The tweets and listicles of outrageous fortune.
November 16, 2015 3:21 PM Subscribe
I, for one, am outraged.
posted by nubs at 3:30 PM on November 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by nubs at 3:30 PM on November 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
Oh my god they hate grilled cheese!
posted by nzero at 3:33 PM on November 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by nzero at 3:33 PM on November 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
On the flip side, a lot of stuff really IS offensive.
I think we're all just sick of clickbait.
posted by bleep at 3:34 PM on November 16, 2015
I think we're all just sick of clickbait.
posted by bleep at 3:34 PM on November 16, 2015
One of the fundamental ethical disjunctions I had working in non-profit advocacy communication was how much "outrage" is intentionally manufactured to do one thing: Get your contact info to expand the fundraising list of an organization. MoveOn, Change.org, pretty much anything that involves "awareness" or signing a petition to underpants gnome is motivated by a desire to get you "engaged" with whatever nominal mission of the organization is. Often, this is done with either the cynicism that if people were engaged over what the actual work is of the organization, that they wouldn't care, or the obliviousness that substitutes the concerns of a rich, self-involved board member or executive director for the objectives of a broader community.
Outrage petitions are my personal bete noire — please, please, the next time you get asked to sign a petition to oppose something OUTRAGEOUS, ask yourself what good a petition is likely to do in that situation, and whether you're just being trolled for list building. I'd wager that about 80 percent of the time, it's the latter.
posted by klangklangston at 3:35 PM on November 16, 2015 [44 favorites]
Outrage petitions are my personal bete noire — please, please, the next time you get asked to sign a petition to oppose something OUTRAGEOUS, ask yourself what good a petition is likely to do in that situation, and whether you're just being trolled for list building. I'd wager that about 80 percent of the time, it's the latter.
posted by klangklangston at 3:35 PM on November 16, 2015 [44 favorites]
A hilarious example is the recent "red cup scandal." Just a perpetual feedback loop of inane bullshit.
But it did succeed in trolling Trump into calling for a boycott, so, hey.
posted by Sys Rq at 3:35 PM on November 16, 2015 [6 favorites]
But it did succeed in trolling Trump into calling for a boycott, so, hey.
posted by Sys Rq at 3:35 PM on November 16, 2015 [6 favorites]
I can't keep up with this internet cultural virus crap anymore. Later!
posted by Liquidwolf at 3:36 PM on November 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Liquidwolf at 3:36 PM on November 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
Hmmmm, if I tweeted that I was annoyed by the manufactured outage cycle of modern media, would this start a second level spiral of outrage and weary disgust?
posted by GenjiandProust at 3:37 PM on November 16, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by GenjiandProust at 3:37 PM on November 16, 2015 [6 favorites]
I am outraged that Underage Red lipstick no longer has snowflakes and reindeer on it.
posted by adamrice at 3:41 PM on November 16, 2015 [16 favorites]
posted by adamrice at 3:41 PM on November 16, 2015 [16 favorites]
GeniiandProust eviscerates the media outrage cycle. You won't believe the reason why!
posted by wabbittwax at 3:42 PM on November 16, 2015 [9 favorites]
posted by wabbittwax at 3:42 PM on November 16, 2015 [9 favorites]
This was way more worth reading than the title suggested. I've seen it linked a half dozen places before here, and given it a pass every time; I guess I was bored enough to give it a go this time round. Glad I did. Good first person glimpse inside the machine.
posted by edheil at 3:42 PM on November 16, 2015 [19 favorites]
posted by edheil at 3:42 PM on November 16, 2015 [19 favorites]
Intellectuals hate this one weird trick that can control entire populations!
posted by wabbittwax at 3:43 PM on November 16, 2015 [47 favorites]
posted by wabbittwax at 3:43 PM on November 16, 2015 [47 favorites]
The Internet has jumped the shark.
posted by tommyD at 3:48 PM on November 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by tommyD at 3:48 PM on November 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
6. Conflate a handful of bloggers with "The Media."
posted by ultraviolet catastrophe at 3:51 PM on November 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by ultraviolet catastrophe at 3:51 PM on November 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
6. Conflate a handful of bloggers with "The Media."
Well, who's to blame for that? Nearly all the bloggers listed publish under the banners of bona fide media outlets.
posted by Sys Rq at 3:56 PM on November 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
Well, who's to blame for that? Nearly all the bloggers listed publish under the banners of bona fide media outlets.
posted by Sys Rq at 3:56 PM on November 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
(i.e. "the media" seems fine with that conflation as long as it gets the clicks)
posted by Sys Rq at 3:58 PM on November 16, 2015
posted by Sys Rq at 3:58 PM on November 16, 2015
I love Parker Malloy.
posted by Annika Cicada at 4:05 PM on November 16, 2015
posted by Annika Cicada at 4:05 PM on November 16, 2015
Real wrath of God type stuff
posted by wabbittwax at 4:15 PM on November 16, 2015 [16 favorites]
posted by wabbittwax at 4:15 PM on November 16, 2015 [16 favorites]
Misleading headline, probably not ironically. I'd call this "Five Steps of Manufactured Outrage;" and then pull the relevant points from them, such as that the Media has no interest in accurately reporting the real scope of the spectacle of the moment. Most tempests aren't adequate to stir the dregs in the teapot, and yet all it takes is a headline that says "Look at what these people are saying/doing/buying/schtupping!" to generate the clicks that give 1000 times as many people the idea that there's a major trend that they're missing out on.
posted by Sunburnt at 4:19 PM on November 16, 2015
posted by Sunburnt at 4:19 PM on November 16, 2015
Mass hysteria
i am SO ANGRY that this doesn't link to a page with bill murray shouting "dogs and cats living together!"
posted by poffin boffin at 4:23 PM on November 16, 2015 [21 favorites]
i am SO ANGRY that this doesn't link to a page with bill murray shouting "dogs and cats living together!"
posted by poffin boffin at 4:23 PM on November 16, 2015 [21 favorites]
I love this article.
And on the flip side, we have the contrarians who always jump in like SO WHAT ARE WE UPSET ABOUT TODAY, INTERNET in response to pretty much everything, including things that are genuinely worth being upset about. It's outrage machine all the way down.
posted by triggerfinger at 4:26 PM on November 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
And on the flip side, we have the contrarians who always jump in like SO WHAT ARE WE UPSET ABOUT TODAY, INTERNET in response to pretty much everything, including things that are genuinely worth being upset about. It's outrage machine all the way down.
posted by triggerfinger at 4:26 PM on November 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
Marx was wrong. The endgame of capitalism is link-bait.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 4:28 PM on November 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by a lungful of dragon at 4:28 PM on November 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
one cannot help but notice the increased descent rate of the sky in general.
posted by quonsar II: smock fishpants and the temple of foon at 4:33 PM on November 16, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by quonsar II: smock fishpants and the temple of foon at 4:33 PM on November 16, 2015 [8 favorites]
signing a petition to underpants gnome
I came into this thread thinking I would probably understand the words but I don't
posted by Wolfdog at 4:35 PM on November 16, 2015
I came into this thread thinking I would probably understand the words but I don't
posted by Wolfdog at 4:35 PM on November 16, 2015
I think she should just calm down.
It's just some media picking up a story.
Certainly no reason to get all outraged and run amuck...
posted by sour cream at 4:35 PM on November 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
It's just some media picking up a story.
Certainly no reason to get all outraged and run amuck...
posted by sour cream at 4:35 PM on November 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
DID SOMEONE SAY GET OUTRAGED AND RUN AMUCK?
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 4:40 PM on November 16, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 4:40 PM on November 16, 2015 [4 favorites]
YES THEY DID - DO IT!!
posted by marienbad at 4:53 PM on November 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by marienbad at 4:53 PM on November 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
AMUCK TIME IS THE WORST STAR TRAK EVAR.
posted by clvrmnky at 4:54 PM on November 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by clvrmnky at 4:54 PM on November 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
I was caught in the middle of a genuine outburst of internet outrage this summer as the result of a playful tweet of mine and a (rather naive but really quite harmless) colleague's response. I did not particularly enjoy my moment of fame even though I was not the one on the end of the two-minutes' hate—and even though the episode prompted the reunion of Seth Meyers and Amy Poehler. Really!
posted by stargell at 5:00 PM on November 16, 2015 [10 favorites]
posted by stargell at 5:00 PM on November 16, 2015 [10 favorites]
A hilarious example is the recent "red cup scandal." Just a perpetual feedback loop of inane bullshit.
Of course, that was merely a tool in the much larger, yearly, "war on Christmas" faux-scandal.
posted by Thorzdad at 5:02 PM on November 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
Of course, that was merely a tool in the much larger, yearly, "war on Christmas" faux-scandal.
posted by Thorzdad at 5:02 PM on November 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
Mildly ironically, I initially read "underage" to rhyme with "umbrage", and thought it might be a gardening term related to say, mulch.
(For real though, that's a pretty weird lipstick name, isn't it? Or is it? I can't tell.)
posted by lucidium at 5:13 PM on November 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
(For real though, that's a pretty weird lipstick name, isn't it? Or is it? I can't tell.)
posted by lucidium at 5:13 PM on November 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
Outrage culture.
Oh! Oh! Oh! The outrage over the recent and terrible Jem and the Holograms movie is actually really fascinating. Sit down and watch all the YouTube rants about it. They're truly, truly, truly insightful! (And, it goes without saying, super nerd-ragey.)
posted by Sys Rq at 5:55 PM on November 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
Oh! Oh! Oh! The outrage over the recent and terrible Jem and the Holograms movie is actually really fascinating. Sit down and watch all the YouTube rants about it. They're truly, truly, truly insightful! (And, it goes without saying, super nerd-ragey.)
posted by Sys Rq at 5:55 PM on November 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
Wolfdog: I came into this thread thinking I would probably understand the words but I don't
I believe it's a reference to a widely-referenced scene from an older episode of South Park. If you want to be familiar with systematic trivialization of people's concerns you need to be familiar with their oeuvre. I gather they did something recently on the subject of "safe spaces" that's had a noticeable influence on the conversation around the student protests at Yale and U of Missouri. And not in a good way.
posted by traveler_ at 5:59 PM on November 16, 2015
I believe it's a reference to a widely-referenced scene from an older episode of South Park. If you want to be familiar with systematic trivialization of people's concerns you need to be familiar with their oeuvre. I gather they did something recently on the subject of "safe spaces" that's had a noticeable influence on the conversation around the student protests at Yale and U of Missouri. And not in a good way.
posted by traveler_ at 5:59 PM on November 16, 2015
DID SOMEONE SAY GET OUTRAGED AND RUN AMUCK?
No need! In this modern world of streamlining and automation, amuck pretty much runs itself!
posted by aubilenon at 6:18 PM on November 16, 2015 [13 favorites]
No need! In this modern world of streamlining and automation, amuck pretty much runs itself!
posted by aubilenon at 6:18 PM on November 16, 2015 [13 favorites]
I believe it's a reference to a widely-referenced scene from an older episode of South Park. If you want to be familiar with systematic trivialization of people's concerns you need to be familiar with their oeuvre.
To add some information to the sniffing, underpants gnomes are gnomes that steal underpants to make money. When questioned on this they point to a chart that says 1. steal underpants 2. ...? 3. PROFIT!
It's funny and insightful, imo, though I suppose it trivialises people who aren't very good at writing business plans? idk
posted by Sebmojo at 6:22 PM on November 16, 2015
To add some information to the sniffing, underpants gnomes are gnomes that steal underpants to make money. When questioned on this they point to a chart that says 1. steal underpants 2. ...? 3. PROFIT!
It's funny and insightful, imo, though I suppose it trivialises people who aren't very good at writing business plans? idk
posted by Sebmojo at 6:22 PM on November 16, 2015
Now I want to watch Ghostbusters.
posted by Existential Dread at 6:34 PM on November 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Existential Dread at 6:34 PM on November 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
Outrage petitions are my personal bete noire — please, please, the next time you get asked to sign a petition to oppose something OUTRAGEOUS, ask yourself what good a petition is likely to do in that situation, and whether you're just being trolled for list building. I'd wager that about 80 percent of the time, it's the latter.
My least favorites are the petitions to DENOUNCE someone or something. Exactly what good is that supposed to do?
posted by SisterHavana at 6:52 PM on November 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
My least favorites are the petitions to DENOUNCE someone or something. Exactly what good is that supposed to do?
posted by SisterHavana at 6:52 PM on November 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
The real irony here is that I think "underage red" is in fact an absolutely galling name for a lipstick, absolutely worthy of getting for real disgusted over.
posted by the bricabrac man at 6:57 PM on November 16, 2015 [15 favorites]
posted by the bricabrac man at 6:57 PM on November 16, 2015 [15 favorites]
At some level, I'm supposed to be engaging in social media for my job. Problem is, everything, and I mean EVERYTHING, about it reminds me of junior high.
posted by randomkeystrike at 7:15 PM on November 16, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by randomkeystrike at 7:15 PM on November 16, 2015 [4 favorites]
Related is the practice of cherry picking something foolish said by some twit who's feminist/environmentalist/queer/poc/vegetarian/etc and using it to completely fucking smear all feminists/environmentalists/queers/poc/veg/etc.
Yeah, I'm looking at you, 5% of all imgur posts ever. I'm looking at you.
posted by sebastienbailard at 7:28 PM on November 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
Yeah, I'm looking at you, 5% of all imgur posts ever. I'm looking at you.
posted by sebastienbailard at 7:28 PM on November 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
One of the fundamental ethical disjunctions I had working in non-profit advocacy communication was how much "outrage" is intentionally manufactured to do one thing: Get your contact info to expand the fundraising list of an organization. MoveOn, Change.org, pretty much anything that involves "awareness" or signing a petition to underpants gnome is motivated by a desire to get you "engaged" with whatever nominal mission of the organization is. Often, this is done with either the cynicism that if people were engaged over what the actual work is of the organization, that they wouldn't care, or the obliviousness that substitutes the concerns of a rich, self-involved board member or executive director for the objectives of a broader community.
Outrage petitions are my personal bete noire — please, please, the next time you get asked to sign a petition to oppose something OUTRAGEOUS, ask yourself what good a petition is likely to do in that situation, and whether you're just being trolled for list building. I'd wager that about 80 percent of the time, it's the latter.
OK, so I am a digital person for an advocacy nonprofit, and I agree with a lot of what you are saying but really, #NotAllNonprofits. In my (large, successful) organization, we pretty much only do petitions if there is an actual theory of change (ie, is the recipient of the names/messages someone who can take concrete action to stop the bad thing/do the good thing?). This is partly out of a moral imperitive not to mislead our supporters, but also because people are smart and petitions with an actual theory of change do better. Also, we run long-term campaigns that we actually want to win, so it's better if the petitions we do help us get closer to winning. We run petitions on the actual campaigns we work on - I'm not sure what else we would run petitions on.
This is all just to say that I think it's overly cynical to say that 80% of petitions from advocacy organizations are bullshit. But this is good advice to suss out the bullshit ones. Another thing is to look at the organization: is it an advocacy organization with a history of winning campaigns on issues that are important to you? Or is it one of those groups that seem to jump on a different issue every week, OR is it not an advocacy organization, but a for-profit company that simply acts as a conduit for individuals' or organizations' petitions (like Causes.com or Change.org)? Not to say that petitions on the latter are necessarily bad, but you will probably want to give it a bit of a closer look since anyone can throw up a petition about anything on sites like that.
posted by lunasol at 7:29 PM on November 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
Outrage petitions are my personal bete noire — please, please, the next time you get asked to sign a petition to oppose something OUTRAGEOUS, ask yourself what good a petition is likely to do in that situation, and whether you're just being trolled for list building. I'd wager that about 80 percent of the time, it's the latter.
OK, so I am a digital person for an advocacy nonprofit, and I agree with a lot of what you are saying but really, #NotAllNonprofits. In my (large, successful) organization, we pretty much only do petitions if there is an actual theory of change (ie, is the recipient of the names/messages someone who can take concrete action to stop the bad thing/do the good thing?). This is partly out of a moral imperitive not to mislead our supporters, but also because people are smart and petitions with an actual theory of change do better. Also, we run long-term campaigns that we actually want to win, so it's better if the petitions we do help us get closer to winning. We run petitions on the actual campaigns we work on - I'm not sure what else we would run petitions on.
This is all just to say that I think it's overly cynical to say that 80% of petitions from advocacy organizations are bullshit. But this is good advice to suss out the bullshit ones. Another thing is to look at the organization: is it an advocacy organization with a history of winning campaigns on issues that are important to you? Or is it one of those groups that seem to jump on a different issue every week, OR is it not an advocacy organization, but a for-profit company that simply acts as a conduit for individuals' or organizations' petitions (like Causes.com or Change.org)? Not to say that petitions on the latter are necessarily bad, but you will probably want to give it a bit of a closer look since anyone can throw up a petition about anything on sites like that.
posted by lunasol at 7:29 PM on November 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
Prediction: There will be a generation after Millenials, and the depths of their cynicism and apathy will make Generation X look like pearl-clutching fools.
The music, though, will be awesome.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 7:36 PM on November 16, 2015 [15 favorites]
The music, though, will be awesome.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 7:36 PM on November 16, 2015 [15 favorites]
that's a pretty weird lipstick name, isn't it? Or is it?
It doesn't mean under legal age or under the age of consent, it means under age as in younger than your actual age, as in these red nails will make you look younger.
posted by bonefish at 7:42 PM on November 16, 2015
It doesn't mean under legal age or under the age of consent, it means under age as in younger than your actual age, as in these red nails will make you look younger.
posted by bonefish at 7:42 PM on November 16, 2015
Citation needed.
posted by sebastienbailard at 7:45 PM on November 16, 2015 [9 favorites]
posted by sebastienbailard at 7:45 PM on November 16, 2015 [9 favorites]
I have literally never heard anyone use 'underage' to mean 'younger than your actual age' before, ever. Moreover, the lipstick line is full of sexual names, including Lolita, so Underage Red fits better in the sexual context. "This will shave years off your face" is a different makeup demographic entirely, more the province of L'Oreal and Elizabeth Arden than Kat Von D.
posted by jacquilynne at 7:56 PM on November 16, 2015 [24 favorites]
posted by jacquilynne at 7:56 PM on November 16, 2015 [24 favorites]
@bonefish, either you are stirring the pot or taking the piss, but the colour branding is clearly referring to age of consent; and given which gender is likely to be wearing the shade, the age of consent of girls. This is obvious given the creator of the colours and names, who has made a career out of reality show winks and manufactured urban edge.
It's so patently referencing those shitty "Lolita" book covers that the embarrassment here is how transparent the urban edge really is, along with the manufactured "freedom" rage.
The story here is that everyone involved knows this is the intent, and some are pretending coyly that it is not, and then getting outraged when someone points out the obvious in the mildest possible manner. The creator would have impressed me if she had taken her freedom-of-speech stance by owning the fucking obvious transgressive nature of the naming, instead of hiding behind platitudes and corporate freedoms nonsense. So much for her tattoo punk, girl-power 'tude.
posted by clvrmnky at 8:02 PM on November 16, 2015 [10 favorites]
It's so patently referencing those shitty "Lolita" book covers that the embarrassment here is how transparent the urban edge really is, along with the manufactured "freedom" rage.
The story here is that everyone involved knows this is the intent, and some are pretending coyly that it is not, and then getting outraged when someone points out the obvious in the mildest possible manner. The creator would have impressed me if she had taken her freedom-of-speech stance by owning the fucking obvious transgressive nature of the naming, instead of hiding behind platitudes and corporate freedoms nonsense. So much for her tattoo punk, girl-power 'tude.
posted by clvrmnky at 8:02 PM on November 16, 2015 [10 favorites]
"The creator would have impressed me if she had taken her freedom-of-speech stance by owning the fucking obvious transgressive nature of the naming, instead of hiding behind platitudes and corporate freedoms nonsense."
Well, the quote included in this article was worse that that -- she basically said that anyone who objected to "underage" because it was salacious or whatever is wrong and that they should be ashamed of themselves for interpreting it that way. Impressive chutzpah.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 8:19 PM on November 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
Well, the quote included in this article was worse that that -- she basically said that anyone who objected to "underage" because it was salacious or whatever is wrong and that they should be ashamed of themselves for interpreting it that way. Impressive chutzpah.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 8:19 PM on November 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
Not to say that petitions on the latter are necessarily bad, but you will probably want to give it a bit of a closer look since anyone can throw up a petition about anything on sites like that.
I saw a petition once with one of the most laughable theories of change ever, like demanding John Boeher resign was actually going to happen or something.
Wonder how that petition's sponsor felt.
posted by Hollywood Upstairs Medical College at 8:25 PM on November 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
I saw a petition once with one of the most laughable theories of change ever, like demanding John Boeher resign was actually going to happen or something.
Wonder how that petition's sponsor felt.
posted by Hollywood Upstairs Medical College at 8:25 PM on November 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
I'm enjoying all the actual outrage of the lipstick name going on in here.
posted by numaner at 8:35 PM on November 16, 2015
posted by numaner at 8:35 PM on November 16, 2015
I think outrage is a pretty strong word for the discussion happening here.
posted by jacquilynne at 8:48 PM on November 16, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by jacquilynne at 8:48 PM on November 16, 2015 [6 favorites]
This is a fantastic article. I'm going to seriously re-evaluate how I react to these sorts of stories sometimes. Thanks for posting, jacquilynne.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:40 PM on November 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 9:40 PM on November 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
sexual names, including Lolita,
Godsdammit. No.
posted by MissySedai at 9:52 PM on November 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
Godsdammit. No.
posted by MissySedai at 9:52 PM on November 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
I can't tell if you're reacting to the name or to me characterizing it as a sexual name, MissySedai.
posted by jacquilynne at 9:57 PM on November 16, 2015
posted by jacquilynne at 9:57 PM on November 16, 2015
clvrmnky: Shades (pun unintended) of the old Chrysler paint charts that allowed buyers to order a car in "I Am Curious (Yellow)." Legend says legal decided at the last minute that it was a bridge too far to call their glossy purple "Statutory Grape."
posted by MarchHare at 10:21 PM on November 16, 2015
posted by MarchHare at 10:21 PM on November 16, 2015
See also MeFi's Own Tom Philips on The 29 Stages of a Twitterstorm.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 10:51 PM on November 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by TheophileEscargot at 10:51 PM on November 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
Personally, I'm outraged that this thread was not immediately deleted, then taken over to Metatalk where we all just flipped the hell out over anything anyone says or just random stuff that comes into our heads, for hundreds of comments, just becoming a vortex of outrage and indignation. Mods turn against the users, users fight the mods... total anarchy.
Some would pick up on what's going on quickly, for others it takes a little longer, anyone who tries to explain what's going on in the first hundred or so comments would have the comment deleted, and the mods refusing to give reasons. An "emergency podcast" is released an hour or two later, with just 4 minutes of incoherent yelling, sounds of tables, glasses, and furniture breaking, and then it cuts off abruptly, and we hear:
We could have had something amazing with this - perhaps the most meta joke we might ever see here. Manufactured outrage satirized to the extreme, as if it was an internet forum version of the bar/soundstages/entire studio lot fight at the end of Mel Brook's Blazing Saddles mixed with the panic scene in Airplane!.
But I suppose that would have taken days or weeks of secret planning between mods and a select number of long-time members, and could easily have gotten out of control and become a bizarre mess at best, or an actual disaster at worst, with most people left angry and confused by the whole thing.
That said, there's still a small chance it could have been amazing.
posted by chambers at 11:23 PM on November 16, 2015 [6 favorites]
Some would pick up on what's going on quickly, for others it takes a little longer, anyone who tries to explain what's going on in the first hundred or so comments would have the comment deleted, and the mods refusing to give reasons. An "emergency podcast" is released an hour or two later, with just 4 minutes of incoherent yelling, sounds of tables, glasses, and furniture breaking, and then it cuts off abruptly, and we hear:
"This has been a test of the Metafilter Emergency Outrage System. The moderators of this website in voluntary cooperation with the federal, state and local authorities, or most likely just Matthew Haughey & the moderators, have developed this system to keep you informed in the event of a test of the Emergency Outrage System.
Had this been an actual emergency, you would not have heard this message. We'd be too busy dealing with the emergency to spend valuable time making a podcast to inform you of an emergency you would plainly see is in progress. Since this is a test, we have instructed you where to click on your browser window for some logical explanation of what the hell is going on. Additionally, the events that led to the emergency would have been at least somewhat based on disputed, but reasonably rational thoughts and ideas.
This test has hopefully been able to demonstrate that though we may have our "not so great days" here at Metafilter, though the hard work and dedication of our mods, and the continued efforts of goodwill and understanding of Mefites like yourself, things will never be this bad.
This concludes this test of the Metafilter Emergency Outrage System."
We could have had something amazing with this - perhaps the most meta joke we might ever see here. Manufactured outrage satirized to the extreme, as if it was an internet forum version of the bar/soundstages/entire studio lot fight at the end of Mel Brook's Blazing Saddles mixed with the panic scene in Airplane!.
But I suppose that would have taken days or weeks of secret planning between mods and a select number of long-time members, and could easily have gotten out of control and become a bizarre mess at best, or an actual disaster at worst, with most people left angry and confused by the whole thing.
That said, there's still a small chance it could have been amazing.
posted by chambers at 11:23 PM on November 16, 2015 [6 favorites]
I have a fair mixture of left-wing and right-wing sources on Twitter and RSS. But often when I see a "LOL look at what the liberals are getting hysterical about" from the right, it's the first time I've seen it. The hundred odd Politically Correct Social Justice Warriors I follow have never mentioned it at all.
Also, the only references I've seen to the Starbucks Christmas Cup Outrage (for instance) have come from the Left.
Outrage storms definitely exist. But often they're exaggerated by the other side to demonstrate how irrational their opponents are.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 11:36 PM on November 16, 2015 [8 favorites]
Also, the only references I've seen to the Starbucks Christmas Cup Outrage (for instance) have come from the Left.
Outrage storms definitely exist. But often they're exaggerated by the other side to demonstrate how irrational their opponents are.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 11:36 PM on November 16, 2015 [8 favorites]
On the plus side, if everyone believes outrage culture is a thing for long enough, we may eventually get our generation's own soda, like Gen X and OK Soda. But it wouldn't be marketed to us. Instead it would be really absurd in some stupid, but sort of offensive way, and then they could drum up outrage campaigns and convince people to buy it to spite the "PC police." That'll show us!
posted by teponaztli at 1:01 AM on November 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by teponaztli at 1:01 AM on November 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
We all know this already, yet we all still get reeled in by whatever hook was clever enough to get us this time. We've become smarter fish, but we're still fish, and eventually we get caught. We can reduce the likelihood, but we can't stop it from happening. The only way to do that is to unglue ourselves from the internet.
That might be my New Year's vow. One day a week (probably Sun) with no online activity. A day to clear my mind of all the snark, the rage, the fear, all the negative crap that flows out of social media.
I doubt I make it till noon.
posted by Beholder at 1:47 AM on November 17, 2015
That might be my New Year's vow. One day a week (probably Sun) with no online activity. A day to clear my mind of all the snark, the rage, the fear, all the negative crap that flows out of social media.
I doubt I make it till noon.
posted by Beholder at 1:47 AM on November 17, 2015
He tweeted it, but he wasn't falling into a publicity trap and he's not to blame, because he didn't really care about it. The other people are all to blame for reacting to his tweets and not reflecting on what was truly in his heart and mind, ie nothing.
posted by Segundus at 4:31 AM on November 17, 2015
posted by Segundus at 4:31 AM on November 17, 2015
Baudrillard, plain and simple
posted by Joseph Gurl at 4:45 AM on November 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Joseph Gurl at 4:45 AM on November 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
Twitter is implicated in this stupidity? I never would have expected that.
posted by kiwano at 6:16 AM on November 17, 2015
posted by kiwano at 6:16 AM on November 17, 2015
There's got to be some kind of Betteridge's Law for sensationalist exclamatory headlines. Something on the order of : "The harder a headline tries to convince you something is a big deal, the less likely it is to actually be a big deal."
posted by panama joe at 8:18 AM on November 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by panama joe at 8:18 AM on November 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
THE ONLY WINNING MOVE IS
NOT TO PLAY.
HOW ABOUT A NICE GAME OF CHESS?
posted by blurker at 10:11 AM on November 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
NOT TO PLAY.
HOW ABOUT A NICE GAME OF CHESS?
posted by blurker at 10:11 AM on November 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
A+ post title
posted by cynical pinnacle at 6:45 PM on November 17, 2015
posted by cynical pinnacle at 6:45 PM on November 17, 2015
The algorithms know we respond to outrage, and they promote content more likely to outrage.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 8:24 PM on November 17, 2015
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 8:24 PM on November 17, 2015
Do you want people on your lawn though?
posted by Smedleyman at 9:24 AM on November 19, 2015
posted by Smedleyman at 9:24 AM on November 19, 2015
"OK, so I am a digital person for an advocacy nonprofit, and I agree with a lot of what you are saying but really, #NotAllNonprofits. In my (large, successful) organization, we pretty much only do petitions if there is an actual theory of change (ie, is the recipient of the names/messages someone who can take concrete action to stop the bad thing/do the good thing?). This is partly out of a moral imperitive not to mislead our supporters, but also because people are smart and petitions with an actual theory of change do better. Also, we run long-term campaigns that we actually want to win, so it's better if the petitions we do help us get closer to winning. We run petitions on the actual campaigns we work on - I'm not sure what else we would run petitions on."
I think we may both be suffering from sample size biases, but I've also spent a fair amount of time at #NTEN #weepingforhumanity. I think part of that is because 1) most c3s/c4s do not have coherent theories of change, 2) petitions are a relatively cheap mobilizing tool. To expand on #1, an example would be a petition my old org ran to send to the FDA over the gay blood donation ban. The theory was that the change would happen, and that we would somehow be adding to the public outcry that would make that change happen, so we could claim some credit while expanding our list. I see that happen a fair amount with other organizations, so it's not just petitions that are unlikely to be successful, but petitions that are likely to be misleadingly successful or overstate the value of that campaign as advocacy rather than as building a fundraising base.
Something that I also think affects this is that you work for a large, successful non-profit (curious about which, but I'll take my answer off air) — you both have a track record and a stable base to draw from. I think this sort of cynical petitioning actually ends up corroding the base, but a lot of places — especially newer, less established ones — see it as a quick path to relevance.
This is all just to say that I think it's overly cynical to say that 80% of petitions from advocacy organizations are bullshit. But this is good advice to suss out the bullshit ones. Another thing is to look at the organization: is it an advocacy organization with a history of winning campaigns on issues that are important to you? Or is it one of those groups that seem to jump on a different issue every week, OR is it not an advocacy organization, but a for-profit company that simply acts as a conduit for individuals' or organizations' petitions (like Causes.com or Change.org)? Not to say that petitions on the latter are necessarily bad, but you will probably want to give it a bit of a closer look since anyone can throw up a petition about anything on sites like that."
I appreciate you fleshing the rubric out some. I do think that "advocacy organization with a history of winning campaigns" can still be misleading, since the one I was at would often ultimately win on these issues but almost always through direct lobbying rather than the petitions. The petitions were a kind of soft lobbying, but it was a communication hobble to not be able to say why we wanted, say, 10,000 signatures instead of 5,000, aside from "more is better."
I dunno. Right now for my current consulting gig, I'm going around and talking to all of these small nonprofits about educational programs that they run, and trying to suss out how they measure efficacy, and it's been pretty disappointing to realize how little connection with their ostensible goals their metrics have, and how few of them want to actually think these things through — the only people who seem interested in it are folks like Broad, who are using metrics for evil in charter schools. I'm also trying to scare up more clients, but it seems like most of the folks I deal with want advice on how to make their numbers look more appealing to funders, but not how to make sure that they're actually working toward the goals they want to achieve. As someone who wants nonprofits to be effective in reaching a lot of these goals — a lot of them are really important to me — it's just been fucking depressing to realize how many are really, like, 'We teach kids to read by giving them books!' and then just measure based on, like, the weight of the books the distribute or something, but don't want to retool to do something that requires them to collect actual data, qualitative or quantitative (or think that qualitative data is just any experience they report). A lot of people seem to have gone into nonprofits because they see emotional fulfillment and critical thinking as opposed forces.
posted by klangklangston at 2:20 PM on November 19, 2015
I think we may both be suffering from sample size biases, but I've also spent a fair amount of time at #NTEN #weepingforhumanity. I think part of that is because 1) most c3s/c4s do not have coherent theories of change, 2) petitions are a relatively cheap mobilizing tool. To expand on #1, an example would be a petition my old org ran to send to the FDA over the gay blood donation ban. The theory was that the change would happen, and that we would somehow be adding to the public outcry that would make that change happen, so we could claim some credit while expanding our list. I see that happen a fair amount with other organizations, so it's not just petitions that are unlikely to be successful, but petitions that are likely to be misleadingly successful or overstate the value of that campaign as advocacy rather than as building a fundraising base.
Something that I also think affects this is that you work for a large, successful non-profit (curious about which, but I'll take my answer off air) — you both have a track record and a stable base to draw from. I think this sort of cynical petitioning actually ends up corroding the base, but a lot of places — especially newer, less established ones — see it as a quick path to relevance.
This is all just to say that I think it's overly cynical to say that 80% of petitions from advocacy organizations are bullshit. But this is good advice to suss out the bullshit ones. Another thing is to look at the organization: is it an advocacy organization with a history of winning campaigns on issues that are important to you? Or is it one of those groups that seem to jump on a different issue every week, OR is it not an advocacy organization, but a for-profit company that simply acts as a conduit for individuals' or organizations' petitions (like Causes.com or Change.org)? Not to say that petitions on the latter are necessarily bad, but you will probably want to give it a bit of a closer look since anyone can throw up a petition about anything on sites like that."
I appreciate you fleshing the rubric out some. I do think that "advocacy organization with a history of winning campaigns" can still be misleading, since the one I was at would often ultimately win on these issues but almost always through direct lobbying rather than the petitions. The petitions were a kind of soft lobbying, but it was a communication hobble to not be able to say why we wanted, say, 10,000 signatures instead of 5,000, aside from "more is better."
I dunno. Right now for my current consulting gig, I'm going around and talking to all of these small nonprofits about educational programs that they run, and trying to suss out how they measure efficacy, and it's been pretty disappointing to realize how little connection with their ostensible goals their metrics have, and how few of them want to actually think these things through — the only people who seem interested in it are folks like Broad, who are using metrics for evil in charter schools. I'm also trying to scare up more clients, but it seems like most of the folks I deal with want advice on how to make their numbers look more appealing to funders, but not how to make sure that they're actually working toward the goals they want to achieve. As someone who wants nonprofits to be effective in reaching a lot of these goals — a lot of them are really important to me — it's just been fucking depressing to realize how many are really, like, 'We teach kids to read by giving them books!' and then just measure based on, like, the weight of the books the distribute or something, but don't want to retool to do something that requires them to collect actual data, qualitative or quantitative (or think that qualitative data is just any experience they report). A lot of people seem to have gone into nonprofits because they see emotional fulfillment and critical thinking as opposed forces.
posted by klangklangston at 2:20 PM on November 19, 2015
« Older “...that unique Nintendo brand of faux... | Katherine Johnson and others awarded the... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by King Sky Prawn at 3:28 PM on November 16, 2015