Pissing on Ask Metafilter

February 9, 2005 1:10 PM

"Pissing on AskMeFi": pissing on AskMeFi. Keep it off the green.
posted by Eamon to Etiquette/Policy at 1:10 PM (62 comments total)

Comments that only complain about their antecedents never improve threads.
posted by Eamon at 1:11 PM on February 9, 2005

I'm not sure who you're calling out? Are you saying you agree with LanguageHat, or are you saying he should have posted his complaint in MetaTalk?
posted by chaz at 1:18 PM on February 9, 2005

Sounds like both to me.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 1:20 PM on February 9, 2005

[Off-topic: question from a newbie: should there be a link from the green to this thread?]
posted by mlis at 1:23 PM on February 9, 2005

MLIS: I would think yes. And it's not off-topic, it goes to the heart of this issue.

This is an argument we've had many times before: Should call-outs occur in the thread or in MetaTalk? Personally, I think the answer is both, in different ways. If it's simply a comment getting people back on track, it's fine in the thread. If there's something more egregious to discuss, bring it to the Grey. No different in AskMe than in MeFi proper.
posted by me3dia at 1:30 PM on February 9, 2005

Careful now: if it wasn't for pissing on things, we wouldn't have Warhol's Oxidation series.

Most of my "delete on preview" non-comments on Askme have been about how terrible I think someone asking an anon question is.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 1:33 PM on February 9, 2005

For some reason the term "pissing in the green" doesn't make me cringe as much as "shitting in the blue" does.
posted by greasy_skillet at 1:38 PM on February 9, 2005

Well, I agree that the judgments and condemnation are not helpful, and that's the litmus test for askme answers. But I don't agree (with the implication) that these judgments are out of left field and representative of only someone's narrow, puritanical morality. Forget the sexual part, being unfaithful in this case was a profound violation of trust. Deeply violating the trust of someone close to you is almost universally regarded as "bad".

It seems to me that this thread was much less polluted by non-helpful attacks than were some of the other askme threads that we've discussed here in meta for the same reasons.

Of course no one yet has actually provided statistics or pointers to hard data on "chances for marriage survival", which is what the poster was asking for (oddly, on behalf of her husband).
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:48 PM on February 9, 2005

EB:

The poster was not asking for hard data on chances for marriage survival. The question part of the post is "Anyone have any ray of hope? Or, if not, advice on being friends and keeping this from damaging the elementary school-aged child?" Although it mentions that her husband is looking for statistics, that's not the AskMe question, just background (though, of course, I suspect answers regarding it would be appreciated, though ancillary)
posted by Bugbread at 1:54 PM on February 9, 2005

Whoa whoa, slow down there, EB. We're not discussing the validity of languagehat's comment. We're discussing the appropriateness of that comment appearing in the AskMe thread.
posted by Eamon at 2:01 PM on February 9, 2005

Oh. And, oh.

Isn't there sort of a consensus that some minimal level of callouts in-thread is acceptable?
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 2:16 PM on February 9, 2005

Isn't there sort of a consensus that some minimal level of callouts in-thread is acceptable?

In MeFi, yes...in AskMeFi, it seems that the tolerance is minimal to none for off-topic comments. Which, IMHO, is nice.
posted by BlueTrain at 2:26 PM on February 9, 2005

After scrolling past that thread yesterday, I must say I'm not surprised to see it in the gray today. There should be some type of underground gambling ring for things like this. "I have $10 on the Bush is Hitler Fascism thread"
posted by Arch Stanton at 2:28 PM on February 9, 2005

So can we use this thread for pointing out how awful the poster is?
posted by GeekAnimator at 2:38 PM on February 9, 2005

I have $10 on the Bush is Hitler Fascism thread.

Which one?
posted by timeistight at 2:42 PM on February 9, 2005

It would seem to me that posting a link to a MetaTalk post (and, of course, making a metatalk post to be linked to) is in itself an in-thread callout of the best (i.e. least fecal/urinal) type. I know that when I see the single word "MetaTalked", as a link in a thread, that I am very cognizant of a callout taking place.
posted by Bugbread at 2:43 PM on February 9, 2005

*head explodes ^^^
posted by Quartermass at 2:54 PM on February 9, 2005

Given how the original questions were phrased, "You don't deserve him" was an appropriate answer. languagehat's callout, whether in the green or if it had been in the gray, was out of place.
posted by mischief at 3:16 PM on February 9, 2005

I agree completely and utterly with the hat -- all these chatty non-answering assholes on Ask are devaluing it -- but he really should have packed his astute side-commentary in with some kind of, you know, answer.

Non-answer "fuck you idiots" replies are only (and marginally) useful when it's the posts, not the replies, that are flawed.
posted by majick at 3:24 PM on February 9, 2005

For some reason the term "pissing in the green" doesn't make me cringe as much as "shitting in the blue" does.

*misses Seth*
posted by we heard you the first time, Seth at 3:30 PM on February 9, 2005

"all these chatty non-answering assholes on Ask are devaluing it"

Unavoidable. Many questions, particularly those seeking some qualifying answer or an opinion, will receive "chatty" answers.
posted by mischief at 3:37 PM on February 9, 2005

Frankly, I was surprised how friendly and accommodating most of the comments were, given the oddly unrepentant and sort of dismissive way the poster presented her actions. That one or two people late in the thread gave some harsher replies is hardly unexpected. She was asking for advice about saving a marriage she presented herself as having destroyed, but she somehow didn't acknowledge her part in it (ie, it wasn't about, what can I do? But about, does my husband have any hope?).

This is another case where anon follow up posts might be useful though, because it is certainly true that everyone was working off one paragraph that may have been poorly composed / thought out.
posted by mdn at 3:40 PM on February 9, 2005

Comments that only complain about their antecedents

Hey, try actually reading the comment before you leap to the callout. I started with "What skallas said," which is a time-honored way of emphasizing a point without repeating a lot of verbiage. I then went on to complain about the rampant assholery, and since a couple of subsequent posters in the thread agreed with me, I don't think it was some wacko tangent of mine. I suppose I could have put that part in small type, but I don't regret saying it. I'm sick and tired of people leaping into AskMe threads with their moralistic judgments. It's not what the place is for, it says so right there on the page. Cut it out. If you want to preach, become a minister.

As for MetaTalk being "the place for it," this has always been a gray (ahem) area: do we really want every single objection to every single thing in the blue or green to have its own MeTa thread? In my judgment, a callout on the gray would have been over the top. But you be the judge.
posted by languagehat at 3:44 PM on February 9, 2005

So, lh, which comments were preachy?
posted by mischief at 3:59 PM on February 9, 2005

Often, in AskMe and in real life, the most relevant and accurate answers to a question are not the type of answers that the asker had in mind.
posted by bingo at 4:06 PM on February 9, 2005

If you want to preach, become a minister.

Easy to say, but what if I want to become a minister but not preach? Is there an academic option where I just publish? Or is there a non-Catholic equivalent of Andrew Greeley's position, wherein I could write trashy romance novels and maybe just flirt with the odd Lutheran comfort woman when her husband is away at Kiwanis?
posted by yerfatma at 4:12 PM on February 9, 2005

Telling her you thought there was no hope and the marriage should end is a valid answer to her question, although I don't happen to necessarily agree with it.

Saying her husband should have thrown "her trampy ass out onto the street", as someone did, is just plain mean, even if you personally, with your massive understanding of their relationship gleaned from a single anonymous paragraph, think it's true. Not appropriate. Not helpful. Not a useful answer.
posted by kyrademon at 4:15 PM on February 9, 2005

languagehat: your comment added nothing to the thread except your opinion of the comments preceding it. Whether or not this opinion is valid is not the issue here.
posted by Eamon at 4:30 PM on February 9, 2005

Hear hear, languagehat. The preachy moralism has been getting increasingly tiresome to me and I'm glad to see someone call it out. I especially dislike some of the answers that "legal grey area" threads have been getting lately - all "OMG that is stealing you are going to hell and I hope you never get hired again".

I dislike those answers because they seem to have a chilling effect on those who would answer the question that was asked. It takes a little more sack to give an answer when people are denouncing the question as immoral and wrong - nobody wants to be seen as "aiding and abetting a crime", even if it's a really petty thing.
posted by pikachulolita at 4:38 PM on February 9, 2005

"I dislike those answers because ..."

The problem there is not the answers, but the questions.
posted by mischief at 5:05 PM on February 9, 2005

I've seen some people do great jobs both offering their opinion about a poster's question ["I think your marriage is in trouble and you may have gotten it there..."] and at the same time being able to answer the question in some useful fashion. My preference is for callouts in the grey, especially if there's some sort of a pile-on. These exchanges seemed pretty minor though overall I agree that the chilling effect is real and needs to be thought about. In general, off-topic posts in AskMe [not ones that answer the question badly, just ones that don't address the question at all] tend to not stick around. Anon posts are a bitch though because the poster rarely can come back with anything constructive and threads have more of a tendency to go astray and/or focus on syntax in the absence of more information.
posted by jessamyn at 7:33 PM on February 9, 2005

"I especially dislike some of the answers that 'legal grey area' threads have been getting lately - all 'OMG that is stealing you are going to hell and I hope you never get hired again'."

I have a hard time believing—though I could be wrong—that you and others that find this moralizing beyond the pale would be consistent with this when it is your sensibilities that are deeply offended. My state (TX) allows corporal punishment. What are the ways in which I can spank and physically punish my child while not running afoul of the law and child protection services? ...as an example. I am sure that there's a question out there that would lead you and those like you to violate your "no moralism in comments" rule and you'd do so proudly and defiantly.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 7:52 PM on February 9, 2005

Sorry, but some things are just wrong.

Theft is wrong. Murder is wrong. And you know what? Breaking your marriage vows for five bloody years is just entirely and completely wrong. You bring that problem to us, yes, by God, we're going to offer an opinion informed by our moral codes. As diverse as they may be, I would be willing to bet that they all include 'obeying a solemn vow which you have undertaken.'

Sorry, languagehat. 99.9% of the time I look forward to every single word you write, because you are both intelligent and incisive. In this case, however, you are not.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 4:07 AM on February 10, 2005

Sorry, but some things are just wrong.

Theft is wrong.

See, right there we're already disagreeing. Hence the continuous problems with questions like these: everyone's fundamental moral foundations are not the same, though most people assume they are.
posted by Bugbread at 5:29 AM on February 10, 2005

I think if I were to post about some hot button matter involving ethics and morality, I would consider it inevitable that people would state their opinions about whether I was right or wrong to do x. But I would hope that people would post things like "Doing x was wrong and you need to do y and z to make amends and improve the situation", rather than "Doing x is wrong and you're going to rot in hell, bitch."

The chastisement should be a part of the effort to be helpful, rather than an end in itself.

There have been questions on the green that have made me decide I had no interest in helping such a person - and I usually didn't even open them.
posted by orange swan at 5:45 AM on February 10, 2005

Theft is wrong.

See, right there we're already disagreeing.

That's nice to hear that you feel that way, bugbread.

[Helps herself to bugbread's lunch time cookies and crystal elephant collection.]
posted by orange swan at 5:48 AM on February 10, 2005

Note that I didn't say theft is right, either. The vast, vast majority of theft is wrong. Some is neutral. Some is right.

Stealing my cookies, by the way, is wrong.
posted by Bugbread at 7:12 AM on February 10, 2005

Oh, I agree. If I were starving, I would steal food and sleep very comfortably that night. It's all about context.

[Hands back cookies shamefacedly, rejoices that she gets to keep the crystal elephants.]
posted by orange swan at 7:17 AM on February 10, 2005

"It's all about context."

That's what almost all the cookie monsters say.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 7:44 AM on February 10, 2005

Good to see we're on the same page. The "starving family" example comes up a lot, and some people argue against it ("You were bad for not providing for your family in the first place"), so I prefer the "I'd steal the gun from a person who was planning on using it to shoot my daughter" example. I find that kind of theft absolutely impossible to find 'wrong'.

The problem, of course, is that the questions causing conflict in the green are the ones that ride on this cusp of disagreement. "How can I rape someone without getting caught?" would be shot down in a second by all parties. "How can I disarm an intruder who has broken into my house?" would be considered OK by all parties (I can hardly imagine someone saying, "You can't take their weapon, that would be theft, and is therefore immoral"). The issues in question are the ones in between, where some see a clear moral issue, and others don't.

That said, if others aren't seeing the issue, I don't think one can really argue that it's a "clear" moral issue. More likely, it's just clear to the person who is saying it, much in the way that I find it clear that Pepsi Black tastes better than Coke.

And you're welcome to the crystal elephants. Also, if you find any paintings of crying clowns, or any dolphin paintings, you are welcome to steal them. Please.
posted by Bugbread at 7:48 AM on February 10, 2005

If these issues were really that cut and dried, no one would be asking about them. I don't have a problem with a range of people pronouncing their views on the morality of certain solutions so long as it's an integral part of an honest effort to be helpful. I even think it's helpful for the poster to get a sense of the range of responses people will have to his or her actions - it will aid in the development of a grounded perspective on the problem.

[runs off into the sunset with the crystal elephants]
posted by orange swan at 7:54 AM on February 10, 2005

yes, by God, we're going to offer an opinion informed by our moral codes.

No, by God, no you're not - not in AskMe. Save it for JudgeMe.

You and your irrepressible moral absolutism can murder and thieve my goddamn bunghole all the way from now till churchtime Sunday.
posted by scarabic at 8:27 AM on February 10, 2005

I think if people focused a bit more on answering the question that is actually asked, rather than simply commenting on the situation, it would help. (Unless, of course, the question is something like "What's your take on my having had an affair for 5 years?") She asked for "a ray of hope" or "advice," not general comments on her behavior. Seems like it would be most helpful to phrase any comments at least nominally in the context requested.

People post here looking for *help.*
posted by occhiblu at 9:00 AM on February 10, 2005

"No, by God, no you're not - not in AskMe. Save it for JudgeMe."

"I own a small business and one of my employees is an Arab. Since 9/11 I've been very suspicious of him and his family. Under California law, on what grounds can I terminate his employment?"
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:38 AM on February 10, 2005

in the original thread in the green skallas writes wise words -- MetaFilter as marriage counselor? with all due respect, wtf?
posted by matteo at 10:22 AM on February 10, 2005

Hence the continuous problems with questions like these: everyone's fundamental moral foundations are not the same, though most people assume they are.

I understand and agree that there is flexibility in context when it comes to many moral situations, but can anyone possibly come up with a scenario in which it would be morally proper to cheat on a spouse for five years with several different partners? This really doesn't seem like a grey area.

Open relationships are great. Making mistakes is human. But living a pattern of deception and infidelity is simply not a sign of a healthy psyche. I'm not saying she's evil or beyond repair or anything like that, but for a few people to point out her responsibility is hardly over the line.

MetaFilter as marriage counselor? with all due respect, wtf?

except that the poster basically came in saying, metafilter, please be a (clearly supplementary) marriage counselor to me.
posted by mdn at 10:28 AM on February 10, 2005

"I own a small business and one of my employees is an Arab. Since 9/11 I've been very suspicious of him and his family. Under California law, on what grounds can I terminate his employment?"

And if that questions simply got no responses, then perfect.

As orange swan said, "There have been questions on the green that have made me decide I had no interest in helping such a person - and I usually didn't even open them."

I mean, if a bunch of stereotypical Wall Street folks are standing around talking about how best to screw people out of their pensions, do you feel honor-bound to get involved in the conversation to tell them they're wrong? I certainly wouldn't agree with the assumptions of their conversation, but that doesn't mean I need to pick a fight.
posted by occhiblu at 10:29 AM on February 10, 2005

I understand and agree that there is flexibility in context when it comes to many moral situations, but can anyone possibly come up with a scenario in which it would be morally proper to cheat on a spouse for five years with several different partners? This really doesn't seem like a grey area.

See, that's what I'm waiting for. Somebody needs to explain to me how it's not wrong to do this, given that it's clear the relationship was not an open one. Obviously there are grey areas in a great many situations. I'm waiting for all of you "oh no, we must accept and be happy with what everyone does no matter how harmful and wrong it is" brigade to explain to us, however, where the lack of wrong is in this situation.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 11:13 AM on February 10, 2005

please be a (clearly supplementary) marriage counselor to me.

then it's worthy of a supplementary wtf, not a regular one
posted by matteo at 11:26 AM on February 10, 2005

What occhiblu said about not responding to questions you feel don't deserve an answer.

She didn't ask for opinions on whether long-term infidelity is good for a marriage- do any of you actually imagine that the fact that this was generally a bad idea hasn't yet occurred to her? She also didn't ask for help in figuring out how to continue her bad behavior.

"How can I legally beat my kid" is not the same as "I used to beat my kid, and now she hates me. How can I fix our relationship?".
posted by obloquy at 11:43 AM on February 10, 2005

dirtynumbangelboy, nobody cares what you think is right and wrong. Your "moral" codes are completely irrelevant. The goal of AskMe is to help people solve a problem. It is not a place for you to get off on your own righteousness. If the question offends you, good! Congratlate yourself on being such a morally noble human being and skip to the next one.
posted by nixerman at 11:48 AM on February 10, 2005

Oh, wait, I get it... I'm not allowed to say that something's wrong, but you're allowed to tell me that what I'm doing is wrong? Thank you for the clarification.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 12:20 PM on February 10, 2005

"How can I legally beat my kid" is not the same as "I used to beat my kid, and now she hates me. How can I fix our relationship?".

I think if she'd phrased it more along the lines of "how can I fix this" there would have been more sympathy, but it was entirely presented as passive ("I beat my kid for five years & now she doesn't talk to me. Any advice?")

but actually, I came in here to comment on how LH complains of moralizing in the 'divorcefilter' thread, but then does the same thing himself in the 'absurd interview' thread, which seems to me like much more of a grey area. If it's not okay to comment on the ethics of cheating, surely there's no reason to advise people not to pull pranks you wouldn't personally find funny (again, I think soft handed statements of opinion are generally useful, so don't really think either thread went over the line, but if either did, I would say it was the absurd interview one-)
posted by mdn at 12:29 PM on February 10, 2005

I came in here to comment on how LH complains of moralizing in the 'divorcefilter' thread, but then does the same thing himself in the 'absurd interview' thread

Heh. I knew that was coming, even as I was formulating my response there. But I don't think it's a fair comparison, and I'll tell you why. The divorce question is a request for input on a situation that already exists; moralizing responses do no good whatsoever except to make the commenter feel better (and the questioner feel worse). The interview question is about something that has not happened yet, so the proper field of responses is wider, in that if enough people throw doubt on the idea, the questioner might rethink the whole interview. My emphasis was not on morals or on attacking the person asking the question ("you're bad"), but on the suggested approach to the interview ("it's a bad idea"). Like others who responded, I was pointing out that the questioner seemed to be assuming that the victim/hire would have the desired response ("Whoa, you guys totally got me! Let's have a beer!"), whereas many people would react in a very different way, and therefore the whole thing could go wrong and the hire walk out (leaving them to start the interview process all over again, and for real this time). I am not against good laddish fun, nor do I think the questioner and his buddies are evil or immoral; I was pointing out a possible flaw in the plan that should be taken into consideration.

In short, I'm not one of those who thinks all responses should literally answer the exact question asked; it's fine to call premises into question, as long as you think that's helpful to the questioner. In the divorce thread, there's no question of being helpful, merely of rubbing the nose of a supposedly immoral person in their own wickedness. To me, there's a clear difference. Your mileage may vary.

can anyone possibly come up with a scenario in which it would be morally proper to cheat on a spouse for five years with several different partners? This really doesn't seem like a grey area.

It doesn't to you. The evil of The Gay doesn't seem like a gray area to a lot of people either. It really doesn't matter whether it's a gray area or not; your moral certainty doesn't belong on AskMeFi. It's not helpful.

Oh, wait, I get it... I'm not allowed to say that something's wrong, but you're allowed to tell me that what I'm doing is wrong? Thank you for the clarification.

See, this is the gray; that's the green. You're welcome.
posted by languagehat at 1:25 PM on February 10, 2005

Oh yeah, I forgot—I added this constructive suggestion specifically to ward off the accusation of unhelpful negativity:

Suggestion: play the interview straight, then after he's hired take him out for drinks and boyish fun. It's win-win!
posted by languagehat at 2:14 PM on February 10, 2005

It doesn't to you.

I'm perfectly aware of that; my question was, is it a grey area to anyone? And if someone would claim it was, can they explain how they'd justify that?

The evil of The Gay doesn't seem like a gray area to a lot of people either.

First, I'm not talking about what is or isn't a grey area for an individual - I'm talking about socially grey areas. Homosexuality is still somewhat contentious, although I'd imagine the percentage who still consider it immoral is pretty small these days. But more important, it would be perfectly easy for me to explain why I don't see it as a moral problem, and why I do see cheating on your partner as a moral problem (nothing to do with sex, everything to do with trust).

In short, I'm not one of those who thinks all responses should literally answer the exact question asked; it's fine to call premises into question, as long as you think that's helpful to the questioner.

Maybe people think the poster would benefit from a little self-reflection. Advice can be a strange transaction as the advisor will often come off a little bit condescending/etc, but when you ask for advice, you have to expect that. The poster asked for advice about her marriage, directly admitting to serial infidelity but without any focus on that as a core issue. Some responses turned their attention to that, as if to say, you want to handle logistics, but maybe you should focus on psychology for a bit.
posted by mdn at 3:00 PM on February 10, 2005

Thank you, mdn, for saying essentially what I was trying to.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 9:43 PM on February 10, 2005

maybe you should focus on psychology for a bit

OK, here goes. I find your own lack of self-awareness mind-boggling. Let's look at this:

I'm not talking about what is or isn't a grey area for an individual - I'm talking about socially grey areas. Homosexuality is still somewhat contentious, although I'd imagine the percentage who still consider it immoral is pretty small these days. But more important, it would be perfectly easy for me to explain why I don't see it as a moral problem, and why I do see cheating on your partner as a moral problem (nothing to do with sex, everything to do with trust).

Do you really not see that your distinction depends entirely on your own views? Do you not understand that someone who feels as strongly about homosexuality as you do about cheating -- and considering the outcome of the last US election and the onrush of gay-marriage-banning legislation, your "somewhat contentious" is unwarrantedly smug and your "pretty small these days" laughable -- would find it equally easy to explain why they do see it as a moral problem? You're welcome to live in your own blinkered world where everyone feels pretty much the way you do about everything, but expecting others to go along is a bad idea.

You know, it still amazes me that the allegedly rational, skeptical, open-minded crowd here is every bit as blind to their own prejudices and assumptions, and every bit as determined to impose their own shibboleths on the whole world, as those they so enjoy mocking. Ha ha, those fools break their eggs beginning at the large end, while we know that the small end is the one God science intended!

In short, I believe you would benefit from a little self-reflection.
posted by languagehat at 7:14 AM on February 11, 2005

Ease up with the condescending "only an idiot denies moral relativism" languagehat. It's tiresome and not worthy of you. My experience is that the only person more smug than a moral absolutist asserting an absolutism is a moral relativist denying absolutism.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 4:03 PM on February 11, 2005

What the fuck? You drop by this near-dead thread to give me a condescending little lecture on moral relativism? You, too, can keep it to yourself. If you'll scroll up, you'll see that I was the one called out in this stupid thread -- called out for nothing more than expressing an irritation a lot of people share, and I'm surprised if you don't yourself. Or do you feel a little twinge of joy when some righteous asshole brings a "you deserve it, bitch" hammer into a thread full of oversensitive altruistic advice?

Oh, wait, I guess you do -- I just scrolled up myself and found this gem:

I am sure that there's a question out there that would lead you and those like you to violate your "no moralism in comments" rule and you'd do so proudly and defiantly.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 7:52 PM PST on February 9

Um, no. Because that's not what AskMe is for. Frankly, I'm surprised and disappointed you join with mischief and the other... people who believe as he does, but since you do, there's no point my discussing this further. Have a nice day.
posted by languagehat at 5:17 PM on February 11, 2005

That wasn't a "moral relativism" lecture, it was a "stop being a condescending git" lecture. So you were called out. Big deal.

"Um, no. Because that's not what AskMe is for."

So if I look at your askme comment history, I'm not going to find you making a moral judgment?

Regardless, my point was that people have expressed moral outrage in a number of askme threads. Yes, it's generally not appropriate given the rules; but I am sure that for most people, perhaps not your very consistent self, there is some question that is so beyond the pale morality-wise that they'd not be able to restrain themselves.

The condescension I'm objecting to is this:

" I find your own lack of self-awareness mind-boggling."
"Do you really not see that your distinction depends entirely on your own views?"
"In short, I believe you would benefit from a little self-reflection."

What I see there is someone asserting that the subjectivity of a moral judgment is so obvious that only a fool would think otherwise. Which I'm sure you realize isn't the case.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:14 AM on February 12, 2005

Just in case you see this, languagehat, I didn't mean to be so argumentative and dismissive. It's just that condemnations of condemnations tend to rub me the wrong way because they're often more self-righteous than those they are condemning for being self-righteous. I'm not saying you did this, nor do I think that your comment in that askme thread was out-of-line.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 4:56 AM on February 13, 2005