u mad bro?

February 1, 2017 4:50 PM

Felix Biederman and Virgil Texas expand on their taxonomy of online anger.

Since men got woke to this in 2016, getting into a fistfight because of Twitter has become as antiquated as abandoning your children because you couldn’t farm enough food. Today’s enlightened man deals with his rage through basketball.

(For background: The Nine Canonical Responses to "U mad," the Internet's most Grievous Insult)
(More background: the authors are hosts of Chapo Trap House)

posted by Joseph Gurl (42 comments total)

Holy shit that Michael Rapaport thing. I was aware of the beginnings of it on Twitter, but I had no idea of the punchline. What the fuck is wrong with Michael Rapaport? What would even possess someone to do that?
posted by Copronymus at 5:03 PM on February 1, 2017 [1 favorite]

This is funny to me :)
posted by grobstein at 5:06 PM on February 1, 2017 [4 favorites]

There are only two valid reponse to "u mad bro" if you want to play a shitty game.

The first is XD.

The second is :^)

But the correct answer is just to say "ok" and just stop talking. Either it quickly ends a stupid conversation or the other person will make a giant jackass out of themselves by going absolutely fucking nuts.
posted by Talez at 5:13 PM on February 1, 2017 [3 favorites]

"Andrew Breitbart, of course, succumbed to getting mad online."

😗👌
posted by griphus at 5:16 PM on February 1, 2017 [14 favorites]

Holy shit that Michael Rapaport thing. I was aware of the beginnings of it on Twitter, but I had no idea of the punchline. What the fuck is wrong with Michael Rapaport? What would even possess someone to do that?

It all seemed convoluted but I thought he came off as the good guy.
posted by My Dad at 5:21 PM on February 1, 2017

Did they leave out that Kurt Eichenwald also has large sons with martial arts expertise?

(Oh Kurt - I really am sorry that pepes think it's funny to try to give you a seizure but your relationship with social media seems legitimately unhealthy and you should probably take a few steps back. )
posted by atoxyl at 5:23 PM on February 1, 2017 [9 favorites]

Um yeah hi atoxyl this is Kurt's wife, his relationship with social media is not unhealthy
posted by grobstein at 5:25 PM on February 1, 2017 [23 favorites]

your relationship with social media seems legitimately unhealthy and you should probably take a few steps back

extremely same
posted by griphus at 5:25 PM on February 1, 2017 [4 favorites]

ok
posted by Greg_Ace at 5:38 PM on February 1, 2017

My difficulty parsing the linked article has morphed into a difficulty parsing this thread.

Well done, MetaFilter!
posted by GenjiandProust at 5:50 PM on February 1, 2017 [14 favorites]

Semiology of Twitter should be a 300-level class one of these days.
posted by My Dad at 5:53 PM on February 1, 2017 [4 favorites]

Count me confused too, not least because the main link seems to insta-crash my browser.
posted by lucidium at 6:15 PM on February 1, 2017

Pardon me if I'm not laughing, but the part about Sady Doyle fails to mention the reason she got mad at Moe Tkacik was that he released the names of Julian Assange's rape accusers.
posted by zabuni at 6:21 PM on February 1, 2017 [1 favorite]

From the article:

In 2010, in response to reporter Moe Tkacik publishing the names of the women accusing Julian Assange of rape, Doyle went on a Twitter tirade (sample Tweet: “.@MoeTkacik I mean, I don’t want to bring certain ppl into this. But I PUKED IN FRONT OF yr friends & co-workers. Christ.”) then emailed Tkacik’s employer, Washington City Paper. Tkacik was fired a few days later.

Is it possible this was just added to the article? If not, not only does the article mention what you say, but it is prominently highlighted in the only discussion of Tkacik in the article.

But the real issue is not whether it's mentioned, right, it's whether it affects the argument of the piece (inasmuch as the piece has an argument). So that's something that could be discussed even if the narrow claim you're making is (apparently) not true. I don't know anything about the story except what you said and the paragraph from the article.
posted by grobstein at 6:33 PM on February 1, 2017 [3 favorites]

zabuni - look more closely:

In 2010, in response to reporter Moe Tkacik publishing the names of the women accusing Julian Assange of rape

posted by Joseph Gurl at 6:33 PM on February 1, 2017 [1 favorite]

(that wasn't just added--it was there from the start)
posted by Joseph Gurl at 6:34 PM on February 1, 2017

Pardon me if I'm not laughing, but the part about Sady Doyle fails to mention the reason she got mad at Moe Tkacik was that he released the names of Julian Assange's rape accusers.

While I'm playing fact-checker I guess I could add that Moe Tkacik is a woman.

Ok sorry I'm out!
posted by grobstein at 6:34 PM on February 1, 2017 [3 favorites]

Yeah I'm not mad but the article is obnoxious/confusing? I feel like half the links don't work or are missing references hinted at in the article itself.

Also this only works if enough people already agree that the person is an asshole.
posted by Doleful Creature at 6:53 PM on February 1, 2017 [3 favorites]

I'm surprised how many facts I got wrong with a single sentence, sorry about that.
posted by zabuni at 6:56 PM on February 1, 2017 [4 favorites]

I am not owned. I AM NOT OWNED
posted by Potomac Avenue at 8:11 PM on February 1, 2017 [5 favorites]

a “cool” liberal like [Jonathan] Chait or Bill Maher

wait, which liberals think they're cool?
posted by AFABulous at 8:55 PM on February 1, 2017 [1 favorite]

According to secondary sources, this one may also have Biblical roots, this time in Exodus. Totally not mad from the death of his son and destruction of his crops, Pharaoh likely told Moses that he would let the Israelites go. However, when he caught up to them at the Red Sea, it is extremely likely that he claimed this was all part of his plan. Of course, he got destroyed by YHWH immediately after, which shows a guy who admits he’s mad will always beat a mad guy who tries to hide it.
posted by grobstein at 9:07 PM on February 1, 2017 [4 favorites]

What level of mad is it when you publish a yearly slambook retrospective of your best owns?
posted by Coda at 9:14 PM on February 1, 2017 [5 favorites]

Not even being mad is the only chill reaction to an extremely mad, nude, and red society
posted by naju at 12:18 AM on February 2, 2017 [2 favorites]

I am not owned. I AM NOT OWNED

(slowly shrinks and transforms into a corn cob)
posted by Sebmojo at 12:36 AM on February 2, 2017 [4 favorites]

if it's not too much of a derail, i just gotta say, that website is fucking weird. it's like if a 1990s college campus marxist zine met buzzfeed and they had a baby. once you're about three fluorescent flashing links in, you discover that, yeah, trump is pretty bad i guess, but it's really mainstream liberals that have betrayed humanity worse than any fascists did. also, hannah arendt was a reactionary, apparently.
posted by wibari at 1:25 AM on February 2, 2017 [13 favorites]

That's a hilarious take on that site.
posted by Joseph Gurl at 4:11 AM on February 2, 2017 [1 favorite]

I was chuckling along to this until I got to the Sady Doyle section and seriously what the fuck. A dude serially attacks/harasses women and men of color and yet the woman who reports him is the one with the anger problem?
posted by lunasol at 4:14 AM on February 2, 2017 [7 favorites]

If this is Web 3.0 or whateverthefuck, I'll take one downgrade, please.
posted by supercres at 5:27 AM on February 2, 2017 [2 favorites]

Yeah. And, somehow, only Hillary supporters ever get mad at people on the internet, unlike the supporters of the most popular sainted politician in this history of EVAR.

Relitigating the primary through listicles since...
posted by tobascodagama at 5:28 AM on February 2, 2017 [5 favorites]

Am I the only one irritated because this is in no way a taxonomy? I thought the link was going to be a description of different ways in which people get angry or express anger or handle anger sparked on the Internet, not... A weird and obscure list of celebrities I've never heard of making asses of themselves on Twitter.

_{MetaAnger: getting mad about being mad about someone being mad on the Internet?}
posted by sciatrix at 6:18 AM on February 2, 2017 [16 favorites]

I was chuckling along to this until I got to the Sady Doyle section and seriously what the fuck. A dude serially attacks/harasses women and men of color and yet the woman who reports him is the one with the anger problem?

Examples beyond calling a scumbag a scumbag?
posted by to sir with millipedes at 6:37 AM on February 2, 2017 [1 favorite]

Exactly my reaction, sciatrix! That's what I wanted to see.
posted by saulgoodman at 6:46 AM on February 2, 2017

Would read, but the interface broke my mobile browser.
posted by Existential Dread at 6:52 AM on February 2, 2017

(The original "Nine Canonical Responses" article is pretty ok, though.)
posted by tobascodagama at 7:27 AM on February 2, 2017 [2 favorites]

tswm, this is a good explainer by Matt Yglesias if you read the entire thing, including the part about how prominent Tweeters' attacks tend to be followed by a pile-on of anonymous eggs.

Bruenighazi: how a feisty Bernie blogger's firing explains Democratic politics in 2016

Virgil Texas has a hard-on for Sady Doyle, for some reason, and it shows, if you review his Twitter feed.

editorial aside> I'm a longtime Sady fan myself, and it seems that being on social media is ruining her life, but she's made it clear that she views part of her job as being on social media and also working to force platforms to actually enforce their harassment policies, which they rarely do--for the sake of making social media a better place for women in general. I don't think this was even the only time she's tried to use people's employment as a way to shame/stick it to them. I don't have a problem with it if we are all agreed that an employer can fire you for First Amendment-protected speech, which they can in most states and for most speech. /editorial aside>
posted by radicalawyer at 7:36 AM on February 2, 2017 [2 favorites]

The person who gets angry is the one who "loses." What a strange game. As soon as I detect someone is doing this I just start personally insulting them, their heritage, their family both living and deceased. Why bother engage honestly with a bullshit artist?
posted by 1adam12 at 8:13 AM on February 2, 2017

While I'm playing fact-checker I guess I could add that Moe Tkacik is a woman.

And MeFi's own, reluctantly on both sides, I think.
posted by gladly at 10:20 AM on February 2, 2017 [1 favorite]

Metafilter: yeah, trump is pretty bad i guess, but it's really mainstream liberals that have betrayed humanity worse than any fascists did
posted by Sebmojo at 12:03 PM on February 2, 2017 [3 favorites]

Anger is about perceived injustice. I believe anger's ability to motivate us to fight injustice is the reason we even have it in our emotional toolbox.

So where it goes wrong is when our perceptions are wrong. When we think someone deserves something they don't, or when we think they don't deserve something they do.

Or, as the connotations of "online anger" implies, when our anger is disproportionate to the scale of the injustice perpetrated. The idea that the person who gets angry is the one who "loses" depends on the assumption that the other person hasn't actually perpetrated any sort of injustice. Which some people take as a given, because come on, it's just the internet.
posted by RobotHero at 5:49 PM on February 2, 2017 [1 favorite]

Matt Bruenig did nothing wrong; it was scummy of Maureen Tkacik to publish Assange's accusers' names, but she did so after mainstream outlets had already let the cat out of the bag. That's the weakest section of the article, which is good overall. Thanks for posting it!
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 6:35 PM on February 2, 2017 [3 favorites]

The nine canonical responses article was good.

The updated version was bad.

The 2016 election really ruined everything.
posted by imabanana at 10:11 PM on February 2, 2017 [1 favorite]