October 14, 2002

7:38 AM

Politics are allowed in politics, but there are limits, and there is a pale, and Metafilter has managed to deceive those limits, and sensationalize beyond that pale. What makes this quote funny? It's automatically generated by this site, which can add your name or website to any accusation of liberal bias you'd ever want. This will save so many people so much time.
posted by XQUZYPHYR (37 comments total)

Doesn't this kind of thing belong to MetaTalk, if at all?
posted by matteo at 7:41 AM on October 14, 2002

Taking Free Republic to task
by R. Robot

After all, this is a man who has bullied his neighbors. I suppose some notice should be paid to the performance that the pathological Free Republic delivered Monday on Good Morning America. "You know, Iraqis haven't really gotten along with Islamic fundamentalists ever since hundreds of thousands got killed fighting them in the 1980s," he said. This is why I could no longer write for Z Magazine, not with a clear conscience. Free Republic, sneeringly, is a malignant, naked opportunist. In 1938, George Orwell wrote, "The hate-crazed treason of the bigots is little more than anti-Americanism."

Hee!

Matteo: it wasn't actually a story about Metafilter. It's a text generated by a robot using the name "Metafilter" for input.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 7:47 AM on October 14, 2002

Hmph. I entered "George W. Bush" and got:
"I'm sorry, writing about the Bush family would violate my programming directives."
But I can respect that -- it's an ideologically committed robot, after all.
Great post -- I needed a laugh today!
posted by languagehat at 7:51 AM on October 14, 2002

I entered ascroft. long quote ahead:

Ascroft, what kind of a man are you? What a moment! What rationalizing! What baying! What hatred of America.
We should invade the Buffalo Al Qaeda cell's country, kill him and convert him to Judaism.
The bitter National Public Radio set makes reasonable political discourse impossible when they resort to rationalizing and spin every time Jenna Bush says something accurate.
A leader not trying to take the war to the shoe bomber would be blatantly hypocritical in the extreme. When will Ascroft come clean about the way he criticizes Tony Blair?
"You know, Saddam hasn't actually invaded anything for a while," says Ascroft. Well, duh.
posted by dabitch at 7:56 AM on October 14, 2002

i cant spell. nope. wops. sorry.
posted by dabitch at 7:56 AM on October 14, 2002

Oh man thank you XQ.

I suppose some notice should be paid to the performance that the ideological Oh Posey delivered Monday on the set of The Real World. "'Department of Homeland Security?' What the fuck is this, Brazil?" she said. That's not what Oh Posey was saying last year. Oh Posey, shockingly, is a execrable coward. Last week Oh Posey went so far as to leave the mainstream completely and enter a kind of depraved alternate universe of hypocritical self-immolation.
posted by oh posey at 8:29 AM on October 14, 2002

Yes, languagehat, but fear not, Ann Coulter seems to be working rather well:

Refusing to stand behind the President, Democrats would rather engage in blatantly vile insouciance as usual. "What's so civil about war, anyway?" as Ann Coulter said last week.

Just like her fellow Democrats, who have long refused to help war until the administration "makes its case," Ann Coulter wants to get all the credit for taking on Dick Cheney from the left, while distancing herself curiously from the topic of war altogether.

We must protect tough truth. One day, the shoe bomber's rule will be at an end. On that day, we want to be able to look these people in the eye and tell them that we cared about them, too.

We must listen to moral courage. The gatekeepers of the Manhattan ilk have become more curiously hypocritical in their depraved smear campaigning than I could scarcely have imagined last week. The Saddamphiles and hot-tubbers are showing their true colors, and those colors, having flirted with ad-hominem and wretched are now shockingly close to partisan disgrace.

Beautiful. Beau-ti-ful.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 8:33 AM on October 14, 2002

From the MeFi guidelines:

"And lastly, don't troll (quick definition: posting purposely inflammatory things for the sole purpose of baiting others to argue the points until blue in the face - basically people do this for kicks, to destroy conversations and communites, for the hell of it)."
posted by MidasMulligan at 8:49 AM on October 14, 2002

Now who's child-molesting?

by R. Robot

One of the nattering apologists, Jesus Christ distorts the position of Jenna Bush. "Going to war is fine, but how
about maybe giving people jobs," he said. Well, duh.

One of the pathological slanderers, Jesus Christ bashes Ann Coulter. "Maybe we could compare this to another
war besides World War II for a change," he said. Grumble, grumble, grumble. The truth makes the funny little
creatures who make up the cheap liberal elite resort to breathtakingly emotional insults and cries of
"unconstitutional!"

Jesus Christ's witch hunting was vile. It was pro-Saddam. It was vile. But I understate. Among the appeasing
leftoids, Jimmy Carter attacks people like Tony Blair with the usual disgrace. "If Saddam could attack us at any
minute, what was Bush doing on vacation for a month?" he said last week. Considering the circumstances, this is
breathtakingly deceitful and spiteful. "So turning Iraq into an oil colony is supposed to make Arabs excited about
democracy?" says Sen. Byrd. If these people hate America so much, maybe they should move to Basra. "I thought
the hijackers were Saudi," says Jesus Christ. I suppose he'd rather invite Saddam over and make love.

Jesus Christ has changed his tune again. "Oh, if Madison were here today," he says. This is why I could no longer
write for Z Magazine, not with a clear conscience
posted by trondant at 8:51 AM on October 14, 2002

Thanks for the recap of the definition of trolling, MidasMulligan. It's a good thing no one's actually doing that here. Outside of you and matteo, I see nothing but joyous participatory use of the interesting link I provided... which seems to fit the major MeFi guidelines to me.

Yep, all of us having some fun is sure destroying the community. How's that stick-removal procedure coming?
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 9:01 AM on October 14, 2002

How Much Fun! Now We Can Hate Everyone!
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 9:07 AM on October 14, 2002

Ayn Rand and her hollow hot-tubbers are at it again. "Maybe we could compare this to another war besides World War II for a change," she said on Larry King Live.

Midas, Steve, watch out, or R. Robot will be condemning you next.
posted by soyjoy at 9:09 AM on October 14, 2002

Yikes!
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 9:17 AM on October 14, 2002

So... does anyone want to make a list of links to liberal lefty robots (L. Robot, if you will)? Politically balanced fun for all!
posted by namespan at 9:19 AM on October 14, 2002

It does band reviews, too.

The Beatles
...but seriously
1997

What's unbelievable is how self-aware the band's trademark radio-friendly rock has gotten. It's the best thing I've heard since 1987.
The strength of this album is its rock-rap funk.

They are a band as much understated as they are melodic. Somebody stop me!

It's their most powerful outing in quite a while.

"I Want You" shows off their from-the-heart, majestic Beach Boys-inspired harmony. Their lyrics about suburban boredom ("No Answer") and being on the road for 40 days ("My Own Worst Enemy") reach a new level of falsetto and jaw-dropping blue-eyed soul.

Not to fork out $18.99 for this would make you an total ingrate.

posted by Tlogmer at 9:19 AM on October 14, 2002

Outside of you and matteo, I see nothing but joyous participatory use of the interesting link I provided...

Because it simultaneously demeans anyone that critisizes liberal bias, and (apparently) invites folks to enter all sorts of conservative names into it? And will only take a couple of more posts before people start entering the names of other MeFi's into it? This thing can go nowhere but down.

Yep, all of us having some fun is sure destroying the community. How's that stick-removal procedure coming?

So - it is a great discussion with joyous fun until anyone actually criticizes it ... at which point a really cheap personal insult is the appropriate response?

Matt?
posted by MidasMulligan at 9:27 AM on October 14, 2002

This thing can go nowhere but down.

Well, I don't think its really heading in that direction... Its just pretty goofy. Its like the 'political muckracking' equivalent of that thing that generates random 'inventions', or the 'surreal greetings' generators, and so on.

The malicious uses of it are clearly limited. I had fun putting my own name into it and pretending that I'm reading about myself on some vicious right wing website.

If people put each other's names into it.. So what? Everyone knows that its computer generated. People taking offense at it would be similar to people taking offense because I put their name into one of those Shakespearean-Age Insulte Generator things.

This kind of funny stuff is usually left for friday posts, but I was glad to be cheered up by it on a rather droll monday.
posted by phidauex at 9:36 AM on October 14, 2002

Because it simultaneously demeans anyone that critisizes liberal bias

Heh heh. If you think a robot that randomly generates text can demean anyone, you're playing a little fast and loose with the definition of intelligence.
posted by Hildago at 9:38 AM on October 14, 2002

Well, I don't think its really heading in that direction...

You wouldn't.... It's not making fun of you....
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 9:38 AM on October 14, 2002

You wouldn't.... It's not making fun of you....

Well, if you're saying that the text that is ostensibly "making fun" of liberals is actually making fun of conservatives, in a much deeper, more profound and hurtful way (that involves calling liberals names), then maybe.

Except you don't really know phidauex' party affiliation, so you're just making a guess and using it as proof for your indignation.
posted by Hildago at 9:44 AM on October 14, 2002

midas, I think you're taking this a little too seriously. You folks who think that politics are the end all and be all should try laughing at yourselves once in a while instead of baiting each other.
posted by ashbury at 9:47 AM on October 14, 2002

I don't need to know phidauex' party affiliation to know two things:

1. phidauex is not offended by this

2. Some people (liberal or conservative) will be
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 9:49 AM on October 14, 2002

The same can be said of a very large chunk of the things that get posted around here.
posted by nickmark at 10:03 AM on October 14, 2002

Plant lice, Steve, external aspect or R. Robo condemn since then.

Well, no, that's not exactly what I said - it's the Babelized version. Back when I said, "Midas, Steve, watch out, or R. Robot will be condemning you next," I thought we were enjoying this robot along the same lines as the Babel one, and meant the "threat" in that spirit. But apparently you guys took me at my word and are actually worried about this thing and its sociological ramifications.

It's a robot, folks. Come on.
posted by soyjoy at 10:04 AM on October 14, 2002

Nick Mark, blatantly, is a formerly important loser.

Nick Mark is a chainsaw that's monogrammed (up to three letters)!
posted by nickmark at 10:09 AM on October 14, 2002

You folks who think that politics are the end all and be all should try laughing at yourselves once in a while instead of baiting each other.

The poster of this thread, XQUZYPHYR, is very much one of those "folks who thing that politics are the end all and be all." It is not unreasonable, given his posting history, to assume that this thread was posted in a snarky, lookit-the-silly-li'l-conservatives spirit.
posted by IshmaelGraves at 10:15 AM on October 14, 2002

MidasMulligan:
Because it simultaneously demeans anyone that critisizes liberal bias, and (apparently) invites folks to enter all sorts of conservative names into it? And will only take a couple of more posts before people start entering the names of other MeFi's into it? This thing can go nowhere but down.

IshmaelGraves:
The poster of this thread, XQUZYPHYR, is very much one of those "folks who thing that politics are the end all and be all." It is not unreasonable, given his posting history, to assume that this thread was posted in a snarky, lookit-the-silly-li'l-conservatives spirit.

The website:
The statement 'XQUZYPHYR is one of the dishonest Fifth Column' is not a metaphor. It is a job description. The absurd liberal elite makes reasonable political discourse impossible when they resort to smear campaigning and duplicity every time Condoleeza Rice says something accurate.

Hey, at least I'm not puting the names of other posters in there... ;)

Seriously, guys. Lighten the hell up. I posted his because I thought it was funny, and I would find equally funny a site that spews random left-wing rhetoric too. (I recommend something that a la Paul Begala alwasy ends with "but the president reminds you Saddam is an evil, evil man.") The opportunities are endless, people. Don't blame me because I didn't make one, okay?

Next week on Metafilter: Viking Kittens accused of Communism. "Where are the Kittens promoting Free Trade?" scream conservatives.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 10:28 AM on October 14, 2002

So - it is a great discussion with joyous fun until anyone actually criticizes it ... at which point a really cheap personal insult is the appropriate response?

Matt?
posted by MidasMulligan at 9:27 AM PST on October 14


Geez! You guys are in for it now. Here comes Dad...
posted by jpburns at 11:15 AM on October 14, 2002

Calling on Matt whenever someone gets slightly offended seems to be the new, hip thing to do around here. Maybe Matt can also remove sticks from asses? Hmm?

Matt?
posted by botono9 at 11:36 AM on October 14, 2002

FWIW, this seems a lot less trollish to than some of the personal attacks I have seen on this board perpetrated by real, live people, usually in the course of ideological discussions.

I don't think I need to mention names or post links to back this up.
posted by moonbiter at 11:45 AM on October 14, 2002

I ran across this guy here, at metafilter a few days ago. Honestly I'm still alittle confused. Look here
posted by elwoodwiles at 1:01 PM on October 14, 2002

This is nothing compared to the normal abuse conservatives get around here. At least this is done in good fun. It could be much nastier if they wanted it to be.

Anyways, you cant get away with maliciously bashing conservatives in a thread like this because it would be way to obvious .

thanks for the post XQUZYPHYR
posted by Recockulous at 1:41 PM on October 14, 2002

On behalf of lefties everywhere and anyone else who might have found this little site funny, I want to apologize to Midas Mulligan for hurting his feelings. I know--as you've told us many times--that you live in a fabulous Manhattan apartment, that you travel all over the world, that you make gobs of money and that you're generally a Very Important Person, but that doesn't mean that casually mocking those who denigrate the "liberal media" can't still hurt. Please accept our apologies.

Thank you for sharing this with us Midas and helping us all to become better people.
posted by octobersurprise at 7:16 PM on October 14, 2002

This would be a little sad if it weren't so typical.
posted by hama7 at 10:06 PM on October 14, 2002

This would be a little orange if it weren't so crunchy. Hey, that random line makes no fucking sense either.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 8:14 AM on October 15, 2002

Some leftist magazine writer just threatened me with legal action unless I remove an written about him by R. Robot from my website. Can people really be this clueless?
posted by inksyndicate at 5:02 PM on October 15, 2002

Wow, inksyndicate.. sounds like only robots have senses of humor anymore.
posted by Hildago at 7:40 PM on October 15, 2002