How about less Michael Moore posts? June 27, 2004 12:36 PM Subscribe
Can we shut the hell up with the Michael Moore posts? Whaddya say, team?
no.
posted by Keyser Soze at 12:57 PM on June 27, 2004
posted by Keyser Soze at 12:57 PM on June 27, 2004
chunking express: at least shut the hell up is slightly different from calling a moritorium.
posted by thebabelfish at 12:57 PM on June 27, 2004
posted by thebabelfish at 12:57 PM on June 27, 2004
How about a sidebar link? That way, we'd have one central location in which to point out what a condescending hype-driven fat rich phony sub-par documentarian he is! ;)
posted by dhoyt at 1:04 PM on June 27, 2004
posted by dhoyt at 1:04 PM on June 27, 2004
All the wild eyed liberals are destroying Mefi, just like they are destroying America.
posted by Keyser Soze at 1:15 PM on June 27, 2004
posted by Keyser Soze at 1:15 PM on June 27, 2004
I think the level of MeFitorial rhetoric has taken a step in the right direction with xmutex's decision not to post "shut the up."
posted by wendell at 1:23 PM on June 27, 2004
posted by wendell at 1:23 PM on June 27, 2004
I call a Moore-a-torium!
posted by PrinceValium at 1:27 PM on June 27, 2004
posted by PrinceValium at 1:27 PM on June 27, 2004
I have a pony request!
Matt, can we please have MeFi and MeTa send an electrocuting shock through the user's keyboard when they attempt to post to either forum?
This way, we'll have only truly important stuff being posted. No more idiotic whingefesting in MeTa, no more idiotic poli-posts in MeFi.
Pretty please?!
posted by five fresh fish at 1:33 PM on June 27, 2004
Matt, can we please have MeFi and MeTa send an electrocuting shock through the user's keyboard when they attempt to post to either forum?
This way, we'll have only truly important stuff being posted. No more idiotic whingefesting in MeTa, no more idiotic poli-posts in MeFi.
Pretty please?!
posted by five fresh fish at 1:33 PM on June 27, 2004
I get it - a -a-torium! Funny.
posted by Quartermass at 1:34 PM on June 27, 2004
posted by Quartermass at 1:34 PM on June 27, 2004
How about a moritorium on shitty posts? That would take care of the post in question.
posted by Space Coyote at 1:42 PM on June 27, 2004
posted by Space Coyote at 1:42 PM on June 27, 2004
It must be the heat. We get like this every summer, didja notice?
posted by WolfDaddy at 2:13 PM on June 27, 2004
posted by WolfDaddy at 2:13 PM on June 27, 2004
Can we shut the hell up with people posting MetaTalk threads asking people to shut the hell up.
Seconded!
posted by rushmc at 3:01 PM on June 27, 2004
Seconded!
posted by rushmc at 3:01 PM on June 27, 2004
Well. That was annoying. There was me making snarky comments about the Michael Moore posts, whilst at the same time constructively instructing the Metafilter Massive on the taxonomy of North American Herbs, and BAMMM! No more post. I feel like the little kid at the back of the classroom making the same bad joke over & over because everybody refuses to listen.
posted by seanyboy at 3:04 PM on June 27, 2004
posted by seanyboy at 3:04 PM on June 27, 2004
(You know, I haven't seen a blink tag in literally years. And just like a Rick Astley song or someone trying to look fashionable in painter's pants, I totally forgot how annoying they were. It's kind of funny, actually. Thanks!)
Two weeks from now, maybe a month at the most, something else will be really annoying, and there'll be no more Moore crap with the attendant whining to obscure it. And maybe something Moore-related will come up, and someone will post an FPP about it with a token apology, and two or three people will throw up their hands and yell oh no not again, and the rest of us might be able to have a decent discussion about it in spite of ourselves.
I'm just wading through all the different threads of sludge and seeing how temporary the angst is. Unclench, everyone. Hatred may last, but rage comes and goes. Go outside. It's a beautiful day. Don't let it get away.
posted by chicobangs at 3:16 PM on June 27, 2004
Two weeks from now, maybe a month at the most, something else will be really annoying, and there'll be no more Moore crap with the attendant whining to obscure it. And maybe something Moore-related will come up, and someone will post an FPP about it with a token apology, and two or three people will throw up their hands and yell oh no not again, and the rest of us might be able to have a decent discussion about it in spite of ourselves.
I'm just wading through all the different threads of sludge and seeing how temporary the angst is. Unclench, everyone. Hatred may last, but rage comes and goes. Go outside. It's a beautiful day. Don't let it get away.
posted by chicobangs at 3:16 PM on June 27, 2004
It is a nice day.
posted by Keyser Soze at 3:54 PM on June 27, 2004
posted by Keyser Soze at 3:54 PM on June 27, 2004
Poof! It is gone. Thank you Matt.
However, this comment from the thread seems to me to be an out of bounds personal attack:
Top 10 reasons not to like Sonserae:
10.> She makes statements with no attribution.
9.> Her smile.
8.> She's on the leadership committee for Media Fellowship International, a Christian advocacy group that courts politicians and tries to impose their beliefs upon Hollywood.
7.> She's a Freeper.
6.> She made a post to trash Moore there.
5.> ...and left most of the comments, too.
4.> ... In which she used the word "bloviated" and the phrase "Moore hates everybody".
3.> She's a supposed Christian, who has no problem calling Moore a "BIG, FAT P.O.S." and a "whore".
2.> She's got a wooden leg, with a kickstand.
And the #1 reason to dislike Sonserae...!
1.> She helped to bring us Gigli.
posted by insomnia_lj at 5:30 PM EST on June 27
This would be a good forum for an apology if you are listening insomnia_lj.
posted by caddis at 4:50 PM on June 27, 2004
However, this comment from the thread seems to me to be an out of bounds personal attack:
Top 10 reasons not to like Sonserae:
10.> She makes statements with no attribution.
9.> Her smile.
8.> She's on the leadership committee for Media Fellowship International, a Christian advocacy group that courts politicians and tries to impose their beliefs upon Hollywood.
7.> She's a Freeper.
6.> She made a post to trash Moore there.
5.> ...and left most of the comments, too.
4.> ... In which she used the word "bloviated" and the phrase "Moore hates everybody".
3.> She's a supposed Christian, who has no problem calling Moore a "BIG, FAT P.O.S." and a "whore".
2.> She's got a wooden leg, with a kickstand.
And the #1 reason to dislike Sonserae...!
1.> She helped to bring us Gigli.
posted by insomnia_lj at 5:30 PM EST on June 27
This would be a good forum for an apology if you are listening insomnia_lj.
posted by caddis at 4:50 PM on June 27, 2004
Howzabout a moratorium on misspellings of 'moratorium'? [obligatory snark]
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:29 PM on June 27, 2004
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:29 PM on June 27, 2004
I agree with caddis - 9 and 2 were well out of line - insomnia_lj, fold your arms, sit in the corner, and don't move until the end of class....
posted by meech at 5:40 PM on June 27, 2004
posted by meech at 5:40 PM on June 27, 2004
While I agree with your sentiment, xmutex, "shut the hell up" is a pretty poor entre into any conversation about ettiquette or policy around here. Those who want respect give respect.
Thanks, the fire you left me, I just fell out of my chair.
posted by scarabic at 6:03 PM on June 27, 2004
Thanks, the fire you left me, I just fell out of my chair.
posted by scarabic at 6:03 PM on June 27, 2004
Thanks, the fire you left me, I just fell out of my chair.
Irony or Masonry?
posted by y2karl at 7:07 PM on June 27, 2004
Irony or Masonry?
posted by y2karl at 7:07 PM on June 27, 2004
Deleted foolishness with marquee tags.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:10 PM on June 27, 2004
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:10 PM on June 27, 2004
Hey, technically, isn't this thread a Michael Moore post?
posted by crunchland at 7:31 PM on June 27, 2004
posted by crunchland at 7:31 PM on June 27, 2004
It must be the heat. We get like this every summer, didja notice?
I always assumed it was because summer is when the unhirable students have more time for wasting time.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 8:05 PM on June 27, 2004
I always assumed it was because summer is when the unhirable students have more time for wasting time.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 8:05 PM on June 27, 2004
I agree with mischief, if we get rid of the personal attacks, what do we have left here? It'd be nothing but moratoriums.
posted by chunking express at 8:34 PM on June 27, 2004
posted by chunking express at 8:34 PM on June 27, 2004
I always assumed it was because summer is when the unhirable students have more time for wasting time.
*sobs:* guilty!
posted by The God Complex at 8:41 PM on June 27, 2004
I always thought peace was supposed to be pretty.
posted by birdherder at 9:08 PM on June 27, 2004
posted by birdherder at 9:08 PM on June 27, 2004
Yeah. I thought pretty was kindasorta what we were aiming for. Y'know, as a species.
posted by chicobangs at 9:14 PM on June 27, 2004
posted by chicobangs at 9:14 PM on June 27, 2004
You heard 'em: Pansies, hippies, dirt bags and freaks shut up and stay out of the way.
This isn't your father's "peace", mother fucker!
posted by The God Complex at 9:21 PM on June 27, 2004
This isn't your father's "peace", mother fucker!
posted by The God Complex at 9:21 PM on June 27, 2004
A: Apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order ... what have the Romans done for us?
B: Brought peace!
A: Oh... Peace! Shut up!
posted by scarabic at 12:02 AM on June 28, 2004
B: Brought peace!
A: Oh... Peace! Shut up!
posted by scarabic at 12:02 AM on June 28, 2004
we should have a crematorium on these posts.
posted by sgt.serenity at 3:05 AM on June 28, 2004
posted by sgt.serenity at 3:05 AM on June 28, 2004
Yeah. I thought pretty was kindasorta what we were aiming for. Y'know, as a species.
Since when? History is more or less one big bloodbath. I don't recall the "peace" thing being agreed on at any of the annual meetings.
Seriously, peace may be nice, but is there any actual proof that this is the actual "goal" of our species? Seems like the opposite is true.
posted by jonmc at 7:06 AM on June 28, 2004
Since when? History is more or less one big bloodbath. I don't recall the "peace" thing being agreed on at any of the annual meetings.
Seriously, peace may be nice, but is there any actual proof that this is the actual "goal" of our species? Seems like the opposite is true.
posted by jonmc at 7:06 AM on June 28, 2004
"Peace may be nice."
Hmm. Sounds like something even you (even! you!) naturally believe in, on a level possibly below consciousness.
Violence only happens when attempts at making peace break down. It just happens all the fucking time, which is why humanity is doomed as a species, which is why I drink.
posted by chicobangs at 7:20 AM on June 28, 2004
Hmm. Sounds like something even you (even! you!) naturally believe in, on a level possibly below consciousness.
Violence only happens when attempts at making peace break down. It just happens all the fucking time, which is why humanity is doomed as a species, which is why I drink.
posted by chicobangs at 7:20 AM on June 28, 2004
Hmm. Sounds like something even you (even! you!) naturally believe in, on a level possibly below consciousness.
"Believing in" is an appropriate phrase, since peace is a state that has never really existed in recorded history, so we have take any statements about peace on faith, like statements about anti-matter or something.
Violence only happens when attempts at making peace break down.
I was always under the impression that first came the violence, then came the attempts at making peace. Otherwise there'd really be no need for the peacemaking.
posted by jonmc at 7:25 AM on June 28, 2004
"Believing in" is an appropriate phrase, since peace is a state that has never really existed in recorded history, so we have take any statements about peace on faith, like statements about anti-matter or something.
Violence only happens when attempts at making peace break down.
I was always under the impression that first came the violence, then came the attempts at making peace. Otherwise there'd really be no need for the peacemaking.
posted by jonmc at 7:25 AM on June 28, 2004
Yep, because there would only be peace-having.
Which admittedly isn't as sexy a phrase. But hey, you can still wear the camo if it floats your proverbial battalion.
And I remember someone doing a research piece once and finding that through all of recorded history, there has been cumulatively something like 35 years' worth of time where there were no wars happening anywhere in the known world (definitions, as always, subject to change). I don't suspect we'll be adding to that total in our lifetimes, but fuck it, it's a good thing to try for.
The peace actually comes first. You don't start out pissed off. Something pisses you off, and then you pick up the rock.
posted by chicobangs at 7:36 AM on June 28, 2004
Which admittedly isn't as sexy a phrase. But hey, you can still wear the camo if it floats your proverbial battalion.
And I remember someone doing a research piece once and finding that through all of recorded history, there has been cumulatively something like 35 years' worth of time where there were no wars happening anywhere in the known world (definitions, as always, subject to change). I don't suspect we'll be adding to that total in our lifetimes, but fuck it, it's a good thing to try for.
The peace actually comes first. You don't start out pissed off. Something pisses you off, and then you pick up the rock.
posted by chicobangs at 7:36 AM on June 28, 2004
35 years' worth of time where there were no wars happening anywhere in the known world (definitions, as always, subject to change).
Wars between nations or civil wars within nations is not the only violence going on in the world.
And I'm not actually arguing with the idea of seeking peace or at least minimmizing bloodshed, just questioning some of the underlying assumptions.
posted by jonmc at 7:45 AM on June 28, 2004
Wars between nations or civil wars within nations is not the only violence going on in the world.
And I'm not actually arguing with the idea of seeking peace or at least minimmizing bloodshed, just questioning some of the underlying assumptions.
posted by jonmc at 7:45 AM on June 28, 2004
I just want to point out that the T-shirt for sale above isn't intended by its merchants to be satiric.
posted by Prospero at 8:35 AM on June 28, 2004
posted by Prospero at 8:35 AM on June 28, 2004
You don't start out pissed off.
Been in a delivery room lately?
posted by timeistight at 8:39 AM on June 28, 2004
Been in a delivery room lately?
posted by timeistight at 8:39 AM on June 28, 2004
I just want to point out that the T-shirt for sale above isn't intended by its merchants to be satiric.
Yeah, I know--that's why I included the link. The unintended irony is enough for me, though.
posted by The God Complex at 8:47 AM on June 28, 2004
Yeah, I know--that's why I included the link. The unintended irony is enough for me, though.
posted by The God Complex at 8:47 AM on June 28, 2004
Requesting self-control again?
Ha.
Hahahaha.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
*breath*
posted by darukaru at 9:51 AM on June 28, 2004
Ha.
Hahahaha.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
*breath*
posted by darukaru at 9:51 AM on June 28, 2004
klaatu barada nikto
posted by crunchland at 11:10 AM on June 28, 2004
posted by crunchland at 11:10 AM on June 28, 2004
However, this comment from the thread seems to me to be an out of bounds personal attack
I think Sonserae gave up her right to expect not to get flamed when she described Moore as a vile "sub-human" who is "in favor of mothers who intentionally kill their babies." Have at her.
posted by Fenriss at 2:28 PM on June 28, 2004
I think Sonserae gave up her right to expect not to get flamed when she described Moore as a vile "sub-human" who is "in favor of mothers who intentionally kill their babies." Have at her.
posted by Fenriss at 2:28 PM on June 28, 2004
well what if we called a sanatorium on these threads then ?
posted by sgt.serenity at 4:07 PM on June 28, 2004
posted by sgt.serenity at 4:07 PM on June 28, 2004
I'm with Caddis on this one. Insomnia_lj's comment was nothing but personal attack. An apology would be nice.
gave up her right to expect not to get flamed
Now that's a difficult sentence to understand. Are you sure you haven't given up your right to expect to write convoluted sentences. :)
Seriously, there's a difference between calling someone a name and showing round a photograph so everybody can laugh at it.
And I think she's hot.
And whilst I'm on the subject. Can we give up on the almost McCarthy-esque drubbing given whenever the MeFi Liberal Elite detect Republican blood? It's embarrasing, and it precludes proper conversation. Remember, God Hates a MonoCulture.
posted by seanyboy at 4:43 PM on June 28, 2004
gave up her right to expect not to get flamed
Now that's a difficult sentence to understand. Are you sure you haven't given up your right to expect to write convoluted sentences. :)
Seriously, there's a difference between calling someone a name and showing round a photograph so everybody can laugh at it.
And I think she's hot.
And whilst I'm on the subject. Can we give up on the almost McCarthy-esque drubbing given whenever the MeFi Liberal Elite detect Republican blood? It's embarrasing, and it precludes proper conversation. Remember, God Hates a MonoCulture.
posted by seanyboy at 4:43 PM on June 28, 2004
"Believing in" is an appropriate phrase, since peace is a state that has never really existed in recorded history, so we have take any statements about peace on faith, like statements about anti-matter or something.
Except that, anti-matter can be created, measured, and tampered with.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 5:25 PM on June 28, 2004
Except that, anti-matter can be created, measured, and tampered with.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 5:25 PM on June 28, 2004
I checked out Sonserae's site from her MeFi page, and can attest that her resume does proudly include graphic work for "Gigli", a movie which was not just bad cinema, but mean-spirited and morally indefensible. I can not substantiate any more of the insomniac's attacks, but #1 was valid (and relatively humorous).
posted by wendell at 6:02 PM on June 28, 2004
posted by wendell at 6:02 PM on June 28, 2004
"Believing in" is an appropriate phrase, since peace is a state that has never really existed in recorded history
Ridiculous. That's like saying health has never existed in your family if there's always one or two ill family members. There's peace everywhere you look. We're not talking about Santa Claus here. Millions upon millions upon millions know peace and experience it firsthand. Just because there are wars fought constantly somewhere, and even if one's own military has fought many of them, that doesn't mean that the people of, say, North America do not and cannot know what peace is from the experience of their own lives and hope to see it spread everywhere.
posted by George_Spiggott at 7:26 PM on June 28, 2004
Ridiculous. That's like saying health has never existed in your family if there's always one or two ill family members. There's peace everywhere you look. We're not talking about Santa Claus here. Millions upon millions upon millions know peace and experience it firsthand. Just because there are wars fought constantly somewhere, and even if one's own military has fought many of them, that doesn't mean that the people of, say, North America do not and cannot know what peace is from the experience of their own lives and hope to see it spread everywhere.
posted by George_Spiggott at 7:26 PM on June 28, 2004
Seriously, I don't know if I'd even admit to working on Gigli right now. Does anyone remember the key grip for Ishtar? No. I didn't think so.
And I think she's hot.
Wooden legs are always hot. With or without kickstands.
posted by octobersurprise at 7:28 PM on June 28, 2004
And I think she's hot.
Wooden legs are always hot. With or without kickstands.
posted by octobersurprise at 7:28 PM on June 28, 2004
Gigli contributor trashes Michael Moore. Film at...
Film at...
[I'm sorry]
Film at....
>snort!< BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!!
posted by scarabic at 9:09 PM on June 28, 2004
Film at...
[I'm sorry]
Film at....
>snort!< BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!!
posted by scarabic at 9:09 PM on June 28, 2004
Just because there are wars fought constantly somewhere, and even if one's own military has fought many of them, that doesn't mean that the people of, say, North America do not and cannot know what peace is from the experience of their own lives and hope to see it spread everywhere.
What?
That makes no sense. Besides wars faught among the military are not the only non-peaceful things going on my freind. There's always been warfare of some sort between lord & serf, employer & employee, crip & blood, Bonanno family vs. Gambino family, guys on this block versus guy on the next block, Tutsi & Hutu, Cherokee & Sioux, Croat & Serb. The sad fact is that agression and violence are as built into us as the the libido. We have it in varying degrees but we all have it. At least a couple times a day I'll bet your capable of physically fucking someone up beyond belief, whether it's the guy holding the subway door open, the slow driver in front of you, or the poster who pissed you off on MeFi. You think it's any accident that the self-avowed pacifists on MeFi use the most aggressive language? That aggression's gotta come out somewhere. To deny it is as dangerous as the puritan denial of sexuality.
The main differenc is that while sexuality can do damage (at the extreme, in rape, child molestation and the like and in more moderate doses the social harm of infidelty, broken families, fatherless kids etc), violence can do much more immediate and lethal harm. The key is putting that energy where it can do something positive, not wishful thinking for the day when we all have pacific, hate-free souls, cause that's never gonna happen.
posted by jonmc at 9:11 PM on June 28, 2004
What?
That makes no sense. Besides wars faught among the military are not the only non-peaceful things going on my freind. There's always been warfare of some sort between lord & serf, employer & employee, crip & blood, Bonanno family vs. Gambino family, guys on this block versus guy on the next block, Tutsi & Hutu, Cherokee & Sioux, Croat & Serb. The sad fact is that agression and violence are as built into us as the the libido. We have it in varying degrees but we all have it. At least a couple times a day I'll bet your capable of physically fucking someone up beyond belief, whether it's the guy holding the subway door open, the slow driver in front of you, or the poster who pissed you off on MeFi. You think it's any accident that the self-avowed pacifists on MeFi use the most aggressive language? That aggression's gotta come out somewhere. To deny it is as dangerous as the puritan denial of sexuality.
The main differenc is that while sexuality can do damage (at the extreme, in rape, child molestation and the like and in more moderate doses the social harm of infidelty, broken families, fatherless kids etc), violence can do much more immediate and lethal harm. The key is putting that energy where it can do something positive, not wishful thinking for the day when we all have pacific, hate-free souls, cause that's never gonna happen.
posted by jonmc at 9:11 PM on June 28, 2004
You think it's any accident that the self-avowed pacifists on MeFi use the most aggressive language?
Shit, no. But it is a more productive use of that energy (as opposed to destructive).
For example, I'd like to direct a little productive energy toward paraphrasing George Spiggot's illusions:
"Just because our peace is predicated on war doesn't mean me and my spawn can't enjoy a Sunday barbecue, and hope for the same 'peace' to be spread everywhere."
Whooo! Thats a fucking DUH-begging paradox if I ever heard one. How can peace predicated on remote war be spread everywhere? There won't be any remote locations to wage profitable war on anymore!
A nice fantasy. But take responsibility, chum. Wake up to wartime. The American Way is not some magical self-sustaining formula for a paradisical society. It's the triumph of the strong versus the weak. Your elected officials are blowing the arms and noses off of children so that your "peacetime" gas will cost you a little less. Either puff your chest and cry "acceptable losses" or fight with all your soul for a real, universally recognizeable peace.
Don't give me this NIMBY bullshit, you spineless, hypocritical cockass. You're not talking Santa Claus? How about the Easter Bunny?
posted by scarabic at 10:06 PM on June 28, 2004
Shit, no. But it is a more productive use of that energy (as opposed to destructive).
For example, I'd like to direct a little productive energy toward paraphrasing George Spiggot's illusions:
"Just because our peace is predicated on war doesn't mean me and my spawn can't enjoy a Sunday barbecue, and hope for the same 'peace' to be spread everywhere."
Whooo! Thats a fucking DUH-begging paradox if I ever heard one. How can peace predicated on remote war be spread everywhere? There won't be any remote locations to wage profitable war on anymore!
A nice fantasy. But take responsibility, chum. Wake up to wartime. The American Way is not some magical self-sustaining formula for a paradisical society. It's the triumph of the strong versus the weak. Your elected officials are blowing the arms and noses off of children so that your "peacetime" gas will cost you a little less. Either puff your chest and cry "acceptable losses" or fight with all your soul for a real, universally recognizeable peace.
Don't give me this NIMBY bullshit, you spineless, hypocritical cockass. You're not talking Santa Claus? How about the Easter Bunny?
posted by scarabic at 10:06 PM on June 28, 2004
I don't mean to take it all out on poor George Spiggot, but I do have a prickly spot for folks who think they can evade responsibility for the actions of their elected leaders, and disavow the foregin policy which makes their beloved standard of living possible.
There. What that more polite? Sorry, George.
posted by scarabic at 10:45 PM on June 28, 2004
There. What that more polite? Sorry, George.
posted by scarabic at 10:45 PM on June 28, 2004
"Was" that more polite.
Thank you. I'm here all week.
posted by scarabic at 10:48 PM on June 28, 2004
Thank you. I'm here all week.
posted by scarabic at 10:48 PM on June 28, 2004
Hey scarabic, let it all out. All done? Great. I'll skip the fun stuff as you clearly needed it, and move on to the last bit:
"I do have a prickly spot for folks who think they can evade responsibility for the actions of their elected leaders, and disavow the foregin policy which makes their beloved standard of living possible."
Except I did none of the above. Your anger is probably justified -- at someone -- but in order to find what I said a convenient target you had to do a lot more than read between the lines; you took what I said as exemplifying something you despise because you wanted to -- it wasn't in fact anything I did say.
My point was that people can and do have the personal experience of what it is to live in peace, and can seek to bring that to others. You seem quite certain that that peace is invariably bought through the suffering of others and that all those who share in that peace are knowledgeably complicit in that, or at best wilfully ignorant.
Fair enough. But it is not a lie to say that we do not have bullets whizzing over our heads (well, not in all municipalities), it is seriously atypical for our kids to get their limbs blown off. And it is not vile or a crime or complicit in anything to wish that for everyone, or seek to bring it to everyone.... rather the reverse I'd think.
posted by George_Spiggott at 10:58 PM on June 28, 2004
"I do have a prickly spot for folks who think they can evade responsibility for the actions of their elected leaders, and disavow the foregin policy which makes their beloved standard of living possible."
Except I did none of the above. Your anger is probably justified -- at someone -- but in order to find what I said a convenient target you had to do a lot more than read between the lines; you took what I said as exemplifying something you despise because you wanted to -- it wasn't in fact anything I did say.
My point was that people can and do have the personal experience of what it is to live in peace, and can seek to bring that to others. You seem quite certain that that peace is invariably bought through the suffering of others and that all those who share in that peace are knowledgeably complicit in that, or at best wilfully ignorant.
Fair enough. But it is not a lie to say that we do not have bullets whizzing over our heads (well, not in all municipalities), it is seriously atypical for our kids to get their limbs blown off. And it is not vile or a crime or complicit in anything to wish that for everyone, or seek to bring it to everyone.... rather the reverse I'd think.
posted by George_Spiggott at 10:58 PM on June 28, 2004
Just to relate that back to the post I was responding to; jonmc was saying that we can only regard peace as hypothetical because there's never been any such thing and we can have no idea what it's like. My point was that we can and do know what it's like, and therefore have no excuse for tolerating and even being responsible for its opposite.
Your point is that that peace is bought through the pain of others and it is only our muscle and our belligerent interference in and exploitation of others that makes our peace possible. That might even be true -- I'm sure there is much truth in it. But it is a different point. (as an aside, correlation isn't causation, and what you can't prove is that all peace in one place entirely depends on suffering in another place. But that isn't the point either.) If we stipulate that our peace is entirely ill-gotten, it still does not negate the experience of peace, the lessons of peace and the contrasts it makes possible. We have an awareness of the potentials of peace on the human condition born of personal experience -- which by the way, if anything increases our guilt when we're responsible for war. Someone who's never known peace can be more readily forgiven for making war than someone who's never known it. We have. We know exactly what peace is like. And therefore we have no excuse.
posted by George_Spiggott at 11:23 PM on June 28, 2004
Your point is that that peace is bought through the pain of others and it is only our muscle and our belligerent interference in and exploitation of others that makes our peace possible. That might even be true -- I'm sure there is much truth in it. But it is a different point. (as an aside, correlation isn't causation, and what you can't prove is that all peace in one place entirely depends on suffering in another place. But that isn't the point either.) If we stipulate that our peace is entirely ill-gotten, it still does not negate the experience of peace, the lessons of peace and the contrasts it makes possible. We have an awareness of the potentials of peace on the human condition born of personal experience -- which by the way, if anything increases our guilt when we're responsible for war. Someone who's never known peace can be more readily forgiven for making war than someone who's never known it. We have. We know exactly what peace is like. And therefore we have no excuse.
posted by George_Spiggott at 11:23 PM on June 28, 2004
Well then, enjoy your localized peace, George. As long as you can. I'm not trying to tell you that the people who come and sing Christmas carols in front of your house are actually evil, I'm just asking you to look at the big picture of the nation you belong to.
I myself have spoken out against this awar from the beginning. I've protested, written, etc, etc. But I have never for one second tried to evade responsibility for it. If my vote didn't have the impact I wanted, I still considered it my duty as an American to defy the imperialist impulse in my government, and I continue to do so. I would never have the gall to stand before an Iraqi and say it wasn't really part of my life, because it all happened so far away. I do actually meet Iraqis in my everyday life. I don't know about you. Out of sight, out of mind, perhaps?
I think I can hear a note of what you mean to say. You, yourself, have lived in peace on a plot of land for some years. You think you know what it means to live in harmony with the earth there, hurting no one. And you don't want anyone to swoop in and tell you you're evil. But I ask you: how long have you been there? How many generations? Who lived there before you? Did some act of war clear the way for you to replace them?
Most Americans don't place a great value on their roots and ancestors. Our culture is all about what we can do for ourselves, how far we can climb in one single generation. but I ask you to consider whether your own desire to climb, without regard for past generations, makes you an amoral materialist. Wake up and smell the napalm! Do you not see the links between our foreign policy and our government? Are you so naive you really think it's about WMD?
Ask yourself, in all your family-oriented, peace-loving nature: are you the heart of America's foreign policy, or just its beneficiary? It's a bloody policy by all accounts. Ask yourself if you really have no impact on that policy, if you never vote, if you never pay taxes, if you never buy gasoline. Ask yourself before your children grow and ask you themselves. You're more implicated that you think.
You seem like a good peace-minded individual, and I hate to bludgeon you with the same club I use against true hawks, but there's little difference between perpetrating an act, and making a living from its consequences. Your little peace bubble is burst, friend, and I didn't burst it. Look around you. Act, or withdraw, but don't spin me nice fantasies about the way you wish it were, and what a good person you are for wishing that.
Life is too short.
posted by scarabic at 11:25 PM on June 28, 2004
I myself have spoken out against this awar from the beginning. I've protested, written, etc, etc. But I have never for one second tried to evade responsibility for it. If my vote didn't have the impact I wanted, I still considered it my duty as an American to defy the imperialist impulse in my government, and I continue to do so. I would never have the gall to stand before an Iraqi and say it wasn't really part of my life, because it all happened so far away. I do actually meet Iraqis in my everyday life. I don't know about you. Out of sight, out of mind, perhaps?
I think I can hear a note of what you mean to say. You, yourself, have lived in peace on a plot of land for some years. You think you know what it means to live in harmony with the earth there, hurting no one. And you don't want anyone to swoop in and tell you you're evil. But I ask you: how long have you been there? How many generations? Who lived there before you? Did some act of war clear the way for you to replace them?
Most Americans don't place a great value on their roots and ancestors. Our culture is all about what we can do for ourselves, how far we can climb in one single generation. but I ask you to consider whether your own desire to climb, without regard for past generations, makes you an amoral materialist. Wake up and smell the napalm! Do you not see the links between our foreign policy and our government? Are you so naive you really think it's about WMD?
Ask yourself, in all your family-oriented, peace-loving nature: are you the heart of America's foreign policy, or just its beneficiary? It's a bloody policy by all accounts. Ask yourself if you really have no impact on that policy, if you never vote, if you never pay taxes, if you never buy gasoline. Ask yourself before your children grow and ask you themselves. You're more implicated that you think.
You seem like a good peace-minded individual, and I hate to bludgeon you with the same club I use against true hawks, but there's little difference between perpetrating an act, and making a living from its consequences. Your little peace bubble is burst, friend, and I didn't burst it. Look around you. Act, or withdraw, but don't spin me nice fantasies about the way you wish it were, and what a good person you are for wishing that.
Life is too short.
posted by scarabic at 11:25 PM on June 28, 2004
Scarabic, you read everything through a filter of your personal stereotypes, and don't see anything you don't expect to see. If you read nothing else with any real attention, try to focus in and read the last couple of sentences of my last comment. Shit, just read any of it. Your characterization of me as something just shy of a "True hawk" is something you cooked up because you have a simplistic notion of goodies and baddies, and if the right code words are missing from any given utterance you assume the speaker must be one of "them", and then respond with all the anger you've stored up for "them" -- you make massive and utterly false assumptions because, well, you want to. You're responding to things I haven't said or even implied and certainly don't think. I could sit here and swap liberal credentials with you, but what's the point. Life, as you say, is too short.
posted by George_Spiggott at 11:35 PM on June 28, 2004
posted by George_Spiggott at 11:35 PM on June 28, 2004
If we stipulate that our peace is entirely ill-gotten, it still does not negate the experience of peace
Okay, perhaps, semantically, but it does negate your *definition* of peace. You, sir, may live so far removed from the consequences of our policy, and with such blithe self-love as to be able to divorce your Sunday barbecues from it. I don't know what else I can do except point out to you that, beyond you, beyond me, beyond the both of us and this stupid thread, all of which are knocking at your door: the frickin' reality it's all based on is knocking at your door.
Your choosing not to answer is not an act of peace. It is an act of denial. I would rather you at least answered the door and argued. Sitting there and saying "hey, my life is pretty peaceful" is perhaps the most disgusting, selfish, withdrawn thing you can do. If you want to withdraw, withdraw Log off and cut your ties.. I am not going to grant you moral permission not to care, no matter how long this thread goes on.
jonmc is right about history. And history is not just a channel on your TV. It's the ground under your feet.
posted by scarabic at 11:40 PM on June 28, 2004
Okay, perhaps, semantically, but it does negate your *definition* of peace. You, sir, may live so far removed from the consequences of our policy, and with such blithe self-love as to be able to divorce your Sunday barbecues from it. I don't know what else I can do except point out to you that, beyond you, beyond me, beyond the both of us and this stupid thread, all of which are knocking at your door: the frickin' reality it's all based on is knocking at your door.
Your choosing not to answer is not an act of peace. It is an act of denial. I would rather you at least answered the door and argued. Sitting there and saying "hey, my life is pretty peaceful" is perhaps the most disgusting, selfish, withdrawn thing you can do. If you want to withdraw, withdraw Log off and cut your ties.. I am not going to grant you moral permission not to care, no matter how long this thread goes on.
jonmc is right about history. And history is not just a channel on your TV. It's the ground under your feet.
posted by scarabic at 11:40 PM on June 28, 2004
Scarabic, you still didn't read the last few sentences and you still ignore my point. I'll digress momentarily and I will tout my liberal credentials after all. I have marched for peace, I have actively supported candidates who vote for peace and actively opposed candidates who voted for war. I have donated food and money to activist organizations that promote peace -- within the last week. Spare me the holier-than-thou crap, and I don't own a barbecue. You insist on missing my point because you want to make your point, and I provided a convenient target. Learn to read.
posted by George_Spiggott at 11:45 PM on June 28, 2004
posted by George_Spiggott at 11:45 PM on June 28, 2004
George, we are now officially out of timing sync with our comments. I beg your pardon, but we clearly arent' getting a chance to completely read each post before responding. We're one step out of sync.
your characterization of me as something just shy of a "True hawk" is something you cooked up because you have a simplistic notion of goodies and baddies,
Excuse me, but I said:
You seem like a good peace-minded individual
George, I am *not* lumping you in with the warriors in this culture. I am simply reminding you that you can't sit idly by, thinking you are part of a culture of peace. I too, would love to be there, barbecueing with you. The whole reason I'm pissed at our leadership is: I can't. This isn't peacetime.
And Iraq is not the beginning. Take the Cold War, Vietnam, the Civil War, and the Native Americans, just as examples. This country was founded on, and continues to sustain itself on war. There is no peace in this culture.
Peace-loving people like you and me keep fighting this crap, hoping that we can achieve a state of justice, stability, and peace that lasts longer than a weekend. I'd rather be growing tomatoes and making pesto and brewing beer and having friends over for dinner and talking about something other than who we've killed this month to make it all possible.
But we simply can't enjoy your peace as long as others are suffering for it. I'd love to be there with you, but I can't. True peace is based on extremely solid leadership, a well-educated citizenry, a long history of respect with ones peers and neighbors,and... did I mention solid leadership? We just don't have any of that. If we ever have, it hasn't lasted.
How can we possibly be arguing about whether we know peace or not? We're one of the most bloodthirsty empires in history!
posted by scarabic at 11:55 PM on June 28, 2004
your characterization of me as something just shy of a "True hawk" is something you cooked up because you have a simplistic notion of goodies and baddies,
Excuse me, but I said:
You seem like a good peace-minded individual
George, I am *not* lumping you in with the warriors in this culture. I am simply reminding you that you can't sit idly by, thinking you are part of a culture of peace. I too, would love to be there, barbecueing with you. The whole reason I'm pissed at our leadership is: I can't. This isn't peacetime.
And Iraq is not the beginning. Take the Cold War, Vietnam, the Civil War, and the Native Americans, just as examples. This country was founded on, and continues to sustain itself on war. There is no peace in this culture.
Peace-loving people like you and me keep fighting this crap, hoping that we can achieve a state of justice, stability, and peace that lasts longer than a weekend. I'd rather be growing tomatoes and making pesto and brewing beer and having friends over for dinner and talking about something other than who we've killed this month to make it all possible.
But we simply can't enjoy your peace as long as others are suffering for it. I'd love to be there with you, but I can't. True peace is based on extremely solid leadership, a well-educated citizenry, a long history of respect with ones peers and neighbors,and... did I mention solid leadership? We just don't have any of that. If we ever have, it hasn't lasted.
How can we possibly be arguing about whether we know peace or not? We're one of the most bloodthirsty empires in history!
posted by scarabic at 11:55 PM on June 28, 2004
One. Last. Time.
We do not have the excuse that "the world has never known peace." We know quite well what it is, because we personally have experienced it. Therefore we have no excuse for inflicting its opposite on others.
Again with the barbecue. You really don't read, do you.
posted by George_Spiggott at 11:59 PM on June 28, 2004
We do not have the excuse that "the world has never known peace." We know quite well what it is, because we personally have experienced it. Therefore we have no excuse for inflicting its opposite on others.
Again with the barbecue. You really don't read, do you.
posted by George_Spiggott at 11:59 PM on June 28, 2004
Okay. I can tell I've offended you so much that you aren't really in the spirit of this debate. I give you points for lasting this long. The *barbecue* is a figure of speech. I don't own one either. Yeesh.
I *have* heard your fundamental argument, which is that we can talk about peace, because we do know what it is, andI still disagree. I've been telling you why since the beginning.
The most I'd be willing to admit is that the only periods of "peace" our global history has ever seen were founded on a period of overhwhelming military dominance on the part of a superpower (the Romans, for example). This is obviously what we have now, and I don't really call it "peace." I call it stability, but I still hope for something more.
If you're content to filet, bake, fry, or whatever it is you do to your food on the weekends, under cover of that imperial stability, I wish you well. But it's not "knowing peace." I encourage you to aspire for more.
posted by scarabic at 12:04 AM on June 29, 2004
I *have* heard your fundamental argument, which is that we can talk about peace, because we do know what it is, andI still disagree. I've been telling you why since the beginning.
The most I'd be willing to admit is that the only periods of "peace" our global history has ever seen were founded on a period of overhwhelming military dominance on the part of a superpower (the Romans, for example). This is obviously what we have now, and I don't really call it "peace." I call it stability, but I still hope for something more.
If you're content to filet, bake, fry, or whatever it is you do to your food on the weekends, under cover of that imperial stability, I wish you well. But it's not "knowing peace." I encourage you to aspire for more.
posted by scarabic at 12:04 AM on June 29, 2004
*Sigh*. You didn't read the part about actively working to promote peace. And by the way, there ain't a lot you can tell me about who we slaughtered to get this land we barbecue on (or would if we had barbecues), I have a closer relationship to those matters than you might expect -- I even helped produce (pro bono) a documentary about the ongoing and sometimes lethal exploitation of Native Americans by corporate interests with the active collusion of our government. You want to stay on your ad hominem thesis that I'm a complacent bastard who enjoys the peace that others bought him and does not "aspire for more". Good on yer. Enjoy your fantasy of moral superiority. It's easy when you ignore what someone's actdually saying, isn't it? And I think this has probably gone on long enough. My email's in my profile.
posted by George_Spiggott at 12:12 AM on June 29, 2004
posted by George_Spiggott at 12:12 AM on June 29, 2004
And I have this amusing image of the wingers snickering up their sleeves, going, "I love it when the pinkolefties have these hissy fights -- it just makes it too damn easy!"
posted by George_Spiggott at 12:21 AM on June 29, 2004
posted by George_Spiggott at 12:21 AM on June 29, 2004
email forthcoming, if only to deny them the pleasure.
posted by scarabic at 12:27 AM on June 29, 2004
posted by scarabic at 12:27 AM on June 29, 2004
Oh, but wait! We could have a cage match for Cheney's amusement! I hear he likes that sort of thing. I can just see him with laurels on his head, thumbs up or thumbs down to the victor.
More seriously, this is why the Right wins elections so often. They're much better at pretending their differences don't exist. Lefties eviscerate each other; we're talking nasty here. I've seen it all my life. Geez, read the comments on indymedia sometime. It's enough to make you weep.
posted by George_Spiggott at 12:39 AM on June 29, 2004
More seriously, this is why the Right wins elections so often. They're much better at pretending their differences don't exist. Lefties eviscerate each other; we're talking nasty here. I've seen it all my life. Geez, read the comments on indymedia sometime. It's enough to make you weep.
posted by George_Spiggott at 12:39 AM on June 29, 2004
Well, George, don't underestimate my personal connection to the issues either. You can think we're alike, but you may be guessing wrong. I'm done eviscerating, but I do freqently find more reward in girding and testing lefties than I do in shooting spitballs at conservatives. You've characterized my whole argument as an ad hominem, but in fact, even if I do embrace you as a good lefty brother, I may still have a thing or two to say to you.
posted by scarabic at 12:44 AM on June 29, 2004
posted by scarabic at 12:44 AM on June 29, 2004
Some of us like to watch, dg.
posted by orange swan at 6:43 AM on June 29, 2004
posted by orange swan at 6:43 AM on June 29, 2004
Now that's a difficult sentence to understand. Are you sure you haven't given up your right to expect to write convoluted sentences.
Ah. A grammar flame. Really, the height of class.
Speaking only for myself, constructive discourse with folks on the right is always welcome. Sonserae is clearly not looking for constructive discourse.
posted by Fenriss at 7:10 AM on June 29, 2004
Ah. A grammar flame. Really, the height of class.
Speaking only for myself, constructive discourse with folks on the right is always welcome. Sonserae is clearly not looking for constructive discourse.
posted by Fenriss at 7:10 AM on June 29, 2004
I'm done eviscerating, but I do freqently find more reward in girding and testing lefties than I do in shooting spitballs at conservatives.
Me too. The lefties cry when you pinch 'em, which makes it more entertaining.
posted by jonmc at 7:14 AM on June 29, 2004
Me too. The lefties cry when you pinch 'em, which makes it more entertaining.
posted by jonmc at 7:14 AM on June 29, 2004
Hey - I put a smiley face on that Grammar flame to highlight the fact joking I was.
Sonserae is clearly not looking for constructive discourse..
Well the bitch obviously deserves everything she gets then. What say we get a mob and some pitchforks together, and go deal out some justice "Salem Style".
posted by seanyboy at 7:46 AM on June 29, 2004
Sonserae is clearly not looking for constructive discourse..
Well the bitch obviously deserves everything she gets then. What say we get a mob and some pitchforks together, and go deal out some justice "Salem Style".
posted by seanyboy at 7:46 AM on June 29, 2004
He is also a big Yankees fan.
Well, now I'm convinced. He is evil.
posted by jonmc at 8:08 AM on June 29, 2004
Well, now I'm convinced. He is evil.
posted by jonmc at 8:08 AM on June 29, 2004
scarabic, seriously, you're coming off as a complete jerk here, however proud you may be of your dialectical heroism. You remind me of the leftier-than-thou, taking-showers-is-bourgeois, all-whites-are-racist-and-no-blacks-are dingbats I knew in college who convinced me taking a particular political position is no guarantee of good sense or virtue. Do you really think you're doing your cause any good by savaging George_Spiggott? You're clearly having fun, but that's not really the same thing.
posted by languagehat at 8:36 AM on June 29, 2004
posted by languagehat at 8:36 AM on June 29, 2004
Life is too short.
posted by scarabic
Too short to waste on hair-splitting debates on the precise definition of "peace". In fact, you and George are getting a bill from me for the five minutes I wasted just scanning most of this thread and writing this.
posted by wendell at 8:52 AM on June 29, 2004
posted by scarabic
Too short to waste on hair-splitting debates on the precise definition of "peace". In fact, you and George are getting a bill from me for the five minutes I wasted just scanning most of this thread and writing this.
posted by wendell at 8:52 AM on June 29, 2004
You're right, languagehat. I had a very small point to make: that being on the winning end of a war is not the same thing as peace. I misinterpreted George Spiggot's disagreement with that for apathy.
posted by scarabic at 9:06 AM on June 29, 2004
posted by scarabic at 9:06 AM on June 29, 2004
Only on metafilter does my whimsical link to a hilarious shirt turn into a boring debate of the finer points of peace and all its trappings.
posted by The God Complex at 9:21 AM on June 29, 2004
posted by The God Complex at 9:21 AM on June 29, 2004
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by chunking express at 12:52 PM on June 27, 2004