I was inconsiderate. March 3, 2005 10:41 AM   Subscribe

Just want to apologize for the poor wording on my post today linking to this article. My mistake was terribly ill-advised wording in my fpp. Sorry to have offended, and I understand why it was offensive and why the fpp was deleted.
posted by mcgraw to Etiquette/Policy at 10:41 AM (85 comments total)

We will never forget.
posted by xmutex at 10:42 AM on March 3, 2005


Found the article on aldaily, which I have always believed to be a respectable source. The article title is "Feminists Get Hysterical" and, unfortunately, I trumped this bad title with an even dumber one. Wasn't thinking which is to say that it was quite inconsiderate of Mefi users. Apologies to all who were understandably offended.
posted by mcgraw at 10:44 AM on March 3, 2005


Above, what I mean is " I wasn't thinking, which is to say that I was inconsiderate of Mefi users," in case the wording confuses my meaning.
posted by mcgraw at 10:47 AM on March 3, 2005


Wow. First FPP deletion in 5 days. Good job, team.
posted by nobody at 10:50 AM on March 3, 2005


What's wrong with calling feminists stupid?

We've had FPPs that are clearing insulting to all kinds of people: Christians, Southerners, PETA, environmentalists, corporations.

I know some feminists who are stupid, so they do in fact exist. McGraw qualified his comment that he wasn't calling all feminists stupid, but pointed out some are. Is there some reason we can't call feminists stupid?
posted by dios at 10:57 AM on March 3, 2005


Cravenly PC people are stupid.
posted by dios at 10:58 AM on March 3, 2005


sigh...
posted by koeselitz at 10:58 AM on March 3, 2005


Uh oh, dios is back.
posted by xmutex at 11:03 AM on March 3, 2005


What's wrong with calling feminists stupid?

Oh hi dios, you're back already? I think it was basically an okay one-link post to an okay article with an almost context-free slam against feminists in the post wording, qualified or not. It was flagged all to hell within minutes. Everyone knows there are ways to do these sorts of posts well and ways that you'll just unecessarily piss people off and derail things from the get-go. Also, corporations are not people.
posted by jessamyn at 11:08 AM on March 3, 2005


God forbid any America get offended. Certain cows are scared, certain opinions are taboo, and certain things should never be made light of.

Shall we burn the Lenny Bruce records or Darwin's books first? 'Cause I hear someone is offended by 'em.

Why the hell can't people argue against what offends them? If your opinion is so correct, shouldn't the posting of a contrary opinion be a welcome chance to demonstrate your opinion's superiority?

Why flag and ban what you don't agree with? Come on flaggers and banners, this thread is your chance to explain why McGraw can't make a little joke in a FPP title. Explain how humor is inconsistent with your ideological purity, or how it delays the day of the true proletarian revolution.

Are we really so fragile that reading something that challenges our biases just can't be tolerated?

Oh and to lighten the mood a bit, I have a joke (no it's not a Lenny Bruce joke):
"How many feminists does it take to change a light bulb?"
(Shrilly) "That's NOT funny!"
posted by orthogonality at 11:17 AM on March 3, 2005


No, No, orthogonality, it's "None: lightbulbs are a symbol of the oppression of the patriarchy..."
posted by Karmakaze at 11:22 AM on March 3, 2005


Also, corporations are not people.

Corporations are composed of people, just like PETA is.

Are you making a semantic point, or a political point? Or are you just needling dios?
posted by trharlan at 11:26 AM on March 3, 2005


Are we really so fragile that reading something that challenges our biases just can't be tolerated?
Yes, they are.

Corporations are composed of people, just like PETA is.
So is soylent green. None of which's feelings we should be worried about hurting.
posted by sonofsamiam at 11:29 AM on March 3, 2005


I do not think the post wording was appropriate. It looked like one big troll to me. Opinion pieces usually do not make great posts, unless they provide a new slant on an issue or combine with new facts. Here the opinion seems to be that some feminists have gone overboard. Yawn.
posted by caddis at 11:33 AM on March 3, 2005


explain why McGraw can't make a little joke in a FPP title.

Because Metafilter can't handle it man. No really, Metafilter can't handle it. Nor could many online communities for that matter. There was the possibility for discussion in this thread, but because of McGraw's undelicate approach to it, that was never going to happen. If the discussion is about the post and not the link, then the post fails. From the beginning, there was no possibility that this was ever going to be about the link.

And, a link to the post.
posted by Arch Stanton at 11:34 AM on March 3, 2005


Let me get this straight, orthogonality. You're peevish because people used the flag system for exactly the purpose for which it's been designed. You're also on your high horse because some people chose not to put themselves in the impossible rhetorical situation of straightfacedly debating the demerits of an anti-feminist joke... thus de facto "proving" that they have no sense of humor, just like those shrill feminists always do, case in point, right?

Don't get me wrong, I'm no censorship apologist. I'm all for letting the marches go through Skokie. But in this case, the system worked well and Mefites didn't have to sit through another round of 'boyzone' discussions. If that particular deletion or the flag policies in general offend you so terribly, get your own blog and make your own rules.
posted by clever sheep at 11:34 AM on March 3, 2005


quaeler's line from the deleted thread deserves repeating:

"it's a poorly chosen, potentially trolling, post title - but linked to an article not without its merits"
posted by GeekAnimator at 11:37 AM on March 3, 2005


mcgraw-AL Daily is a good source, but almost always conservative. There is rarely a need to be more conservative than they are. Thanks for the apology.

I was one of the people who objected to the post, not because of the content, with which I disagreed, but because of the title. My problem with the title, and I don't claim it to be exhaustive (although it is perhaps exhausting to some) is that it calls feminists stupid. Duh. Feminists, of which I am one, believe in the social and political equality of the sexes. Calling feminists stupid implies that this is a stupid belief. I would also object if a post stated that Anti-Racism Activists Are Stupid. This is different from a post that said Liberals Are Stupid, because liberals are advocating a particular political system, or set of political solutions, rather than expressing a belief about the fundamental humanity of other people.

I do understand that some feminists are stupid. I'm willing to admit that I might be one of them. I'm also willing to discuss the illadvisedness of some feminist positions. And I also don't think that mcgraw meant to imply what I read in the title.
posted by OmieWise at 11:37 AM on March 3, 2005


I know some feminists who are stupid, so they do in fact exist

I imagine that remark explains why they became ex-girlfriends.

Shorter Heather MacDonald: "Bitch! I know you didn't say that about my man!"
posted by octobersurprise at 11:42 AM on March 3, 2005


and BTW, Estrich is no feminist.

she's an idiot, sure, but to tar all feminists (most of whom are intelligent, reasonable people fighting for the advancement of women, a totally noble aim) with the stupid brush due to some grandstanding on Estrich's part is totally unfair.
posted by Hat Maui at 11:46 AM on March 3, 2005


kudos to mcgraw, btw, for acknowledging the error of his wording. would that more were like him in this respect.

*glowers at dios*
posted by Hat Maui at 11:48 AM on March 3, 2005


Feminists, of which I am one, believe in the social and political equality of the sexes.

Well, that's the formal meaning of the term, but it's been used (both by self-described feminists and anti-feminists) to describe a whole range of viewpoints, so that should be taken into account when someone criticizes a "feminist" veiwpoint.

For instance, I think that Andrea Dworkin is borderline insane and that Catherine McKinnon is a fascist-minded bluenose. They are both self-descibed feminists. So, to call them "stupid feminists" is on some level accurate.

However I also believe in equality of the sexes.

So am I anti-feminist? Or does equality mean that female individuals have to take their lumps just like everyone else?
posted by jonmc at 11:49 AM on March 3, 2005


she's an idiot, sure, but to tar all feminists ... with the stupid brush

Mcgraw's title was ill-advised, but he pretty clearly didn't mean to imply that ALL feminists are stupid, much like Michael Moore's "Stupid White Men" isn't calling all ALL white men stupid.
posted by GeekAnimator at 11:50 AM on March 3, 2005


I believe it's true that sometimes people can be a little touchy about things such as this. But, I should have known better than to have posted in that way. An fpp to an article about individuals of some race, nationality, gender, etc with a title "Stupid __[members of said group]___" is foolish.

Again, I think there is some truth to the idea that people (Americans, the PC-minded and so on) can be extra sensitive, but this was so ham-fisted that it was outright offensive. I shouldn't have skipped the coffee today & should've avoided the error.
posted by mcgraw at 11:51 AM on March 3, 2005


Geez, even our apologies start fights.
posted by Cyrano at 12:04 PM on March 3, 2005


Yup, this is a perfect candidate for Matt's new close thread button.
posted by caddis at 12:09 PM on March 3, 2005


I acknowledge and accept your penitence mcgraw, and I forgive you. We all slip up once in awhile.
posted by sciurus at 12:20 PM on March 3, 2005


OmieWise writes "I was one of the people who objected to the post, not because of the content, with which I disagreed, but because of the title. My problem with the title... is that it calls feminists stupid. Duh. Feminists, of which I am one, believe in the social and political equality of the sexes. Calling feminists stupid implies that this is a stupid belief.... This is different from a post that said Liberals Are Stupid, because liberals are advocating a particular political system, or set of political solutions, rather than expressing a belief about the fundamental humanity of other people. I do understand that some feminists are stupid. I'm willing to admit that I might be one of them. I'm also willing to discuss the illadvisedness of some feminist positions. And I also don't think that mcgraw meant to imply what I read in the title."

Well what you read isn't what McGraw wrote.

He wrote "Stupid Feminists". All that says is "there exist feminists who are stupid" not that all feminists are stupid or that the ideology of feminism is stupid. His title was not "Feminists are Stupid", which would imply "all feminists".

And you yourself wrote "some feminists are stupid". Which is all McGraw wrote.

But you're even ok with a hypothetical title "Liberals Are Stupid" because you claim liberalism "merely" advocates a political system, unlike feminism which is a belief about "fundamental humanity". I think liberalism also addresses fundamental humanity, but that's neither here nor there.

What's pertinent is that you've now delineated two types of belief: the merely political, which you allow can be mocked, and the sacrosanct, the mocking of which is too offensive to bear. And only you can precisely tell us whether any particular ideology is in Category I or Category II. This subjective attribution of specialness to certain beliefs makes me very nervous, as it seems only a few steps from fashioning a powerful tool for oppressing dissent: "Thus and so (the King, the Church, Christian doctrine, the superiority of white males) is a sacrosanct and taboo belief which cannot be discussed or mocked"

I'm all for a lot of what feminists argue for, but I don't think anyone is served when feminism becomes a sort of secular religion that metaphorically burns "heretics" who question it. Any time we elevate something to a position of such sacredness that it can't be joked about, we also forestall any real and substantial discussion about it. I'm not saying no subject should be raised to that level, and maybe I even agree that the fundamental ideas of equality that are the foundation of feminism should be that sacrosanct. But to take offense just because someone says some feminists are stupid, seems to me to more an exercise of a variety religious orthodoxy than of reasoned thought.
posted by orthogonality at 12:23 PM on March 3, 2005


to tar all feminists ... with the stupid brush

Some of my best friends are brushes, and I highly resent them being called stupid!
posted by kindall at 12:26 PM on March 3, 2005


timeouts aren't what they used to be
posted by matteo at 12:28 PM on March 3, 2005


Hey, mcgraw, thanks for being so cool.
posted by dame at 12:30 PM on March 3, 2005


I wish that people would stop raising the PC flag every time they get caught being sexist/racist/whatever. "Don't be so PC" too often really means, "How dare you draw attention to the fact that what I said was offensive?"
posted by anapestic at 12:36 PM on March 3, 2005


Ortho-Fair enough about my misreading. I did read it as Feminists are Stupid, which shows how bad a reader I can be sometimes.

As to your other point, there is in fact a difference for me between sets of ideas about ontology and sets of ideas about how we address that ontology. When someone says that they are an anti-feminist, what they mean is that they don't think that women are equal to men. In the same way that when someone calls themselves a White supremacist they are saying that no other 'race' is equal to whites. I'm happy to debate the consequences of such beliefs, and I will argue for one set over the other, but I see nothing wrong with suggesting that all people are equal and that that belief is sacrosanct.

And the notion that somehow debate has been stifled on this issue is just ridiculous. We've talked about the Summers flap, for instance, a bunch in the past couple of weeks. Here here here here. On of those posts was titled Hypothesis as Thought Crime, at least one of the others also explicitly defended Summers. And the kept coming up despite well-reasoned responses in the threads about why the apologists for Summers were upset about the wrong thing. There is no conspiracy of silence here, there was a trolling post and it got deleted.
posted by OmieWise at 12:40 PM on March 3, 2005


If someone said "stupid feminists" aloud, you'd know from context and tone whether he meant particular feminists or all feminists. In this forum, you can't always tell, and it's wrong to pretend that either interpretation is the only possible one.
posted by anapestic at 12:49 PM on March 3, 2005


...or, y'all coulda just gone on to the next thread and not been offended at all.
posted by LouReedsSon at 12:54 PM on March 3, 2005


I wish that people would stop raising the PC flag every time they get caught being sexist/racist/whatever.

I think most of us only raise it when it's taken to ludicrous extremes, like the "gyp" debacle or some of the sillier reactions in the Nigerian Spam MeTa Thread.
posted by jonmc at 12:58 PM on March 3, 2005


Metafilter:

posted by mcgraw at 1:04 PM on March 3, 2005


...and prepare for both.
posted by jonmc at 1:22 PM on March 3, 2005


I, too, have been following the Estrich-Kinsley kerflffule with interest. But I doubt that anything about it is likely to make a good post. I seriously doubt this single opinion piece makes a good post. And I'm certain, as is the poster himself, that the phrasing of the post begs for a trainwreck.

Arguments about pc-ism or whatever are irrelevant.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:24 PM on March 3, 2005


Is that an original line, jonmc? It's great.
posted by sonofsamiam at 1:36 PM on March 3, 2005


I'd like to mention that the snarky responses of specialk420 and dejah420 were unnecessary personal attacks.

I expect more from long-time Mefi users, even though the poorly chosen wording of my fpp is easily mis-construed.
posted by mcgraw at 1:41 PM on March 3, 2005


So am I anti-feminist? Or does equality mean that female individuals have to take their lumps just like everyone else?

Hopefully the latter, as this is exactly my view.
posted by rooftop secrets at 1:50 PM on March 3, 2005


I expect more from long-time Mefi users

Good lord, why? A low user number is a pretty specious indicator of civility on this site. :)
posted by GeekAnimator at 2:15 PM on March 3, 2005


...and prepare for both.

puts condom on rifle. wonders why.
posted by andrew cooke at 2:22 PM on March 3, 2005


I so miss Space Cadet. His input would be soooo valued right now. Heh.
posted by Wulfgar! at 2:45 PM on March 3, 2005


"It is curious how feminists, when crossed, turn into shrill, hysterical harpies..."
...from the linked articleop-ed. It uses the Estrich-Kinsey brush-up to attack feminists in general. mcgraw's FPP with its small-print disclaimer was more fair and thoughtful than Heather MacDonald's screed. The FPP should've used the THREE links in the first paragraph which gave us the round-by-round account of the fight, followed by MacD's opinion and some others.... Do I have to do this myself?
posted by wendell at 3:07 PM on March 3, 2005


Does the word 'feminist' mean anything any more? It's one of those words that is so diluted, so easily tossed around, and used to mean so much that to employ it as a qualifier or designator doesn't make much sense. It's almost become a worthless word, an empty symbolic thing, and my eyes go crossed when I see people using it.
posted by xmutex at 3:14 PM on March 3, 2005


Do I have to do this myself?

Yes. There is president.
posted by Wulfgar! at 3:56 PM on March 3, 2005


Is that an original line, jonmc? It's great.

I think I read in mid-60's vintage issue of Mad.
posted by jonmc at 4:30 PM on March 3, 2005

Corporations are composed of people, just like PETA is.
So is soylent green.
Best comeback ever.
posted by Tlogmer at 4:31 PM on March 3, 2005


I hope that the article may be relinked in the blue. I think it deserves discussion outside of the discussion of mcgraw's original post's wording.

for my part: I find the article to be intentionally venomous and to generalize feminists in a negative fashion. I also found that partly it was to point out one simple fact: Estrich had become the embodiment of every bad stereotype of feminists during this absurd fight with kinsley.

See, sometimes writers use their style to reinforce their content.

Of particular note is the first paragraph of the article where MacDonald says, "As it happens, I have published in the Los Angeles Times op-ed pages over the years, without worrying too much about whether I was merely filling a gender quota. Now, however, if I appear in the Times again, I will assume that my sex characteristics, rather than my ideas, got me accepted."

That's a very important point.

Regarding mcgraw's post: How many times does he have to apologize? I mean, if mcgraw thinks it was in bad taste, who the hell has the right to say, "Fuck that. There was nothing wrong with your post. Screw the over-sensitive feminists." (paraphrase) Besides being insensitive, the comment is irrelevant. Mcgraw thought there was a problem and wanted to apologize. Furthermore, once he's apologized, how much further does one have to drag out the argument before you just say, "Oh. Hey, no problem. I know you're not a dick. Thanks for apologizing, though," and let it drop?

Metafilter: No! It's YOUR grudge!
posted by shmegegge at 5:40 PM on March 3, 2005


article was good, and written by a woman, and as for pc being over used... where would comedy be without sterotypes...
posted by sourbrew at 3:58 AM on March 4, 2005


OmieWise writes "When someone says that they are an anti-feminist, what they mean is that they don't think that women are equal to men. In the same way that when someone calls themselves a White supremacist they are saying that no other 'race' is equal to whites. "

Not true Omiewise - only true if feminism truly represents itself as promoting equality amongst the sexes. In fact, a lot of "anti-feminist" sentiment is a backlash to radical feminism or gender-feminism - neither support true equality amongst the sexes, but merely promote the female sex for the sake of privilege regardless of whether it results in parity amongst the sexes or puts women at an advantage. I know of many women, online and offline, who would be described as "anti-feminist" because they don't align themselves to any feminist ideals or want to be constantly told they are "oppressed" and "put upon". They don't feel they are victims and don't feel they are living in a patriarchy. Also, fathers' rights groups who lose out to feminism in the family courts may be described as "anti-feminist" - it doesn't mean they are misogynists, but simply that they suffer from negative (false) stereotypes fostered by gender feminists that domestic violence is only male > female, and that fathers aren't that important and can't bring up kids as well as women. In summary, it's wrong-headed to equate "anti-feminism" with a hate-goup such as white supremacists as it describes more a backlash to radical feminism/gender feminism which often are represented by out-and-out misandrists (I would describe radical feminism as at least borderline hate-speech).

I would love to see people treated as individuals - we take the lumps and blows like everyone else - and that what's between our legs doesn't determine our victim status.
posted by FieldingGoodney at 8:54 AM on March 4, 2005


I'd like to mention that the snarky responses of specialk420 and dejah420 were unnecessary personal attacks. I expect more from long-time Mefi users, even though the poorly chosen wording of my fpp is easily mis-construed. posted by mcgraw

Whoa up there, McGraw. All I did was change the word "feminist" to "McGraw".

You wrote: "Hey, not all feminists are stupid, naturally. But some are." The only thing I changed in the sentence was the addition of your name in place of the word feminist. So, if the sentence is problematic....looking at me is going to be less effective than a mirror.

I apologize if it hurt your feelings, but perhaps, as it was intended, it pointed out the fallacy of your statement. That said, I'd like to mention that I didn't jump into this thread to further berate you. I accepted the fact that some of us occasionally choose the wrong words, and that was it. I do however, find it unacceptable that you would attack me for using *your* words.
posted by dejah420 at 9:30 AM on March 4, 2005


FieldingGoodney - amen brother

my campus is being inundated this week and next with the vagina monologues and the Gorilla Girls. Seems every fine young women i meet is of the opinion that men are bastards and that women suffer so much. I find it hard to believe that relationships are better for generating such distrust in women, and i find it almost impossible to discuss my beliefs with said women because i immediately become a misogynist. I know many women who are more capable than men and vice versa, but to completely remove gender roles and make it unacceptable to be just plain male i find sort of disturbing if not infuriating.

/reclaiming the right to be a man, one ball at a time.
posted by sourbrew at 9:32 AM on March 4, 2005


Bullshit, dejah420.

I respect comments like the one from speklet, who said "You failed us this time mcgraw."

You could have justifiably attacked my fpp, my error of very poorly chosen words. Instead, you called me stupid.

I did not call all feminists stupid.

I have no respect for you any more, Winifred.
posted by mcgraw at 9:47 AM on March 4, 2005


Furthermore, even if I had said "all feminists are stupid" that would be my sorry opinion.

It would not, however, be an attack upon an individual.

Your comment was useless, dejah420.
posted by mcgraw at 9:50 AM on March 4, 2005


sourbrew, as has been mentioned a few times in this thread, it's very hard to have an open debate with a gender feminist. A true feminist (in the dictionary definition) is as much concerned with mens' rights as womens' rights. They have nothing to hide from in a debate. A feminist might be male or female (indeed the word "feminist" is rather anachronistic).

Whenever I engage in conversation with a gender feminist, it inevitably involves a lot of crass negative stereotyping of males. Mix that in with the victim-worshipping of the modern age, and it's not looking very good.
posted by FieldingGoodney at 9:57 AM on March 4, 2005


FieldingGoodney

Yeah its just frustrating to find oneself in a situation where you are portrayed negatively for even having an opinion on the subject. It's similar to the discursions about affirmative action in the late 90's. People who were against it were portrayed as racists regardless of their reasoning. I think that this essentially comes down to ad-hominem, which in any debate is a truly negative thing. Ultimately though its a shame that this article could not be discussed in a civil manor. Heather essentially condemns the woman in question for taking away her credibility and suggesting that watered down gender neutral journalism is better than insight... those were the real questions at hand.
posted by sourbrew at 10:07 AM on March 4, 2005


damn... discursions obviously equals discussions
posted by sourbrew at 10:07 AM on March 4, 2005


A bit of research on you, dejah420, reveals that you like to present yourself online as having a "manservant."

How progressive. I'm sure you would go off on me ad hominem if mcgraw rambled on about his "womanservant."

Your non-apology to me above sounds like Estrich in the article you did not read.
posted by mcgraw at 10:45 AM on March 4, 2005


I have no respect for you any more, Winifred.

Boo. Fucking. Hoo. Someone on the intarweb doesn't like me. OH NOOOOZE!!!1!

Really, you say that like I should give a shit one way or the other. I couldn't care less what you think sparky.


And I didn't say ALL mcgraws were stupid either, pumpkin. I used YOUR exact words with one change and that was to put your name where you put the word feminists.

Here is a google search of McGraws. I'm sure one of them is stupid. I leave it up to you to decide if you are that one.
posted by dejah420 at 10:46 AM on March 4, 2005


A bit of research on you, dejah420, reveals that you like to present yourself online as having a "manservant."


Ok angel, obviously you *are* the stupid one if you're going to accuse me of stuff written in a fictional bit. Honestly.
posted by dejah420 at 10:47 AM on March 4, 2005


Sparky? Pumpkin? Angel?

You are wasting my time. No thanks.
posted by mcgraw at 10:51 AM on March 4, 2005


mcgraw, my man, if you want to attack being uptight, there's plenty of deserving candidates, but I can tell you that you're barking up the wrong tree trying to pin that on dejah420.
posted by jonmc at 10:54 AM on March 4, 2005


Oh, and McGraw, thanks for the email to my "boss". Too bad I own the company and so it came straight to me. Taking personal vendettas into the workplace is really uncool.
posted by dejah420 at 10:55 AM on March 4, 2005


I have no idea what you are talking about, dejah.

I did not send any emails. Look into it further and I'm sure you'll find that it was someone else.

You are mistaken.

I meant it when I said you are wasting my time. And it would be a waste to email you or your "boss."

Look into it. Whatever you got, it wasn't me.
posted by mcgraw at 10:59 AM on March 4, 2005


Seriously, I am not so concerned over this ridiculous row to email you or your "boss."

Check the email ISP. If you need proof, I will email you and you can see where I am.

I am not involved in anything beyond this tedious discussion here on Metatalk.

Until yesterday, I linked to you dejah, because of what you said here.

But I am not angry at you to the extent that I would try to cause you any trouble.
posted by mcgraw at 11:04 AM on March 4, 2005


I apologized for my error and didn't think you really apologized for the ad hominem at me.

I only cared what you said because I see you as a respected member of the community and think your knee-jerk reaction to me was overboard.

Check into the email you are referring to. It was not me.
posted by mcgraw at 11:07 AM on March 4, 2005


Even my first mention of you and specialk420 is civil.

Civility. Something that has been lacking in every remark you have made to me on this subject since your very first.
posted by mcgraw at 11:12 AM on March 4, 2005


For your convenience.
posted by mcgraw at 11:15 AM on March 4, 2005


And I replied:

Whoa up there, McGraw. All I did was change the word "feminist" to "McGraw".

You wrote: "Hey, not all feminists are stupid, naturally. But some are." The only thing I changed in the sentence was the addition of your name in place of the word feminist. So, if the sentence is problematic....looking at me is going to be less effective than a mirror.

I apologize if it hurt your feelings, but perhaps, as it was intended, it pointed out the fallacy of your statement. That said, I'd like to mention that I didn't jump into this thread to further berate you. I accepted the fact that some of us occasionally choose the wrong words, and that was it. I do however, find it unacceptable that you would attack me for using *your* words.


How, exactly, is that not civil?
posted by dejah420 at 11:17 AM on March 4, 2005


This isn't worth it, dejah420.

I was wrong to say that I lost all respect for you.

I wouldn't continue on this with you if I didn't respect you.

No need for us to run this into the ground.

You are a good person and I see no reason in arguing over these things.

I wish I hadn't mentioned you and specialk420's comments in the first place.

Let's move on. All is cool. I shouldn't have pushed this issue. I hope the next time we are both discussing a topic, that we will be in agreement or at least that we will enjoy ourselves. And jonmc, you're right and I appreciate the good advice.
posted by mcgraw at 11:22 AM on March 4, 2005


Well, that was really weird. mcgraw is like mefi's new split-personality personality. Not that there's not something charming about it, as there is with Miguel. But freaking out and later sincerely apologizing, though better than not apologizing at all, is sort of a self-serving habit. Best to learn not to freak out in the first place.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:55 AM on March 4, 2005


Ethereal Bligh writes, "mcgraw is like mefi's new split-personality personality."

No, it's just endless narcissistic bullshit. First there's the string of "look at how clever I am" dada posts that turn out to be plagiarized from another mailing list. Then he trolls the front page of MeFi and calls himself out in MeTa for it. And, finally, drops another crappy FPP, which he acknowledges outright as a violation of regulations, to point out to everyone that someone else (mis?)labeled him as a stalker.

mcgraw, I don't know if you even realize it, but your endless protestations of "sorry, honest mistake" do nothing to change the fact that you don't need to be drawing the attention of the community to yourself over and over. Matt's got a widely-publicized email address. No need to cry from the highest rooftop every time pass by.
posted by mkultra at 12:28 PM on March 4, 2005


Just breezed in here. Dejah420, looks like you got what mkultra wanted.

Mkultra, I'm impressed by the length and girth of your hate-on for mcgraw. I've never seen anyone take so personally what could be so easily ignored.

For many of us, mcgraw's posts were fun. As far as I can tell (or, honestly, as far as I can be bothered to yawn through them), your posts are dull. That's my reckoning, and no amount of griping will change it. But that shouldn't matter, and it only comes up in the context of this post. I never cared to post with you, but I'd say that about for almost all of mefi. I have a pretty high user number, but as we all know, low numbers don't have a monopoly on the truth.

Maybe your hatred stems from the fact that folks you respect, respect someone you don't understand. And those same folks you look up to, don't care a whit about you. There's doubtless more to it, and my presumption in saying so is, well, presumptuous.

I don't have a dog in this race. I'm not interested in psychologizing you. I know it would be unfounded and inaccurate. Not to mention, unfair. I think you could do a better job yourself. I think you should.

Everybody here has a different style of posting, because everybody has different interests and different minds. Plenty of those interesting minds find mcgraw's mind interesting, and consider his posts among the best of the web. I'm sure there are those who think the same of you.

Requiring us all to post like you is tantamount to requiring everybody to think like you. That's boring, no matter how interesting you are.

Metafilter is an fascinating place the way cities are fascinating places. So many different people, viewpoints, stories. Sometimes here in NYC I see some dude dressed like a clown, being an ass, and he's with a few friends, and they're laughing. I don't think he's funny, so I just keep walking. Based on your treatment of mcgraw, you would push that clown right off the curb.

Well, mkultra, mcgraw's not on the sidewalk anymore. Nice shove.

I just hope he doesn't get hit by a bus. His friends would miss laughing with him. The walk wouldn't be as fun without him.
posted by breezeway at 2:10 PM on March 4, 2005


No, it's just endless narcissistic bullshit.

mkultra nailed it, except that there's a lot more mcgraw crap from earlier that wasn't even mentioned. Maybe you're familiar with it, breezeway, I dunno.
posted by soyjoy at 2:18 PM on March 4, 2005


I get mcgraw just fine. His gimmick posts are in bad form. Worse, he's developing a habit of acting out and them immediately putting on an "aw, shucks" air about it all.

Maybe your hatred stems from the fact that folks you respect, respect someone you don't understand. And those same folks you look up to, don't care a whit about you.

...

I'm not interested in psychologizing you. I know it would be unfounded and inaccurate. Not to mention, unfair.


Well, clearly that has not stopped you. And the proper word is "psychoanalyzing".

Based on your treatment of mcgraw, you would push that clown right off the curb.

He's doing a fine enough job playing in traffic on his own.

There are plenty of different posting styles on here that are perfectly awesome. The best ones are ones that aren't whinefests or copied without acknowledgement (which, btw, mcgraw has yet to own up to).
posted by mkultra at 2:35 PM on March 4, 2005


mkultra, I thought Andrew Cooke was referring to the occasional Web Zen things that show up on Boing Boing, which indeed are reposts from a mailing list. Matt mentioned that he wasn't a big fan of mcgraw's posts because they reminded him of "those dumb 'web zen' posts at boingboing", not because mcgraw's posts were actually lifted from anywhere.

Did I misread?
posted by gramschmidt at 4:36 PM on March 4, 2005


Soyjoy, mkultra, I'm familiar with mcgraw's past from my long lurk here.

The wealth of information and personalities kept me visiting while the frequency of personal attacks kept me from joining the site.

I don't like personal spats. I think mefi would be best with none of them. They do their best to ruin the blue, and there are far too many of them on the grey.

I eventually joined mefi because I noticed its culture of acrimony had cooled some. Mcgraw in particular, but also others, cut the crap and started to contribute.

His contributions turned out to be just the stuff I always wanted to post: things for people to look at and contribute to. It seemed like the rest of the site felt that way about mcgraw, too.

The site's behavior changed, and I joined to take part in the change. Mkultra, you haven't changed. That's why I was compelled to post.

This thread is unfortunate. I don't know what to make of it. I'm sorry to see it happen. I liked mcgraw. You never did. Big deal, stop chasing him.

I'm breezing off now to rejoin the fun. Why don't you come along?
posted by breezeway at 5:27 PM on March 4, 2005


Wow, breezeway, are you from Minnesota? You got that passive-aggressive stuff down pat.
posted by clever sheep at 6:31 PM on March 4, 2005


It seemed like the rest of the site felt that way about mcgraw, too.

I think most of the people on the site thought they were rubbish and skipped over them without saying anything, because that's what I did and everyone is like me.

Isn't it fun to make sweeping generalizations?
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 7:04 PM on March 4, 2005


I can not believe that this piece of crap is still open. I am not a big fan of the close thread pony, but if it had been used here McGraw might not have melted down, dejah420 might never have recieved that disturbing email and a whole lot of nasty excrement could have been avoided. It is still boiling with nastiness. Time for some closure.
posted by caddis at 7:23 PM on March 4, 2005


But....I'm not pink. Or stainless. Nor do I have a tail. I did skip the posts, though...so maybe we have a lot in common.
posted by graventy at 9:37 PM on March 4, 2005


What were you thinking, mcgraw?

You should've known better.
posted by dfowler at 6:39 AM on March 23, 2005


« Older Recall thread containment   |   global flight landing live video Newer »

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