilter, and this is one of those times.

If it isn't an isolated incident, I'll act upon it, but for now just leave it be and laugh along with everyone over the horribly misguided and misinformed junk in the link. It's like a gay version of the Timecube guy.

And to suggest a double standard towards gays here is insane. I'm all about the gay! I love the gay! Have you seen my shoe and facial product collection? Honey, I can tell you if a twink is wearing a prada shoe or a miou miou shoe from a 100 yards away (snaps fingers in z-formation).

If I thought anyone was being honestly threatening towards gays here, I'd boot them and delete their contributions. One link to a crackpot site is not a hate crime.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 3:45 PM on May 14, 2004


Metafilter: I'm all about the gay! I love the gay!

sorry
posted by PrinceValium at 3:53 PM on May 14, 2004


Ethereal - I think the thing you're missing is classical racism is widely accepted by the general populace as bunk. The posters here all know this, and there is therefore little reason to speak out against racists - they discredit themselves whenever they venture even one iota further than observing factually proven racial differences. Add to this that the entire concept of race is giving way to a more nuanced understanding of an individual's genetic makeup. I've always found it interesting that while a black man and a white man will frequently have more genetic commonality with each other than with another member of their respective 'race', the genetic disparity between a human male and a chimpanzee male is the same as the disparity between a human male and a human female.

On the flip side of the coin - it is not yet widely accepted by the general public that homosexuality is a genetic condition as opposed to a lifestyle choice or a mental illness - personally I believe that like many animals humans have the innate capacity for homosexual behavior when placed within a single-sex environment, and that either through a genetic or mental condition, this behavior is accidentally triggered in homosexual individuals. Furthermore, general discrimination against homosexuals runs rampant to the point of widespread homophobia amongst large portions of our population via fear, closeting, projection, or religion. Thus a community generally opposed to discrimination of any sort feels a communal need to lash out at the current, active discrimination more than the mostly dormant, largely defeated variety.

Also, as regards this:
But here the fact that we allow this blatant bigotry of the 'blacks have smaller brains' genre of pseudo-science
Strictly factually speaking as a matter of general statistics and with full acknowledgement that race is at best a shoddy convention, in standardized intelligence testing correctly monitored, compared, etc. the following results almost always emerge - East-Asians (orientals) and Jewish participants outrank generic Caucasion participants by a few percentage points, the Caucasians generally score 17% better than the African-Americans, and the Hispanics generally fall somewhere between the latter two. Claiming the tests are all, universally without exception biased for whites seems disingenuous especially in light of East-Asians outperforming Caucasians.

African-Americans do not possess smaller brains, but the simple fact is that they consistently test one standard deviation lower on standardized intelligence testing. I suspect when the full extent each gene has upon the development of an individual is known it will emerge that yes, individual people with certain 'races' do have very slight racially-common genetic predispositions towards better performance in different aspects of intellectual endeavour - with correspondence between the intellectual aspect emphasized and the social/environmental challenges that would benefit from its emphasis being present in the given culture.

A better overview of this topic is available here.
posted by Ryvar at 3:54 PM on May 14, 2004


Tactics that would work to make a small prejudice look stupid may, when used on a large prejudice, simply help them get their hate message out better.

The dangers of unprotected exchange of information in the modern world. I'm sorry, I really am, honestly. There is nothing we at MetaFilter can do to change the prejudices that will inundate those who seek justification for them. There will be people who click the link and think, "goddam, those there fags are horrid shit eaters who eat shit and like, well shit, to eat, and shit". There's not one thing we can do to change those prejudices ... save hide others from the view that they actually know something.

And you know what? That's more dangerous in the long run, by far. There is no obligation on MeFi to instruct the world in "proper think", nor is there such an onus on its owner. Any attempt to create one is an attempt to hide thoughts that can't be hidden. We can't control or censor the web. It's not possible for us to do so. We can make parts of the web look stupid, and we can make ideas unpalatable. That's the only power we have.

All we can do, as members of a community website that dispenses certain information, is to make fun of that which deserves to be made fun of. 111 will find a way, Mefi or other, to convince the idiocracy that "homos is bad". At least when he does it here, we can make him look like a trollish tool for even attempting it.
posted by Wulfgar! at 4:01 PM on May 14, 2004


I'm all about the gay!

*checks out mathowie's butt*

miou miou

it's Miu Miu -- it comes from Miuccia. Miuccia Prada
/zoolander
posted by matteo at 4:01 PM on May 14, 2004


it's Cameron, the author of the link, that called for my death--111 is just propagating his hateful shit. You obviously haven't been reading 111's "homo" this and "homo" that for months as we have.

I'm stating it, not suggesting it--again, what would you do given a KKK or white-supremacist post (which are also crackpot's takes on certain topics)? I've been a member here for almost 2 years and i've learned that gay-bashing and slurring is ok here--it's sad. It's laughed off, and it shouldn't be. I still contend you wouldn't allow someone who said "nigger" this and "nigger" that (or "kike" or "jewbastard") all the time to continue being a member.

I don't understand why you allow this hateful shit. It makes me uncomfortable and offends me. It apparently is funny to you, and not serious. Well, it is serious to me, and others. We've been bashed by people saying the same things, egged on by hateful people like Cameron. I'm sorry you don't see that it's exactly the same as "nigger" and "kike" and all of that, and that posting a link to Cameron's hate is the same as posting a link to the Klan or other white supremacist group. Hateful speech is threatening, no matter what group it's directed at.

A KKK link ostensibly proving that blacks are subhuman would be ok in your eyes, as long as you could laugh it off? Is that the standard?
posted by amberglow at 4:02 PM on May 14, 2004


I'm all about the gay! I love the gay! Have you seen my shoe and facial product collection? Honey, I can tell you if a twink is wearing a prada shoe or a miou miou shoe from a 100 yards away (snaps fingers in z-formation).

ROFL! matthowie can be damn funny when he decides to be!
posted by quonsar at 4:03 PM on May 14, 2004


it's Cameron, the author of the link, that called for my death

Afraid to ask, but curious if you're open to sharing more info.
posted by Ryvar at 4:05 PM on May 14, 2004


*reads amber's comment, blushes*

er, fuck you up the ass, matthowie!
posted by quonsar at 4:06 PM on May 14, 2004


I'm bi. I thought the link was humorous in a "You're a cocksucker!" "Yeah? So's your sister!" kinda way.

... but then I'm funny that way. ;-P
posted by mischief at 4:07 PM on May 14, 2004


I don't expect anything to happen--i've learned that much in my time here. I've said what i had to. It's not funny to all of us here.
posted by amberglow at 4:09 PM on May 14, 2004


amberglow, I'm probably misreading you, but I certainly hope that you're not responding to me. I've attempted, with all humor good and poor, to take 111 to task for every hateful thing its written, almost since day one of its appearance here.. Gaybashing is not okay, in my little corner of the world. But it shouldn't be given any more weight than that of those who claim that the Gubmint is controlling the weather. That's my response.

If I've offended, I'm sorry.
posted by Wulfgar! at 4:16 PM on May 14, 2004


Setting aside the issue of whether I think the post was a troll and/or deserved deletion, I must say that I do not understand the idea that mathowie believes it to be a troll and yet allows it to stand. So what are we to take from this incident...that it is okay to post any kind of intentionally offensive or preemptively provocative material so long as we make an effort to make it "funny?" Much stronger posts have been deleted in the past...what is it about this one that earns it a pass?
posted by rushmc at 4:21 PM on May 14, 2004


I wasn't talking to you Wulf--i was talking to matt, and in general about what's allowed here or not, and how it affects me, for one.

and what rush said. Why is this ok, and other posts weren't? (that's a question for matt and for everyone)
posted by amberglow at 4:30 PM on May 14, 2004


I agree with amberglow. It's pretty sad when behaviour like 111's gets shrugged off as humor. I could maybe understand tolerating the idiot if it were an isolated incident but we all know that it's 111's bread and butter.

I wasn't aware that anyone had been kicked for derision (or whatever it was) against the obese, but if that's true than there's little doubt that there's a double standard here which favors those who condescend / insult / whatever gays. I'm also waiting for the answer to amberglow's question about whether links to racist material by members with a proven agenda would be tolerated. I highly doubt they would be.
posted by dobbs at 4:40 PM on May 14, 2004


Last week, it was the classic "Commies in our Universities". This week, it's the classic "how awful gay sexual practices are".
Next week it'll be an article about how Feminists really hate women.
The week after, it'll be about how environmentalists are out to destroy our prosperity, hate progress, civilization and humanity.
And despite the fact that we've seen every one of these dipshit screeds and variants thereof a hundred times already, each one will generate 150+ comments and a MeTa callout. I can only assume the reason for all this is that it's fun.
posted by George_Spiggott at 4:40 PM on May 14, 2004


I find this disheartening and confusing too, amberglow. Especially matt's "Bravo 111!"???

I don't find the post amusing at all. I have some immigrant-bashing links I could post. Perhaps we could have a good laugh over those too?
posted by vacapinta at 4:49 PM on May 14, 2004


rushmc, no one is supposed to take anything away from this. I thought it was so over the top trollish that it makes a mockery of the issue. It's friday, and I'm not getting emotionally involved in a link that seems more jack chick than bill o'reilly to me.

amberglow, I had no idea you had any history with the author of the page, and I can see why you are offended by it now. But I do take issue with your perceived 2 years of gay-bashing here. I don't think that's the case at all, and when anything remotely homophobic pops up here, there are plenty of voices to dispute and refute any claims made. I consider MeFi a pretty gay friendly place. Just in the past year there's been untold numbers of posts that are basically yay! for gay marriage fillled with a hundred comments, with perhaps one or two saying they don't agree with it.

I'll be watching 111 closely from here on out, as this will be the last turd dropped by that author.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 4:56 PM on May 14, 2004


As of my posting this, the thread has taken a turn for the surreal. 111 now seems to be arguing for increased resources for health care and education for the gay community (though he's a little vague). Here's something representative: "[gay health is] still an issue that doesn't demand whining, but lots of realism, caution and effective prevention measures." This sounds like something that a gay health advocate could have written. He's suddenly sounding more like Eli Sanders than Paul Cameron. Very weird.

Weirder still, I think that a discussion of recent upsurges in STDs in various gay communities and the response of the communities to these numbers would have made for a pretty good post.
posted by mr_roboto at 5:07 PM on May 14, 2004


The information presented in the post could have made a very good post...if taken from sources that didn't hate and foam at the mouth. Also if the poster had presented it in a non-trollish manner that would encourage focusing on the issues, rather than the poster.

Unfortunately, as is too often the case with 111, it's all about 111.
posted by Vidiot at 5:15 PM on May 14, 2004


Bravo, 111!

mathowie thanks, but you're playing for the lower common denominators. What's the point in attempting to preemptively censor me? You know better than that. You're the webmaster, so if you want to delete my account go ahead, but I was born and raised in a free country, and I'll speak my mind about the subjects I choose in the exact terms I choose. Otherwise, it would be groupthink.

Second: you know the thread is not trollish, or you'd have deleted it. You know there is real information in the links. It has not been "thoroughly debunked"; info on comparative health and mortality rates among heteros and male homos is out there. Could they change? Perhaps. But as of now, it's a very important issue.

Third, the fact that it's an unpopular issue in MeFi is another matter altogether, and I'm 100 % indifferent to it. You know what I think about some of the borderline cases who hang around this place. You know there's a MeFi superstition against any kind of criticism or non-laudatory comment re gays, and you know I do not subscribe to it. It's sad to say that, but your 2nd post sounds as if you're actually intimidated by the gay lobby.

Now googling depressing data on STD rates and so on is far from being the ideal way to spend one's afternoon. Some "fun" I'm having.
posted by 111 at 5:16 PM on May 14, 2004


"intimidated by the gay lobby"? hehe. Is that like the Gay Mafia?

And if you don't like googling for data, why do you make a front-page post?

*tries hard to stifle joke about pulling data out of one's ass, fails*
posted by Vidiot at 5:21 PM on May 14, 2004


let's get together and tear some foreskin, 111.
posted by quonsar at 5:23 PM on May 14, 2004


Ryvar, if you think that IQ could, in any way, be linked genetically to "race", then you're still deeply misinformed. Only in restricted contexts does "race" correlate with genetic relatedness; this correlation would have to apply species-wide for "race" to be a meaningful biological concept and for it to correlate with IQ. IQ, itself, would have to correlate species-wide with genetic relatedeness, and it doesn't.

And to answer both Ryvar's and Amberglow's points...Ryvar, Matt (in a roundabout way), and others invert my calculus above and make the case that "beyond the pale" trolls are acceptable in a way that more conventional viewpoints are not. My objection is not that this isn't true on its own terms, but that it's an incomplete description.

Absolutely I agree that more conventional bigotries are the more dangerous and worth strongly opposing. I also agree that more unconventional bigotries are inherently less credible. But there is the intrinsic offensiveness of the view itself, and the offensiveness of the presentation of that view in a given context.

Amberglow is correct that MeFi is more tolerant of gay-bashing than it is of racism. All of our respective (larger) societies are more tolerant of gay-bashing than racism today. I don't think it should be this way; but while I can influence what's normative, I cannot decide it.

Let's turn this argument onto my own behavior. My "fuck off" in the other thread may or may not have been morally justified. It may or may not have been rhetorically justified. But the reaction against it indicates that there's a fairly high likliehood that it violated the community's normative standards of behavior, regardless of its justification. Were I to do this again, it would be clear that in addition to whomever I was explicitly saying "fuck off", I would also be implicitly, knowingly, saying "fuck off" to the community. That is an offense completely independent of the intrinsic offensiveness of the comment itself.

Making comparisons to other varieties of bigotry, at other places and times, is instructive. If someone says that they think that all black people should be rounded up and "sent back to Africa", how would most of us likely react to that person? What would we think of them, their psychology, and their motives? Okay, now imagine we've time-traveled back to 1840 and encountered a person saying exactly the same thing. Would we think the same of them, their psychology, and their motives? I think we would not. Surely both are equally morally wrong on the issue of racism, yet we would likely judge the latter much less harshly than the former. Yet, surely it is the latter's views which should be the more vigorously fought because they are in that context conventional and acceptable?

As it often does, it comes down to a determination of whether someone is interacting with others in good faith, or not. It is conceivable that 111 could argue against the acceptability of homosexuality in good faith. This post, coming on the heels of the MeTa thread, doesn't smell like it.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 5:24 PM on May 14, 2004


ethereal, is what you write representative of what the inside of your brain sounds like?

*shudders*
posted by quonsar at 5:26 PM on May 14, 2004


quonsar, do I look like Barbra Streisand? Back off already. If you look around, perhaps you'll find other MeFites who share your proclivities and who'll happily agree to catch and pitch with you.
posted by 111 at 5:31 PM on May 14, 2004


Now googling depressing data on STD rates and so on is far from being the ideal way to spend one's afternoon. Some "fun" I'm having.

At least it makes you hard. That's something.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 5:32 PM on May 14, 2004

"Third, the fact that it's an unpopular issue in MeFi is another matter altogether, and I'm 100 % indifferent to it."—111
You're that person who, expansively and with great self-satisfaction, lights up a big, fat stogey after dinner at the restaurant, aren't you?
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 5:36 PM on May 14, 2004


quonsar, do I look like Barbra Streisand? Back off already

but 111, dear, rarely has such a fine, supple ass been implied on this site. i simply must have it, 111. i simply must.
posted by quonsar at 5:39 PM on May 14, 2004


quonsar, look, I appreciate the queer eye fashion tips and the opera CDs you lent me, but 111 belongs to the ladies, you know. See that guy up there? Or that one? Or the other one just above? They're all seem to be, you know, open to these kind of experiences. Why don't you invite them over to watch something from your famous Judy Garland DVD collection? Why don't you go out and play some volleyball or something?
posted by 111 at 5:46 PM on May 14, 2004


q, you'd lend CDs to 111?
posted by Vidiot at 5:47 PM on May 14, 2004


no, those were STD's, he's confused.
posted by quonsar at 5:49 PM on May 14, 2004


no, those were STD's, he's confused.

Not me. You're probably confusing me with, well, let's see... OK, the list of suspects is overwhelming. One of your fellows from the "I like Mr.Richard" fanclub.
posted by 111 at 5:53 PM on May 14, 2004


111, look, I appreciate the black eye fashion tips and the 50 Cent CDs you lent me, but mr.marx belongs to the white guys, you know. See that homie up there? Or that one? Or the other one just above? They're all seem to be, you know, open to these kind of experiences. Why don't you invite them over to your crib watch something from your famous Spike Lee DVD collection? Why don't you go out and play some basketball or something?
posted by mr.marx at 5:53 PM on May 14, 2004


62 comments here, 150 in the blue.

111 wins.

Can we boycott the troll next time?

(Okay, that's easy for to say, he didn't directly slap me in the face, just many of my friends.)
posted by Shane at 5:54 PM on May 14, 2004


I ♥ amberglow.
posted by madamjujujive at 6:00 PM on May 14, 2004


i ♥ amberglow.
posted by quonsar at 6:02 PM on May 14, 2004


I ♥ amberglow.
posted by Shane at 6:04 PM on May 14, 2004


111 asked for it, quonsar gave it to him, spk420 laughed hard.
posted by specialk420 at 6:04 PM on May 14, 2004

"ethereal, is what you write representative of what the inside of your brain sounds like?"—quonsar
No, the inside of my brain sounds more like this:
quonsarissocool.mmmm,chilie-cheesedogs.iwonder
whatambertamblynlookslikenaked.
theepimenidesparadoxisn'treallyaparadox,isit?,slate's
businesswriterdoesn'tknowthedifferencebetween"margin"
and"markup".mmmm,ambertamblynakedandchilie-cheesedogs.
iwonderifquonsarisnaked.youcan'tstoptimewithoutstoppinginertia.
howniceis111'sass,anyway?explaintomewhyopiates
requireaprescription,again,wouldyou?scaliaisgoingtobeso
pissedwhenhe'snotnominatedforchiefjustice-that'llbefun.
didmattreallypostafarklikephotoshopfeaturinglynndie
england?prolixity,myass.wait,ismyassprolix?is111'sassprolix?
probably.doesdescartes'theaterhavedolbydigitalsound?
...and so forth. Far less disturbing, isn't it?
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 6:04 PM on May 14, 2004


Ethereal Bligh wins. hands down.
posted by quonsar at 6:07 PM on May 14, 2004


Oh, and:
I?Amberglow
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 6:07 PM on May 14, 2004


What's the point in attempting to preemptively censor me?

What's your point in trying to preemptively play the site owner's hand? Communist much?


You're the webmaster, so if you want to delete my account go ahead, but I was born and raised in a free country, and I'll speak my mind about the subjects I choose in the exact terms I choose. Otherwise, it would be groupthink.

False dichotomy. It could be that your just an asshole playing others for your own amusement, like crying FIRE in a crowded theater. Are you defending your right to scream FIRE in a crowded theater? 'Cause it sure looks like that from here.

you know the thread is not trollish, or you'd have deleted it.

Another false dichotomy. Matt said it was a troll, and then gave his reasons for leaving it. You aren't very attentive, are you, 111?

You know there is real information in the links. It has not been "thoroughly debunked"; info on comparative health and mortality rates among heteros and male homos is out there. Could they change? Perhaps. But as of now, it's a very important issue.

Uhhmmmm, there's info in the links, but several people have shown that the info is bogus at best. Real? Your fantasies are intruding, I think. And simple mortality rates prove nothing outside of context. An intelligent person would understand that, but you're not one of those are you? As to whether or not its an important issue, we have only your claim of such. So sorry, you lose, loser.

Third, the fact that it's an unpopular issue in MeFi is another matter altogether, and I'm 100 % indifferent to it. You know what I think about some of the borderline cases who hang around this place. You know there's a MeFi superstition against any kind of criticism or non-laudatory comment re gays, and you know I do not subscribe to it.

Unpopular? You again reach for importance where there is none. It's a stupidly idiotic issue, brought up by you, supported by nothing but bad faith "science" and not accepted by anyone else here. Unpopular? Yes. Just as much as the theory that the Sun revolves around the Earth. Lets rank on the borderline cases who don't believe that obvious truth, shall we? You know there's a superstition that says that isn't true, and I'm sure you don't subscribe to that either. Face facts, 111. Just because you believe something outragiously idiotic doesn't obligate any of the rest of us to deal with it as if there is any possibility of its truth. Get over yourself, cupcake. You haven't proven, or even supported as fact, jack shit. When will you learn that your assertions don't obligate any of us to prove you as full of shit as you really are? What you've claimed isn't unpopular, it's ludicrous, debunked many times over. Will you please get a fucking grip?

It's sad to say that, but your 2nd post sounds as if you're actually intimidated by the gay lobby.

If intimidation is your fetish, cupcake, you'd best look to me, and not to Matt. Mathowie stated clearly his ideas towards you and your bullshit. I, on the other hand, have designs for your goatse.cx pleasures. There's no gay agenda here, save my desire to see you bent over a chair taking the deep lovin' you deserve.

Oh yeah, baby, let's show those homoleftys our stiff and stern love. Come on, bend and spread. Feel that tingle of excitement. Yeah, quiver for me. Oh yeah. Compassion, that's it. hehe.
posted by Wulfgar! at 6:13 PM on May 14, 2004


111 is The Antigay&#0153:, and I support his right to make an anti-gay case. This mainly because it's one which is laughably easy to refute. I await the day when he - or any other member - makes a convincing case [though what I would then do, I don't know, but clearly sales of boxer briefs and soft furnishings would decline sharply] .

I have become more convinced that discriminatory speech has a role here. I am more resolute after each of these outings than before, and I'm grateful that 111 has brought ridiculous notions - and their refutations - to the attention of many thousands of Metafilter readers.
posted by dash_slot- at 6:18 PM on May 14, 2004


111, you're just a tool of the Gay Lobby yourself, as you've proven that lesbians are far less of a drain on Our Nation's Health Care Resources than heterosexuals.

Hooray for the pons asinorum! 111 is hoist by its own petard!

Perhaps Franklin was right about those Palatine boors...
posted by Sidhedevil at 6:21 PM on May 14, 2004


hey, back off 111's petard, now!
posted by quonsar at 6:22 PM on May 14, 2004


it's mine! mine i tells ya!
posted by quonsar at 6:24 PM on May 14, 2004


However - i meant to say this too - I do, and will, object very strongly when the argument becomes verbal abuse or advocacy for violence against individuals or groups.

Natch.
posted by dash_slot- at 6:33 PM on May 14, 2004


I Heart Amberglow!
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 6:35 PM on May 14, 2004


I've always found it interesting that while a black man and a white man will frequently have more genetic commonality with each other than with another member of their respective 'race', the genetic disparity between a human male and a chimpanzee male is the same as the disparity between a human male and a human female

Tell the feminists that. To them, the differences you describe are all down to conditioning. Boys are taught to like blue, girls pink. Didn't you know that??!
posted by SpaceCadet at 6:44 PM on May 14, 2004


I'm all about the gay! I love the gay!

That sounds.....just a little bit scary to my ears.
posted by SpaceCadet at 6:50 PM on May 14, 2004


One of the better blue/gray wank-fests we've had months. ;-P
posted by mischief at 6:56 PM on May 14, 2004


(Re: SpaceCadet quoting Ryvar) Not to mention that his example demonstrates how absurd such a mind-numbingly simplistic a quantification it really is. And, SpaceCadet, feminism in the last twenty years has moved to a more naturist than nurturist stance regarding many behavioral sex differences. If this is an example of how aware you are of feminist thought, then, well, you're not very aware of it, are you?

Of course, what's really, really, really, really funny and revealing is that your example—preference for blue and pink—is almost as poor of a choice as you could possibly have made for an example with which to demonstrate your point. Sheesh.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 6:57 PM on May 14, 2004


This has all been fucking hilarious.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 6:57 PM on May 14, 2004


And, SpaceCadet, feminism in the last twenty years has moved to a more naturist than nurturist stance regarding many behavioral sex differences.

Elaborate. What is feminism to you anyway? You describe it like it's a definitive movement. What happened "twenty years" ago?

Sorry, I'm derailing. To continue in the spirit of Metafilter:-

111, you're a wanker blah blah blah - this is just more crap to pile on the pile-on 100th bullshit meaningless drivel post saying the same shit about the same shit blah blah blah, you peice of shit anti-gay blah blah blah yeah and I'm this liberal me, and you know, just you watch it matey. And yeah, told you!
posted by SpaceCadet at 7:11 PM on May 14, 2004


Sometimes you straight people can be a bit overbearing with your PC protectionism. To put this metaphorically, 111 has been acting like a Hussein, while the rest of you have been acting like Shrub Inc. Maybe you should let us fight our own fights, which as an ex-Marine, I am more than able to do. ;-P
posted by mischief at 7:27 PM on May 14, 2004


when i see asparagus spears popping out of the ground in my garden, i still think "my garden is sprouting penises" which is very immature, but it is even worse now that i am growing purple passion asparagus, those swollen purple plant erections are just too strange.
posted by bargle at 7:34 PM on May 14, 2004


Amberglow, please consider that 111's MeFi post was cause of much ridicule. His words should be taken about as seriously as my Down's Syndrome uncle: ie.) the guy speaks, but he doesn't say much, and if he says something hurtful, it's because he's a retard and we give him some slack.

A troll causes division and upset. 111 is now mostly getting ridicule and abuse. He is not a successful troll, and within the next few months he's going to fail to even attract attention.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:35 PM on May 14, 2004


Sometimes you straight people can be a bit overbearing with your PC protectionism.

No shit.
posted by SpaceCadet at 7:47 PM on May 14, 2004


Maybe it's just because of a longstanding personal belief that people shouldn't be jerks?
posted by Vidiot at 7:49 PM on May 14, 2004


OK - 111's post was not funny - at best it was a misguided attempt to save a prejudiced stereotype he has of gay men - promiscious, etc. At worst, it was pretty hateful - "oooh, look what those perverts do!"

(funny how these people don't worry about what lesbians do)

What was funny was the way metafilter collectively heckled and counter-trolled him. You haven't found ONE supporter, 111. Not one. Doesn't that suggest something to you?

And quonsar - for Pete's sake - don't forget the raincoat.
posted by pyramid termite at 8:01 PM on May 14, 2004


One of the better blue/gray wank-fests we've had months. ;-P

And that fresh, spunky, smell!! Ahhhhh.
posted by WolfDaddy at 8:15 PM on May 14, 2004


You haven't found ONE supporter, 111. Not one.

Well, there are a few of 111's fellow travellers noticeable only by their silence in this matter. Not surprisingly. Saving up their bile for the commies, I guess.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:30 PM on May 14, 2004


Is it time yet to select funniest moment in the thread? Because I'd have to argue for this one. I was literally crying with laughter. Vidiot wins!
posted by soyjoy at 8:58 PM on May 14, 2004


...wait, wasn't that a Bob Dylan song?
posted by soyjoy at 8:59 PM on May 14, 2004


Alright, I wasn't going to bring my particularly favorite troll up in here, but since he jumped in anyway, I guess I will.

How come there's not the same level of outrage about SpaceCadet's shit? I mean, he posts sites that say "Never marry a woman whose father took off or was abusive to her mother UNLESS she got the right lesson from it ... the right lesson being that responsible men are to be adored and valued and their eccentricities and (mild, occasional) irresponsibilities tolerated."

He's just as consistent with his bullshit as 111; could I get a little help with him, please?
posted by LittleMissCranky at 9:01 PM on May 14, 2004


I fail to understand why people get cranked up about retards. SpaceCadet's shit about women is just that: shit. Better yet, it's all his own shit. Isn't that punishment enough for the guy?

There's a bit of a saying that kind of applies to this: some will, some won't, so what?

Engage our SpaceCadet in a discussion about women's rights, and you completely waste your time. It's like wrestling with a pig: all that happens is you get covered in pigshit. Doesn't accomplish a thing.

In short, th0se two dolts and a few others aren't worth your time or energy. Save your words for someone worth debating with.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:16 PM on May 14, 2004


Sure. SpaceCadet, I think you need another "lesson". Let's go around back, and bring the bat.

Y'all think I'm joking, don't you?
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:17 PM on May 14, 2004


It's all just fun and games until someone's ox gets gored.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:19 PM on May 14, 2004


Pigs are actually remarkably clean creatures, by and large.
posted by The God Complex at 9:23 PM on May 14, 2004


Oh, yeah, and one other thing. Mischief, if I object to someone's gay-bashing, it's neither on the bashee's behalf, nor yours, nor on the behalf of the fucking Queen of fucking England. It's on mine. That goes as well for my objections to racism, sexism, and any other damn thing I find offensive, whether or not it matches a little fucking checkbox on my completed census form.

111, SpaceCadet, watch this and ask for forgiveness.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:31 PM on May 14, 2004


Pigs are actually remarkably clean creatures, by and large.

I think the reason people think of pigs as dirty is that they are so much like us (pink and hairless) that any dirtiness seems closer to home. They just get held to a higher standard. Although they do still seem dirtier than your average cat.
posted by milovoo at 9:35 PM on May 14, 2004


Boring moments of the 21st Century, litograph #7342:

Cap'n Bligh, leafing through a dusty dictionary, discovers the word "fuck".
posted by MiguelCardoso at 9:39 PM on May 14, 2004


Fucks Cap'n Bligh inadvertently missed:

Oh, yeah, and one fucking other thing. Mischief, if I fucking object to someone's gay-bashing, it's neither on the bashee's behalf, nor yours, nor on the fucking behalf of the fucking Queen of fucking England, you fuck. It's on fucking mine. That fucking goes as well for my objections to fucking racism, fucking sexism, and any other damn fucking thing I find fucking offensive, whether or not it fucking matches a little fucking checkbox on my completed fucking census form.

[Brought to you by the David Mamet Forum For More Fucks]
posted by MiguelCardoso at 9:47 PM on May 14, 2004


And they're omnivores, like us.

On preview: I find myself on Miguel's bad side. Miguel doesn't have a bad side, you say? Oh, he can be very naughty.

Or was that "haughty"? I'm pretty sure it's not "haughey". Doughty? Hot toddy?

throws the dictionary against the wall

Hmm. That's not helping.

On preview2: Milch, not Mamet, actually. Close, though. Maybe a touch of Jay.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:51 PM on May 14, 2004


As I see it, 111 has two choices. He or she can admit the fundamental un-christian nature of his or her behaviour, since it spreads and inspired hatred (result being more important than any plausible intensions here), or he or she can admit to not actually being a follower of the words and actions of Jesus and just drop all pretense.

So, what'll it be?
posted by Space Coyote at 10:09 PM on May 14, 2004


Just ribbin' you, EB.

I don't understand gay-bashing either or any other bashing of people who are the way they are and had no choice in the matter. I can't help being Portuguese or tall or almost fifty so if anyone attacks me for being these things I simply can't understand the reason for the attack. Would people like me to stop being Portuguese or tall or almost fifty? Probably some wackos. But I always feel like asking them "Alright, then, I want to change. I want to be Italian, short and seventeen. Please tell me how I should fo about it."

Same with being black or blonde or gay or a woman or a man or colour-blind or beautiful or, come to think of it, a meerkat or a dormouse. The simplest intelligence tells us that it's very, very stupid to hate anyone or anything not for what they do or say but for what they are. As for feeling superior, by virtue of what you are (and have no merit whatsoever in having "achieved" - being white, gay, tall, Irish, female, whatever - it's even more stupid.

But some people are stupid, extremely so, and ignorant as well. Shouldn't we try to bring them round, slowly and patiently, so that they become happier people? Or at least ignore them completely? Telling them to fuck off, as I see it, just doesn't do it, as you well know.

I often find that the fear of appearing condescending, patronizing or paternalistic is at the root of much indifference to other people's suffering. Gay-bashers, misogynists, racists and xenophobes are sick, unhappy people. Gay-bashers are almost always gay; misogynists have been dumped by women once too often and crave a woman's love; racists are losers so low down in the world they need to find people to feel superior too and xenophobes are people who hate everybody who enjoys the world.

Let's face it - they're mentally ill. I predict they'll make it into, oh, DSM-VII at least. Show some compassion; make an effort; don't reinforce their sickness, I say.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 10:21 PM on May 14, 2004


I'll be watching 111 closely from here on out, as this will be the last turd dropped by that author.

Oi. Can I just make an argument for trying to keep account deletion out of the equation as much as possible? Can we view that as last-recourse kind of thing, kind of like the death penalty?

The truth is that MetaFilter has definitely become, among other things, a discussion area for news, politics and issues. As such, its standards need to reflect this and cut a somewhat wider swath. Amberglow, I totally ♥ you too, but you are a vigorous participant in political and issue-oriented threads, and aren't afraid to express and defend your views. That's great, and I support you in that, but I find the argument that the site makes you feel uncomfortable (and the implication that something should be done about this) to be somewhat antithetical to that position, in the sense that it seems to ask for a moderated environment. If we are going to discuss issues we love (gay marriage) and issues we love to hate (Bush/Iraq), we should be willing to discuss hateful issues, as well. Hateful language is another question, but I do have to point out that it's used all the time by users who will never be under threat of having their account deleted.
posted by taz at 10:38 PM on May 14, 2004


A-fucking-men, Migs.

(On preview: Perhaps I should rephrase that.)
posted by Vidiot at 10:46 PM on May 14, 2004


I ? amberglow.
posted by Dreamghost at 11:08 PM on May 14, 2004


Er, I meant gay-bashers are cowardly, often ignorantly gay and stupidly lash out at those they envy and desire. If that's the way these savage turn-coats treat gays, imagine how they treat women - and specially the woman they live with.

I have, amongst my good friends, two otherwise wonderful souls who are homophobic and, when it comes to gay issues, suddenly start using entirely uncharacteristic nasty, hate-filled language. When we tell them they should come out of the closet already (fake-gay banter is very much part of Portuguese culture), instead of playing the part (the accepted procedure) they become abnormally incensed.

Well, once we were playing a stupid drunken game where everyone had to write down what we'd all do if we were women. Both of them - this is absolutely true - wrote down "Do nothing but suck dick, day and night."

We all nodded and looked Sigmundish.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 11:11 PM on May 14, 2004


I ? amberglow.

damn fucked up, but hey it's the thought that counts ;/

I "HEART" amberglow

h3h hey it's passed midnight im now 25, i can go rent a car!
posted by Dreamghost at 11:13 PM on May 14, 2004


thanks for the love, all, but hate is hate. I've tried ignoring when people make slurs and insults, i've tried baiting (as quonsar did here), and it just encourages 111. He gets off on it. EB was right when he said there's a double standard.

Until anti-gay slurs and insults, no matter how ridiculous, are as unacceptable as anti-black and anti-jewish ones (or anti-whoever), then i'll say what i'll say.

And matt, just because there are pro-gay marriage threads here doesn't mean that calling people homos and allowing people to link to hate sites is ok. It's not quite as pro-gay as you think it is, nor is it as discrimination-free. On that note, nor is the wider world, so it's no surprise. Until you realize that nigger=homo=kike=wop=fag, etc, then things will stay as they are.

taz: If we are going to discuss issues we love (gay marriage) and issues we love to hate (Bush/Iraq), we should be willing to discuss hateful issues, as well. Hateful language is another question, but I do have to point out that it's used all the time by users who will never be under threat of having their account deleted.
Well, maybe hateful language is something that should be spoken of, and called out, whenever it occurs, and whoever it comes from. Issues are not about people and their lives. Issues don't bash, unless they're designed to do so. Ii've yet to see people consistently using the anti-gay language that 111 uses.

and happy bday, Dreamghost. : >
posted by amberglow at 11:45 PM on May 14, 2004


I don't understand this idea that trolls are fun, and we shouldn't delete trolls because "after all they are only trolling".

Trolling is bad, it decreases the quality of the discussion. Nothing is funny about trolling, nothing is fun, and nothing is interesting. Watching a community get in an uproar over something they feel strongly about isn't interesting.

Large groups of people act in particular ways, it's not alterable easily. Trolls take advantage of this, they break the system. There is nothing funny about this at all, it is only a function of how large open communities work. Some people may not be so familiar with the culture of metafilter and not be able to tell it is a troll. They might react, others may not have the intelligence to realize, others may realize and feed the frenzy intentionally. People will feed the trolls, always, forever.

Most moderation systems are in place to stop this sort of behavior because it is damaging to the community.

Some people accept trolls out of a type of self-congratulation. To delete them outright might possibly mean you didn't realize it was "just a troll". I think this is what is occurring now. Of course it's a troll, and that's why it should be deleted. Is this the "best of the web"? Of course not, deleting trolls doesn't mean you thought it was a real, earnest and, sincere post, it only means you don't want the site to become full of garbage.

There is all this pressure not to make things that are intimidating or difficult for an outsider, no FPP no, pancakes, no "i for one welcome..." Yet trollish threads stand. Nothing is more disruptive to a community than that. If you think seeing an acronym is difficult for a new reader think what a troll thread does. It completely disrupts their idea of what is normal behavior on a site, there are sites on the web that do hate gays, and when that sort of thread stays up to some we become that site. An outsider cannot possibly get the "humor" that is a troll thread, they only see a thread about gays.
posted by rhyax at 11:49 PM on May 14, 2004


I like what you've said, Miguel, but I'd like mention that I'm quite uncomfortable with this contemporary identification of "choice" as determinative in these matters. I won't say that it's not or shouldn't be a factor, but I hardly think it should be determinitive. That line of reasoning is both problematic, I think, and cedes ground to the opposition that ought not be ceded.

It's problematic in the case of things that we likely will all agree are intolerable yet not product of "choice". You can make a good argument that sociopaths have significantly abormal brain functioning and were born that way, but that is hardly, I think, an argument for the acceptability of the behavior of sociopaths. Additionally, biological determinist arguments for normative morality are fundamentally anti-liberal (in the classic and modern sense) and anti-humanist in that they deny or at least strongly diminish the existence/importance of will and moral choice.

Similarly, a biological determinist argument implicitly cedes the moral gound to those who prefer to argue in that context. Gay sex is not immoral, it should not be illegal, and whether sexual orientation is voluntary or not is, consequently, completely beside the point. If the behavior itself is not wrong, it is irrelevant in this context whether it is by choice or by birth.

Put another way, I'm a straight man, straighter than most by various measurements (valid or no). But I've tried sex with other men on three different occasions. It was by choice, not by orientation set at birth. Does that mean I'm exempted from protection from persecution? Oh, well, I chose to suck a guy's dick so it's okay to burn me at the stake? Psshaw. Additionally, I really don't think that the Fred Phelps and Pat Roberstons of the world care one whit about the nature/nurture argument. Either way, they'd prefer the pink triangles and camps.

My dearest friend is gay, and the nature/nurture discussion is one we've had many times. In fact, on his web site he excerpts an exchange between us where he asks the question, "Could I have been straight?" Interestingly, it was in response to an assertion I made publicly elsewhere that he had found from experience that he could not be straight. He's not so sure.

I'd like to encourage everyone involved in gay rights activism to use the nature argument sparingly and judiciously. Yes, it many cases it's effective in combating stigmatism against gays. But I think it's a dangerous argument that could, in the long run, be more harmful than helpful.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:03 AM on May 15, 2004


I did say there was a double-standard, Amberglow, but I carefully qualified that and was arguing that, to some degree, there necessarily is a double-standard.

I imagine my prolixity is defeating my clarity.

In short, a provocative comment/post/view can be, in some sense, inherently provocative (let's avoid the relativist arguments at the moment) and/or in another sense, situationally provocative. Within individuals and within communities, an outraged reaction to a provocative expression can be a response to either or both without distinction or a self-awareness on the part of the outraged.

Because a good portion of our society continues to find anti-gay sentiment completely acceptable, an anti-gay expression in our society is not as situationally objectionable. It can be, either in an absolute or relative sense, intrinsically objectionable...and I think it is. But given that such sentiments are not beyond the pale in our society, a person can express such a view without it necessarily being implicitly an insult to cultural norms.

Now, I think it's clear that MeFi as a sub-culture has stricter standards in this matter than do our respective cultures. And, in this sense, 111 quite clearly is thumbing his/her nose (see above comment) by expressing his/her views in a manner that does not conspicuously attempt to avoid giving offense.

Whether 111's anti-gay sentiments are in good faith or not is debatable. I'm inclined to think they're not; but I can't be sure because I happen to know that it's quite possible—easy, in fact—in this day and age to have anti-gay views yet be completely well-intentioned. On the other hand, the time has largely passed, I think, in most of our societies, that it's likely a racist view could be well-intentioned. This is why 111's complaint about MeFi's "pro-minority" bias particularly annoyed me. Yes, I do think 111's anti-gay views are more sinister because they're more relevant and acceptable; but we are not going to get as many people to agree with this judgment as we would were the view being questioned was racism. And this is essentially what you're doing when you are asking that everyone else react to anti-gay views as they would to racist views. But it's perfectly appropriate that you and I react similarly, and vociferously.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:34 AM on May 15, 2004


Being preoccupied with other things I didn't get to make a pathologically neutral comment in either thread. Until now.
posted by snarfodox at 1:56 AM on May 15, 2004


Sure. SpaceCadet, I think you need another "lesson". Let's go around back, and bring the bat.

Y'all think I'm joking, don't you?


Well, if you're not joking, I find that hilarious. The emptiest of empty threats. You disagree with me, so "bring out the bat". Thanks for the chuckle, EB. I'm actually picturing the moment, as you're not joking....hmmm, no actually it just looks very sad and pathetic to me. You could've offered a more realistic threat.

Well, as for you not responding to my post, I can only assume you have little more to add. I merely pointed out the false idea that nature/nature is a zero-sum game (either/or) to many people, particularly feminists who must simplify what makes up a person in order to lobby their agendas in a much more stark, clear way. You alluded that their polarity has now shifted to nature "in the last twenty years" as the great determiner without elaborating. This argument, for me, is not either/or, but simply both. However, I understand it's much harder for groups to campaign against "discrimination" when they realise that the reality is never so cut and dry. Hence all the biology revisionists and social deconstructionists that are around these days.

I'm not sorry if my moderate view upset you.
posted by SpaceCadet at 2:55 AM on May 15, 2004


EB, please believe that I'm not being snarky here, but I don't read half your comments because they are just too long and convoluted. Believe me, I understand why ...I have to prune my responses by about two-thirds usually, resulting in an abbreviated presentation of a more complete thought and loss of qualifications that might protect my point from attack, but I know I just don't have a chance of being heard otherwise.

Anyway, back to the brouhaha: I disagree with 111 on just about everything, I imagine, but I don't want to see him cut out based on something like this* in which he did present an opposing view, and if the axe falls because he verbally abuses others, then that same axe should be employed against similar abuses by other members. I'm a much more enthusiastic fan of time-out therapy.

*though I would not have been surprised or upset to see the post deleted
posted by taz at 2:57 AM on May 15, 2004


111's post would be a much better troll if he probably didn't actually believe it. Thus, I am not really sure I agree it was a troll. However, without it we would not have been able to witness his buggering at the hands of Quonsar, and his subsequent tepid defense of his purported masculinity. Too funny.
posted by caddis at 3:04 AM on May 15, 2004


I'm a straight man, straighter than most by various measurements (valid or no). But I've tried sex with other men on three different occasions.

Just curious, EB, what are the various measurements you're applying in this evaluation? Because I think there might be a significant circle missing in your Venn diagram.
posted by David Dark at 4:00 AM on May 15, 2004


Having sex with a man was pretty much just like having sex with a woman I'm not even the least attracted to. It wasn't unpleasant, it just was "meh". This was a disapointment, which is why I tried it more than once. I mean, gay male sex has its advantages, not the least being that it's really, really damn easy to get laid. Woohoo! When I was younger, I was ideologically inclined to want to be bisexual; that doesn't seem as important to me anymore.

A whole lot of people define being homosexual as "having had sex with another man/woman", but that's just silly. A gay man can have sex once, twice, or forty times with a woman and people don't claim that defines him as a heterosexual. It's revealing that "any gay sex" == "gay" is remininiscent of the "one drop of blood" argument; it's clear that the idea is that there's a "taint".

Which is part of why I'm sort of aggressive in not being "ashamed" of having had sex with another man. There's nothing to be ashamed of. If a future employer won't hire me because of it, I didn't want to work for them anyway.

Given my druthers, I'd prefer to be bi. I'm not sure that I would prefer to be gay, although it would mean lots more sex, unless I'd be sure to get that giddy, flirty, slightly out-of-breath feeling when I met a cute man the way I do when I meet a cute woman. Finding both sexes attractive would be cool, though.

I think that once, in my whole forty years, I developed a crush on another man; and it took me forever to figure out that it was the case, it was so unique. On the other hand, I've a crush on at least one woman at any given moment.

Darien tells people that he thinks I'm one of the straightest people he's ever known. (We've also been roommates for the last year or so, and occasionally people—men that he meets—will be incredulous when he says that his roommate and best friend is straight.)

DD, don't get me started on Venn diagrams. I have an unnatural fondness for Venn diagrams. I should say, though, that I think Venn diagrams are completely irrelevant to this argument.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 4:23 AM on May 15, 2004


I, too, dig amberglow. he's the nicest dude on the site and I'm always psyched to see him in #mefi.
posted by mcsweetie at 5:01 AM on May 15, 2004


Amberglow, schamberglow - he's one of the many posters here I'm glad to see. Wanna see a list? No, thats pointless aint it?

Ever been in a situation where you and your ideological enemy had equal rights to occupy the space you're in, the space is your workplace, and on a daily basis you are verbally assaulted, threatened and spat at... because you'd been outed?

It can make you sick, let me tell you. But in the end, complaining to the boss, getting friendly colleagues to challenge the behaviour, making rational arguments against it, avoiding shifts together... doesn't work. In fact, it gives attention to the nasty behaviour, and it reinforces the value that the miscreant attaches it.

The one tactic I wish that I was allowed to try, and which can work here, is to ridicule the claims, backed up with logic, facts, compassion and patience. At no time can it be ok to bully, threaten or abuse someone. I didn't see 111 do that here. He makes absurd & (for some unknown reason) self-discredited claims about the whole class of male homosexuals. Whilst that error is larger than a personal attack on a gay guy, it is less particular, less specific and less violent.

On that basis, and on the basis that he means it (so, by definition, he's not trolling), he's entitled to his free speech.

I used to be offended by friends saying that they were "going to the paki shop". I still won't use it, but in itself, I don't think it's racist - it's used as an abbreviation. [Racist is "I'm never going in the paki shop".]

By the same token, being referred to as 'a homo' is far from the worst epithet around, I'm not sure that it's even intended to hurt, like fag, or any of the 1001 names attached to us.

To be sure, 111 has protected his privacy & personal data to the extent that we aren't even sure of his sex (deliberate gender confusion? What's that all about?) It is an effective tactic, as we cannot attack him for those characteristics.

Not that I would of course. But someone would.

Amberglow, I think we should keep our powder dry - 111's failure to distance himself from dodgy research and hateful comments like the lies here and here are the most telling. And the best way to counter that is not to request 111's banishment. It's to deride his arguments, demonstrate our insouciance, and carry on regardless.

S/he has the right to speak. We have the right to laugh at hirm. C'est la vie.
posted by dash_slot- at 6:16 AM on May 15, 2004



I don't understand gay-bashing either or any other bashing of people who are the way they are and had no choice in the matter. I can't help being Portuguese or tall or almost fifty so if anyone attacks me for being these things I simply can't understand the reason for the attack. Would people like me to stop being Portuguese or tall or almost fifty? Probably some wackos. But I always feel like asking them "Alright, then, I want to change. I want to be Italian, short and seventeen. Please tell me how I should fo about it."


*cue Canadian outrage*

Deepn down I know all you fish-poaching Portuguese are the same Miguel!

This message brought to you by news that few other than Canadians will understand.
posted by The God Complex at 6:23 AM on May 15, 2004


Thanks Chuq for "trollish fucknucklery". Brightened my day!
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 6:46 AM on May 15, 2004


And to suggest a double standard towards gays here is insane. I'm all about the gay! I love the gay! Have you seen my shoe and facial product collection? Honey, I can tell you if a twink is wearing a prada shoe or a miou miou shoe from a 100 yards away (snaps fingers in z-formation).

I understand that you think you're being funny here, and I understand that you think we gays should just shrug off the recurring hatred from 111 and others of his ilk, but let's translate your little joke to another bias:

I'm all about the blacks. I love the blacks. Have you seen my collection of loose shoes? Brother, I can spit a watermelon and hit a hot white woman 100 yards away.

Is that still funny? I don't have any reason to think that you're a homophobe, but perpetuating such stereotypes and shrugging off hatred is offensive to the people being hated.
posted by anapestic at 7:12 AM on May 15, 2004


"trollish fucknucklery"

When people ask me how in the hell I came up with the name for my fantasy football team, I never tell them the secret.
posted by Cyrano at 7:29 AM on May 15, 2004


If you just ignored him

Don't ignore him. Don't make fun of him. Just disprove his ridiculous claims. That leaves him with no wiggle room, no claims of persecution, and we come out looking better. When the claims are as ridiculous as the one's 111 makes tearing them down with logic is easy.
posted by jonmc at 7:41 AM on May 15, 2004


Deepn down I know all you fish-poaching Portuguese are the same Miguel!

This message brought to you by news that few other than Canadians will understand.


Eh? At least one west-coaster understands what you mean. It has been all over the news.
As for pigs, I never suggested pigs themselves were dirty. Their pens, especially on the small farms I've seen, are.
Also, I think the true troll here just might be KJS, who has succeeded in opening a contentious forum far in excess of anything 111 will ever accomplish. (Not that I think KJS deliberately did so.)
Is that still funny? Hell, yes. One of the things that got the gay community to the level of acceptance it has gained is its ability to laugh at itself. The gay parades with the drama queens et al, the superb comedy of KiTH and such, etc. If everyone were to loosen up and laugh, we'd all be a lot further ahead. Ever watch Canadian comedy? Those bloody east-coasters are the best at making fun of their stereotypes. Funniest, bestest people in Canada, are they.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:23 AM on May 15, 2004


I should probably go hide now. I just know I'm going to be savaged for disagreeing.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:24 AM on May 15, 2004


*lustily savages fff while grinning at 111*
posted by quonsar at 8:28 AM on May 15, 2004


tall or almost fifty

thats disgusting, what's the matter with you people?
posted by specialk420 at 8:47 AM on May 15, 2004


:)
posted by specialk420 at 8:48 AM on May 15, 2004


well, since I see that we're still discussing one-one-one, let's see a little precedent (feb 2002):


I assure that I wasn't trolling. I was honestly stating my mind--

...knowing full well how it would play out in a public online forum frequented by people of all shapes and sizes. You could substitute "blacks" "gays" or "ugly people" in the phrase "it is true foo is lazy by their nature" and enjoy the rise you'd get out of everyone.
It's not that your opinion is merely misguided or unpopular, it's the razor-like precision you use to express it. Most any thread you touch, you wreak havoc.
From an adminstrator standpoint, you're a nightmare. I have an inbox full of people telling me to do something about you, I see a noisy, pointless thread arguing with you and this metatalk thread where you continue to preach understanding for all and that you're simply unpopular. Consider yourself banned until you can email me a good reason why I should keep you around.


posted by mathowie at 12:06 PM PST on February 26
posted by matteo at 9:05 AM on May 15, 2004


Private to EB from Way Out There: We don't get paid by the word. Nor do we get paid for making my stomach do the loop-de-loop while I'm sitting still.
posted by yerfatma at 9:06 AM on May 15, 2004


what is funny is watching most of you laugh away your anger. look deeper people. The post in question is about medical consequences. Ok, it is beyond a trollish post but there are people who remember the worst consequences of being a homosexual were fired from job/court marshalled from military (enmasse as in witchhunts/ physical danger if "exposed" (which still happens way to much)/ family turns their back on one who is homosexual. Sure,it still happens today but does it on the same scale as in the 50's? Oh, lets not forget the medical/psych community telling them it is wrong and deviant and how the subject almost never appeared in the press. Did I mention the confusion and guilt? Think of the term "in the closet" spend a few days in a real closet and we see how the term is closer to torture then a decision to "come out".

ah, the grand old days eh. Has society "advanced" in it's understanding of Homosexuals and Lesbians. I cannot answer that but I know my 98 year old grandmother who is a republican supports gay rights and loves very much her new great-great grandson whom has a lesbian mother. It is about progression , f^%$ this concept of conservatives wanting "things the way they are" as in Miguels notion, thats for buildings and decent laws.

So if medical consequences has everyone upset, can we not see the progress this society has made. Have we made progress?
posted by clavdivs at 10:34 AM on May 15, 2004


matteo: [same thread] -
are we to insist Mathowie dissallows differing views in MeFi? Only people who are tolerant of overweight people are allowed to post? That's absurd. I say let them post, and let people like me blow holes in their opinions.

That's part of what makes this place fun. =)
posted by ZachsMind at 11:54 AM PST on February 26


I hazard a guess & say - mathowie has made his mind up, but that is subject to revision. As it should be. 111 is clearly on probation, and [as he's an equal opps sort of webmaster] in a sense, so are we all.
posted by dash_slot- at 11:13 AM on May 15, 2004


MetaFilter -- We're Clearly On Probation
posted by matteo at 11:33 AM on May 15, 2004


Well, there are a few of 111's fellow travellers noticeable only by their silence in this matter. Not surprisingly. Saving up their bile for the commies, I guess.

So everyone is obligated to decry this so-called atrocity of linking to some unoriginal nutcase? The idea is ridiculous, just as your comment is insidious, dishonest, and insulting.
posted by Krrrlson at 1:21 PM on May 15, 2004


Sorry, dash--that guy was banned, no? And matt used the same reasoning that i and others used here.

You get banned for insulting and offending fat people, but not for doing the same to us, over and over.

It's a clear double standard.
posted by amberglow at 1:29 PM on May 15, 2004


Regardless of what standard is used, it needs to be consistent and preferably in writing in the guidelines. The worst kind of police power is the arbitrary kind.
posted by PrinceValium at 1:32 PM on May 15, 2004


The idea is ridiculous


coming from someone who tried to (lamely) spin a lone college I/P incident into a frenzy of a supposed impending Holocaust for year-2004 Canadian Jews, this is pretty rich.
so much for accusations of "dishonesty", one imagines.
and no, of course you're not obligated to decry anything. but since you're here, it would be nice of you to mention what a shameful stain 111's thread represents on our community weblog's front page. but of course in your world, imaginary Canadian pogroms are much more alarming than real, actual gay-bashing
posted by matteo at 1:34 PM on May 15, 2004


Do you ever actually have a *relevant* rebuttal to my comments, matteo, besides linking to completely unrelated threads *and* managing to misrepresent and lie about what I said in them?

So much for you, one imagines.
posted by Krrrlson at 2:30 PM on May 15, 2004


The best kind of sysop power is the arbitrary kind. You don't end up with assholes pushing the line all the time, just to see if they can get over it uncaught.
posted by five fresh fish at 2:37 PM on May 15, 2004


matteo is a troll hidden in the herd.
posted by SpaceCadet at 3:35 PM on May 15, 2004


"Under the bridge", surely?
posted by malpractice at 3:59 PM on May 15, 2004


malpractice, only if you're a Scandanavian.
posted by SpaceCadet at 4:25 PM on May 15, 2004


Jesus, Krrrrrrrlson, put it back in your pants.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:42 PM on May 15, 2004


I think Ethereal Bligh forgot to explain to Space Cadet that, until the 19th century, pink was the boys' color and blue was the girls' color and lots of ink and paper were devoted to how outrageous it would be to dress a girl in pink or a boy in blue.

Now I have done so. Because I'm all about the obvious ironies of life.
posted by Sidhedevil at 7:58 PM on May 15, 2004


I am a fat Jew, and I do not advocate the censoring of, nor am I afraid of, threads that insult people who fall into either category.
posted by bingo at 9:27 PM on May 15, 2004


Jesus, Krrrrrrrlson, put it back in your pants.

You mean you've already pissed on here? Oh good. But what are you badgering Jesus for? Come to think of it, I don't think he even wore pants.
posted by Krrrlson at 10:15 PM on May 15, 2004


amberglow: has it occurred to you that your analogy is entirely fabricated? You claim that there is a double standard and that similar posts based on race would result in banning.

Let's take a look. Ryvar says:
African-Americans do not possess smaller brains, but the simple fact is that they consistently test one standard deviation lower on standardized intelligence testing. I suspect when the full extent each gene has upon the development of an individual is known it will emerge that yes, individual people with certain 'races' do have very slight racially-common genetic predispositions towards better performance in different aspects of intellectual endeavour - with correspondence between the intellectual aspect emphasized and the social/environmental challenges that would benefit from its emphasis being present in the given culture.
111 says that gay men engage in high-risk behaviors at higher rates than heterosexual males.

Neither are banned. In fact, Ryvar faces, for his statements, none of the opprobrium heaped on 111. There is no double standard.
posted by IshmaelGraves at 11:34 PM on May 15, 2004


You mean you've already pissed on here? Oh good. But what are you badgering Jesus for? Come to think of it, I don't think he even wore pants.

You're just pissed off 'cause I said 'fellow traveller' aren't you?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 2:07 AM on May 16, 2004


I think Ethereal Bligh forgot to explain to Space Cadet that, until the 19th century, pink was the boys' color and blue was the girls' color and lots of ink and paper were devoted to how outrageous it would be to dress a girl in pink or a boy in blue.

When you say "the girls' color", you must mean "society's idea that this colour is associated with this gender". I was talking about people's preferences:-

Tell the feminists that. To them, the differences you describe are all down to conditioning. Boys are taught to like blue, girls pink.

Let's just say that certain influential feminists hate the idea that genders may have tendencies toward certain preferences (interests/careers/hobbies etc). This alludes to natural instincts and likings, and natural differences between men and women that go beyond physical biology. To them, any differences between what men like and what women like have been programmed by society. It doesn't occur to them (or they willfully ignore) that nature as well as nurture influence our interests. Instead, they return the non sequitur that we're all individuals, therefore it's wrong to highlight any tendencies to preferences/likings that can be identified by gender (in fact, that would be sexist to them).

Then again, I understand it's just so outrageous to have moderate views on MeFi.
posted by SpaceCadet at 3:39 AM on May 16, 2004


"The problem with the theory that personality and gender differences are entirely the result of environment, not heredity, is that it is indeed a prescription for just the kind of coercion and tyranny that most conspicuously tried to exploit its possibilities: if everything that we are is just socialization, then the reasonable thing is to socialize us in the best way possible, and that would be through the agency of those who know best. Those who know best, in turn, would be those politically favored, or at least self-appointed with enough fanfare. The socialization, in turn, would be a thorough indoctrination which, if done to adults, would have been called brain washing -- but then the brain was supposed to have been blank in the first place. Cambodia took this to the logical extreme: if you simply kill the parents, then that leaves the children in the hands of the state by default. Fortunately, the last line of defense against totalitarianism was the simple fact of human nature."

(source)
posted by SpaceCadet at 5:59 AM on May 16, 2004


You claim that there is a double standard and that similar posts based on race would result in banning.
...
Neither are banned. In fact, Ryvar faces, for his statements, none of the opprobrium heaped on 111. There is no double standard.


Ryvar did not make a Front Page Post from a guy that has been thoroughly discredited from the entire scientific community, that is know to make up statistics to fit his anti-gay agenda, etc. I'd like to see Ryvar use Stormfront or the KKK (equivalents to posting from Cameron's "science") and posting that to the front page. Further, Ryvar doesn't have a history of persistent anti-black slurs and statements here, as 111 has towards gays. Apples and oranges, especially since Ryvar didn't even link to a source, nor post it to the front page.

A post on obese people resulted in the poster being banned, with Matt saying this: ..knowing full well how it would play out in a public online forum frequented by people of all shapes and sizes. You could substitute "blacks" "gays" or "ugly people" in the phrase "it is true foo is lazy by their nature" and enjoy the rise you'd get out of everyone.
It's not that your opinion is merely misguided or unpopular, it's the razor-like precision you use to express it. Most any thread you touch, you wreak havoc.
From an adminstrator standpoint, you're a nightmare. I have an inbox full of people telling me to do something about you, I see a noisy, pointless thread arguing with you and this metatalk thread where you continue to preach understanding for all and that you're simply unpopular. Consider yourself banned until you can email me a good reason why I should keep you around.


If i'm fabricating analogies, then Matt is too. I'm sure i'm not.
posted by amberglow at 7:19 AM on May 16, 2004


amberglow, i love you dearly, but i urge you to recall that matt haughey is not a consistency machine, as are none of us. he's a guy with a website that has grown beyond his imagining. as welll as beyond his ability to manage it with absolute unblinking black and white decisions. there will be inconsistencies. there will be unfairness. will banning 111 forward the cause of acceptance and unconditional love? by all means, tilt at windmills, but tilt at windmills that have been deliberately constructed to repress you. don't take yourself away, don't take your wonderful, joyous ball and go home. please.
posted by quonsar at 8:34 AM on May 16, 2004


I second quonsar.

Who said that?!
posted by BlueTrain at 8:45 AM on May 16, 2004


SpaceCadet's "moderate" views:
I choose traditional roles [for women] in the situation where they come into conflict with equality between the sexes. No irony, no nothing. Straight answer.
posted by SpaceCadet at 4:24 AM PST on November 7
Keep that in mind when assessing the honesty and value of his comments.
posted by NortonDC at 8:47 AM on May 16, 2004


I'm done discussing this, q. As I said above, I know enough not to expect anything to happen.

Bravo, 111, indeed...
posted by amberglow at 8:51 AM on May 16, 2004


Consider two scenarios. One, fifty or 100 years ago. The other, a similar time into the future.

First, let's go with the ghost of Metafilter past... back to when discussions like this made the letters page of the Times or Telegraph required reading. Leafing through faded pages we can find people expressing horror and indignation at a cryptic reference to the love that dare not speak its name. The consensus is clear - discussion of this kind of behaviour is offensive. It should be banned. The editors would not support similar references to...

You get my drift.

Now the ghost of Metafilter future. Good news - Mefi still exists. But people are increasingly frustrated wth the G/S posts. The creation of a gay homeland was a moment of hope - how did it manage to fall so far? 70% of the population are out on the streets protesting, yet the government insists on demolishing the homes of straight people, building support for right wing bigotry. On the one hand, suicide bombers that claim homosexuality is a disease that should be cleansed from the earth - clearly, horrifically wrong. On the other, a people who have suffered terribly in the past yet now seem doomed to make others suffer...


It's a sad fact of life that only the weak need free speech. Worse still, when the weak become strong, they never seem to remember what it was like before - when they were not part of the moral majority, when their only defense was a vague claim to free speech (what, on a private noticeboard? in a privately owned newspaper? never!).
posted by andrew cooke at 9:21 AM on May 16, 2004


what quonsar said, goes for me thrice over.
posted by dash_slot- at 12:03 PM on May 16, 2004


SpaceCadet's "moderate" views:
I choose traditional roles [for women] in the situation where they come into conflict with equality between the sexes. No irony, no nothing. Straight answer.
posted by SpaceCadet at 4:24 AM PST on November 7
Keep that in mind when assessing the honesty and value of his comments.


Ummm, even if we accept your transparently obvious square-bracketed misquote, how is the quote you provide not moderate (i.e extreme)? Traditional roles are extreme to you?

Watch this video Norton; it might bring you back down to earth from your floating faux-liberal bubble, and realise how your false dilemma method of argument is ridiculous:-

Yes Or No?
posted by SpaceCadet at 12:13 PM on May 16, 2004


That's funny. SpaceCadet links to Kelly's essay that claims, "To gender feminism, Sommers, Paglia, and Farrel are no less "enemies of feminism" (and, for that matter, "enemies of women") than Graglia." What book of Camille Paglia's is he using? Oh yeah, Sexual Personae, a real love letter to women....

Kelly's site is amusing to see how smart an insane person can sound.

Funny part #2 is how mathowie has deleted Spacecadet's agenda serving "OH pity the poor father's post" in that past and thinks this ancient article deserves to stay.

Perhaps I should have pointed out John Derbyshire's comments a few months ago when they happened so we could all have a good hearty LAUGH!
I recently read Tim Jeal's excellent biography of Robert Baden-Powell (title: "The Boy-Man"), founder of the Boy Scouts. Jeal shows how the Boy Scout movement was, from its very beginnings, plagued by pederasts. Baden-Powell's first two appointees to the post of medical director at the movement's main camp, for instance, both had to be dismissed for "gross misconduct" with the boys. Only a society as wilfully stupid and sunk in dogma as our own could imagine that an organization for boys would NOT attract the attention of pederasts. To insist on the "right" of homosexuals to serve as scoutmasters is to pour gasoline on a smouldering fire. (And before anyone e-mails in to tell me that homosexuality and pederasty are utterly different things, not related to each other in any way, shape or form whatsoever: I DON'T BELIEVE YOU.)
-John Derbyshire of The National Review

Of course, Andrew mentions it in the context of attacking another of John's ravings. John did defend himself though.
According to Merriam-Webster's Third, homosexuality is "atypical sexuality characterized by manifestation of sexual desire toward a member of one's own sex," while pederasty is "anal intercourse especially with a boy as the passive partner."

According to the BSA website "Boy Scouting is available to boys who are 11 through 17 years old."

So in order to share Sullivan's outrage, you have to believe that there is not, never was, and never could be a homosexual anywhere who would like to engage in sex play with any boy aged from 11 to 17.

You can believe it if you like, but I still refuse to.
-[source]

I'm still waiting for Derbyshire to come out against Den Mothers. HAHA!
posted by john at 12:24 PM on May 16, 2004


Why is it when gay men (and sympathizers to the "gay cause") are offended, yet seemingly trying to take things as lightheartedly as possible, often strike back with fantastical suggestions of having gay sex with the offender?

Great post dash_slot.

I'm done discussing this, q. As I said above, I know enough not to expect anything to happen.

Imagine if you were a southern white conservative t'boot. Speaking for myself, seems all I got going for me around here is that I'm NOT gay... the way you make it sound anyway. That aside, I've seen FAR more Christian-bashing on this site than gay-bashing. In fact, I'd love to see an example of MetaFilter gay-bashing.
posted by Witty at 12:50 PM on May 16, 2004


And to further the first part of my last post...

There's no gay agenda here, save my desire to see you bent over a chair taking the deep lovin' you deserve.

Why are people allowed to say stuff like that? I ask because I have to assume that I, or any other straight male, wouldn't be able to get away with saying things like that to women on this site. No? Yet they seem to pop up all the time in gay threads.
posted by Witty at 1:01 PM on May 16, 2004


there is not, never was, and never could be a homosexual anywhere who would like to engage in sex play with any boy aged from 11 to 17.

because as we all know, the appalling criminal plague of sexual tourism demonstrates exactly that there are no heterosexuals whatsoever who travel to dirt-poor places in order to have sex with girls aged 11 to 17.

John "kick one for me" Derbyshire is so dumb and mean that he must be a liberal plant in the heart of the right-wing press -- he proudly demonstrates the worst of right-wing "thought"


FAR more Christian-bashing on this site than gay-bashing

those who whine about the "oppressed Christians" never cease to amuse me: white Christian heterosexual man, that famous oppressed minority deprived of power these last 5,000 years

heh.


I'd love to see an example of MetaFilter gay-bashing.

most of 111s and his buddies posts and comments regarding sexuality
posted by matteo at 1:03 PM on May 16, 2004




"these last 2,000 years", obviously. my bad.

posted by matteo at 1:06 PM on May 16, 2004


Well, I wasn't whining. But perhaps you weren't talking about me. I was merely making an observation, one that I still believe is accurate.
posted by Witty at 1:10 PM on May 16, 2004


You know, I *heart* amberglow too.

I'm not saying that 111 isn't a faintly entertaining neo-troll who is almost certainly a black lesbian sociology undergraduate getting weak kicks by espousing beliefs opposite to those which she actually holds; but the indulgence she's granted when dissing 'homos' just doesn't tally with the standard community intolerance for other benighted beliefs about - how you say? - fatsos, niggers and kikes.

It's silly - but quite upsetting - stuff. Just like the cries of 'Poof!' from schoolchildren (half of them dressed like bijoux tracksuit clones, for fuck's sake) that accompany my morning trip to the newsagents.

(And, apropos of nothing much at all:- I'm loving Ethereal Bligh's gentle satire of the prevailing MetaFilter tone. Especially the delicate avoidance of such buzzphrases as 'ad hominem attack' and 'Occam's Razor.' Bravo, you!)
posted by jack_mo at 1:15 PM on May 16, 2004


Especially the delicate avoidance of such buzzphrases as 'ad hominem attack' and 'Occam's Razor.' Bravo, you!)

Yes, he eschews the cliche and just reaches for a blunt instrument instead.
posted by SpaceCadet at 2:19 PM on May 16, 2004


Fascinatingly enough, back in the days when little girls were "supposed" to be dressed in blue, and little boys "supposed" to be dressed in pink, little girls seemed, by all accounts, to express an inordinate enthusiasm for the color blue.

It's not like there's some "love of pink" gene coded on the second X chromosome, SpaceCadet--children learn which of their preferences are acceptable and which are not very early. Also, if everything one owns/wears/plays with is of a certain color, it's not surprising that that becomes one's favorite.

And word about hearting amberglow. I do. Ever so much. Illegitimi non carborundum, amberglow!
posted by Sidhedevil at 2:23 PM on May 16, 2004


Also, if everything one owns/wears/plays with is of a certain color, it's not surprising that that becomes one's favorite.

I don't know about you, but my mum and dad didn't dress me up in blue and give me blue toys to play with. I was brought up in a multi-coloured world. Anyway, as it's been made more than clear, nuanced debate is impossible on Metafilter - too many literalists here.
posted by SpaceCadet at 2:57 PM on May 16, 2004


I ? ambergow too (you know, in a non-sexual, manly sort of way) *spits on the ground, stares down top of girl walking past and scratches crotch to re-establish heterosexual cred*

Also, what quonsar said, in spades.
posted by dg at 4:12 PM on May 16, 2004


Stavros hates Americans, Hama7 wishes ill the Reds, 111 is scared of the cock, y2karl is a bonafide Republiphobe, Skallas loathes Xtians. Angry modem seems to hate everyone. But they're all good posters and I hope none of them is banned.

Amberglow: I think your arguement went off the rails about halfway down the thread. You're not the only one who feels persecuted from time to time.
posted by dhoyt at 6:04 PM on May 16, 2004


SpaceCadet has this site linked to from his user page. So the real question is whether he honestly believes those are "moderate" views or he is just unbelievably disingenuous.

I'm not even going to start on the pink/blue thing. The idea that a preference for blue is a sex-linked genetic issue cracks me up.
posted by LittleMissCranky at 6:18 PM on May 16, 2004


FAR more Christian-bashing on this site than gay-bashing

those who whine about the "oppressed Christians" never cease to amuse me: white Christian heterosexual man, that famous oppressed minority deprived of power these last 5,000 years


Phew, I guess it's okay to bash them now then. Let's give 'em those 5,000 years back and then some!
posted by Krrrlson at 6:47 PM on May 16, 2004


OMG. Now I really do feel pity for SpaceCadet. That's just nutso-obsessive. It must driving him barking mad to know that more than half the earth's population is still female, and they're continually gaining power and equality. It scares the shit outta him.

Being SpaceCadet is punishment enough for SpaceCadet.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:52 PM on May 16, 2004


It's not just linked...it appears to be his homepage.
posted by dash_slot- at 7:18 PM on May 16, 2004


Two things: saying something with the intent to piss someone off...surprise!...pisses them off. Also, "what they did is worse" is not a defense, it's an evasion. Are we done now?
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 8:05 PM on May 16, 2004


I think it's terrific how in a thread about 111 being an obnoxious asshole, SpaceCadet has managed to wrest the spotlight away to make the thread be about how SpaceCadet is an obnoxious asshole. Bravo, SpaceCadet!

Anyway, as it's been made more than clear, nuanced debate is impossible on Metafilter - too many literalists here.

Well, it's impossible to some, apparently. Are you trying to say that we all mistakenly took the Pink-Blue thing "literally?" It was the example you chose to show how wrong feminism is re: nature vs. nurture, when it happens to be a case of exactly the opposite. This doesn't mean that all of your arguments are that ridiculous, of course. But since that one was, it deserved a heapin' helpin' of ridicule.
posted by soyjoy at 8:41 PM on May 16, 2004


Thank you for the backhanded compliment, dhoyt, I guess, but I must clarify for what seems the eleventy-thousandth time : I don't hate Americans, I hate America. And little puppies, and apple pie, and mom too!

Well, OK, not mom.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:33 PM on May 16, 2004


This doesn't mean that all of your arguments are that ridiculous

Thank you, but I'd also throw my assertion that feminists rely on the only-nurture-nothing-nature observation onto the not-so-ridiculous list of comments I have made. LittleMissCranky seems to think this is my view (confusing me with a feminist? That's a first here).

For all those who have chosen to argue against a strawman version of what I've been saying, I mentioned many, many times that this is not an either/or argument.

I think it's terrific how in a thread about 111 being an obnoxious asshole, SpaceCadet has managed to wrest the spotlight away to make the thread be about how SpaceCadet is an obnoxious asshole. Bravo, SpaceCadet!

And you just contributed to it. Bravo!

I'm off on my travels for the next two months. Norton, you'll just have to find another reason to post here.
posted by SpaceCadet at 1:59 AM on May 17, 2004


Third, the fact that it's an unpopular issue in MeFi is another matter altogether, and I'm 100 % indifferent to it.
Face it, your wording in the post made it a worthless post as Matt has replied, bravo trolling.
posted by thomcatspike at 9:33 AM on May 17, 2004


Actually SpaceCadet, I'd call your attack a strawman against feminism. But then you've been down the Dave Sim line of thought on that topic for so long it's pointless to address it in detail.
posted by john at 9:47 AM on May 17, 2004


LittleMissCranky seems to think this is my view (confusing me with a feminist? That's a first here).

Heh. Happily, I think that it's pretty clear exactly who is the confused party.
posted by LittleMissCranky at 10:02 AM on May 17, 2004


LittleMissCranky's link is NSFW.

111 is a hateful person and probably a troll as well. However, there is some value to having him/her around. His/her views unfortunately represent a large number of Americans' (and others') views and it's important to be reminded of that. amberglow, I understand your point, but I would argue that racists and antisemites shouldn't necessarily be excluded from mefi either.

Allowing free speech to the KKK works well in America. I don't see why it wouldn't work on MeFi.
posted by callmejay at 10:19 AM on May 17, 2004


111 is a hateful person and probably a troll as well.
If she understands Morrissey's songs, how hateful could she be?
posted by thomcatspike at 12:14 PM on May 17, 2004


So if medical consequences has everyone upset, can we not see the progress this society has made.

Well said, clavdivs, surprised nobody commented on it.

I'm a little late to the dogpile, but the comments in both threads were a combination of this and this, creating possibly a third category. Insulting fellow MetaFilter members is far more MetaTalk worthy than a controversial post, unless the group disagrees or doesn't "like" him, obviously.

Hama7 wishes ill the Reds

Too true, but actually it's the commie ideology that I despise because of its "fanatical certainty of itself, its messianic zeal, and its brutal intolerance of dissent", to partially quote J.W. Fulbright.

For its fanatical disciples I reserve a bilious, reluctant pity.
posted by hama7 at 1:29 PM on May 17, 2004


When I get back online later this year, I'm moving my thoughts on feminism to the iFeminist's forum - more sense to be spoken there, kindred spirits both male and female - nuanced debate from both "sides" - a breath of fresh air. I might even call myself an iFeminist (I agree with a lot of their views - not bad for a "misogynist"*).

Enjoy the echo chamber MeFi people!
posted by SpaceCadet at 2:02 PM on May 17, 2004


So, you have nothing substantial or cogent to add them, hama7?
posted by dash_slot- at 2:28 PM on May 17, 2004


*then*
posted by dash_slot- at 2:30 PM on May 17, 2004


Let me get this straight. You, SpcaeCadet, are leaving because people here won't do what you want (share your view, have "nuanced" debate over whatever lunacy gets thrown on the table like a slab of rotting fish, and we aren't your kindred spirits (in other words, most of don't care about your obsession over a particular issue)) ... and yet we live in an echo chamber? SpaceCadet, if your saying that you're taking your dated worn-out toys that nobody else wants to play with and going home, then all I can say is ...







*Eh*
posted by Wulfgar! at 2:33 PM on May 17, 2004


Insulting fellow MetaFilter members is far more MetaTalk worthy than a controversial post, unless the group disagrees or doesn't "like" him, obviously.

Once again, a complete false dichotomy. The post itself was MetaTalk worthy precisely because it was an insult (almost by admission of the author) against other MeFi members, whom he considers to be homolefties. I think you need to clue in to some of SpaceCadet's cherished nuance there, hama7.
posted by Wulfgar! at 2:38 PM on May 17, 2004


SpaceCadet, I'm curious -- why exactly did you change the link on your user page?
posted by LittleMissCranky at 2:42 PM on May 17, 2004


Enjoy the echo chamber silence MeFi people!
We do, we read your comments.
posted by thomcatspike at 3:04 PM on May 17, 2004


Dammit, SpaceCadet, if you're going to leave in a huff we deserve the courtesy of a blistering farewell MeTa post in which you insult MeFites past and present, lay bare the trauma of your soul, and rant bitterly about how persecuted you've been. Then we can all mock you and each other for a couple of hundred comments, getting all our bile out of our system and leaving MeFi a cleaner, healthier place for at least a couple of weeks. This sulky deep-in-a-thread departure is a big disappointment.

On a brighter note, don't let the door hit you in the ass!
posted by languagehat at 5:31 PM on May 17, 2004


However, for the most part, the thread is less about the links than about mob character assassination.

What more is there to say?

So, you have nothing substantial or cogent to add then, hama7?

The private behavior of individuals is none of my business, but I fail to see how two links (one accurate or not from the FRI) generated such a firestorm.
posted by hama7 at 6:08 PM on May 17, 2004




I don't agree with 111's views as expressed in that thread, but he's hardly acting like a dirtbag, or even trolling. He's expressing an unpopular point of view, and he's not backing down just because a lot of people are having an emotional reaction. And he seems to be doing a lot less name-calling (if any) than is being done to him.
posted by bingo at 9:31 PM on May 17, 2004


Bingo, seconded.
posted by dflemingdotorg at 6:33 AM on May 18, 2004


True, and I don't blame 111 so much as I blame the people who insist on responding and adding fuel to the fire. From the thread:

Our best tactic is to test his/her opinions with logic

No, our best tactic is to ignore him/her/it. Talking back to 111 is worse than a waste of time and energy; it's contributing to the degeneration of any thread in which it occurs. I'm not trying to stop anybody from saying whatever they want, I just don't understand what people get out of it.
posted by languagehat at 8:21 AM on May 18, 2004


I just don't understand what people get out of it.

Teeny little shots of adrenaline.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 8:56 AM on May 18, 2004


OK, y'know I'm not sure about that because I think that dialogue is essential in overcoming conflict.

On the other hand, I think he is beyond listening and changing his/her mind - is 111 really a troll?

So the jury is kinda out, on the best way of dealing with the issue. If everyone tried to boycott his/her stuff, I would probably join in, however the readership is greater than he/r alone, and the prejudices are widely held in the Staes as well as elsewhere. Just because we have, as a group, a preponderance of liberal beliefs, does not mean we shouldn't consider the opposition.

I don't want a comfortable safe middle age - I want my views challenged head on, and I need to justify my beliefs.

After all, isn't that what I want from 111?
posted by dash_slot- at 9:04 AM on May 18, 2004


...the prejudices are widely held in the *States* as well as elsewhere...
posted by dash_slot- at 9:06 AM on May 18, 2004


If everyone tried to boycott his/her stuff, I would probably join in

Even if we all agreed just to not be the first person to respond to 111, there'd be no more thread-derailment from him.
posted by soyjoy at 10:02 AM on May 18, 2004


I have finished trying to reason with 111, at least for the time being. The latest slew of insults show he/r thoughts as cynical as ever. It's a sad story, but there ya go.
posted by dash_slot- at 3:01 PM on May 18, 2004


dash and others, some of us feel you don't let lies and slurs stand, to be further perpetuated. He doesn't read the links people post in response to his shit, so why take his "dialogue" (which it's not) seriously?
posted by amberglow at 3:06 PM on May 18, 2004


Well, it's clear from my posts in the other thread, if not here, that I was not allowing lies past me unchallenged.

I feel s/he's not worth the time spent arguing now.
posted by dash_slot- at 4:00 PM on May 18, 2004


dash and others, some of us feel you don't let lies and slurs stand, to be further perpetuated. He doesn't read the links people post in response to his shit, so why take his "dialogue" (which it's not) seriously?

You took it very seriously amberglow, and argued for his banning for the entirety of this thread.
posted by Krrrlson at 11:36 PM on May 18, 2004


I also always post links in response to his hateful shit, Krrrlson, and have seen this odious behavior go on for too long. I want him banned, but have learned that matt thinks it's ok, which sucks.

Again, If 111 was spouting racist things similar to what he says about gays, he'd have been gone immediately.
posted by amberglow at 9:02 AM on May 19, 2004


« Older Did font sizes in the blue change?   |   AskMe feedbacks on design Newer »

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