Week 3 of Metafilter Events is here! Following Week 2, we’re moving on to a week that probes themes and topics around social justice, government, policy and research. You’ll learn more about advocacy and activism - and how you can have your voice heard on issues that matter to you. Find out more about Big Tech content moderation policies and how this affects you, get some perspective on the situation in Iran, and learn about the environmental impact of manufacturing. For those in the U.S, get the lowdown on current developments in redistricting policy and affordable housing policy - and what this means for the future. Complete your weekend with a creative doodling workshop, and hear about the gamification of everyday life from Metafilter’s own Adrian Hon. Come inside to find out more. [more inside]
As is not uncommon for threads regarding U.S. politics, the Dispatches from the Upside Down thread involves a debate between a leftist majority and a liberal minority. The thread seems fairly typical to me, in that about 10% of the comments are from a liberal perspective and about 90% are from a leftist perspective. [more inside]
Hey folks, big discussion time. We're going to be making some changes on how U.S. political discussion plays out on MetaFilter, to try and make sure it remains available as a useful resource in a way that isn't as unsustainable as the current approach has been. I’ll lay out some concrete steps we’re taking, and some general thoughts, below. This is detailed but important and I appreciate you taking the time to read through it. [more inside]
Every so often someone proposes we avoid discussion of unhappy outcomes in general but more specifically the unlikelihood of an impeachment in the Trump threads, which now appears to be becoming de facto policy. It seems like it's worth talking over before it does.
I want to thank the mods for their stewardship of the site during this U.S. election season. [more inside]
This post which raised the issue of fears among some in the African-American electorate that Barack Obama would not be safe as president. The thread was shut down for reasons of WTF. Not exactly sure what the problem was, and I was disappointed, as I had recently heard about this and was hoping the thread would shed some light on the issue. This NYT article would be a good starting point for discussion.
This deletion of a post on Christians United for Israel was way over the line. We leave in a Lindsay Lohan linkfest, but we take down a newsworthy post about how people who happily look forward to Armageddon are influencing our country's foreign policy. Max Blumenthal may be an arrogant documentary film-maker, but the footage is still important.
This post was deleted for the following reason: LOL BUSH IS TEH ANTICHRIST. whatever Care to translate that into an intelligible rationale? I didn't say Bush is the anti-Christ, violate Godwin's Law, or anything else. I thought the article made an interesting link between mental illness and certain political attitudes. But is there a daily limit to the number of FPPs perceived as "anti-Bush", or what? Help me out.
Seriously, if this doesn't come out everywhere on Monday morning and this turns out to be a stupid rumor, truthout and rawstory links are going to be banned from mefi.
posted by mathowie at 12:35 AM CST on May 14
posted by mathowie at 12:35 AM CST on May 14
So have we really reached the point where posting a direct quote from the President is considered too vile a slander to let stand (twice)?
OK Matt : I took your deletion of my previous two posts on this subject, the 2004 election controversy ( and probably several by other folks ) as an indication that either 1) you oppose posts on the election controversy or 2) you want quality posts. Since I don't like to think of you as a site manager inclined towards censorship, I took the deletion of those posts as an indication that they weren't of sufficient quality. So, I addressed #2 : I thought that was a high quality post - well substantiated, and which presented an angle not yet discussed or noted elsewhere on the net. If you are opposed to discussion of the 2004 election, why not state that in your posting guidelines ? I feel that would be more helpful. Otherwise, new users may be confused for those unspecified posting categories which you are inclined to delete.
OK, I might sound like a whiner, but I gotta ask. Why did my post to this letter get deleted while the Neal Pollack stuff stays up? Too incendiary?