MetaFilter

Well - Looks like I managed to create my own little shitstorm again. Morning everybody.

In the cold light of morning:

1. I was pretty harsh on you, astro zombie. And that's a bad thing because I do think you're amazing and I should have responded to you with more respect.

2. I stand by my initial comment.

3. God, I hate it when people pull out the strawman argument. I'd much rather people told... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by seanyboy at 1:05 AM on September 24, 2010

I find it completely hilarious that metafilter can't have a decent discussion on I/P.

You're all "We're so reasonable. We use logic and reasoning and discuss things rationally." when you're talking about stuff where there's consensus. And when there's a small group that disagrees with the overall site view, it's usually decided that the bad feeling comes from that small group. The so called trolls and the fight-causers.

But get a... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by seanyboy at 3:59 AM on September 23, 2010

Won't anyone please think of the lowly Oriole fans?
posted to MetaFilter by josher71 at 8:01 AM on September 16, 2010

I think the bigger reason people gave the OP so much leeway is because that's a natural feature of AskMe--we tend to come down on the side of the OP in most cases, because it's their side of the story we're hearing and we're trying to help them.

You might be surprised at how often AskMe respondants insinuate wrongdoing or dangerousness to male OPs in ambiguously (and sometimes not so ambiguously) described situations. If that weren't the case, the... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by Durn Bronzefist at 1:20 PM on September 9, 2010

I am not your vet.

Phenylpropanolamine is a godsend for dogs. Seriously. It is off the market for human use due to a suspected (last i knew it was not proven) link to stroke. The incidence of cerebrovascular accident in dogs on PPA is very low. It can occur but the odds are against it. I can't even begin to count the number of past patients whose quality of life has improved due to PPA.

It can be costly compared to some vet side drugs. I... [more]
posted to Ask MetaFilter by Nickel Pickle at 10:20 AM on September 9, 2010

There's nothing wrong with domestic violence as such. The problem arises when domestic violence is used by a member of a privileged group against a member of an unprivileged group in the context of a historic structural power imbalance.

One could plausibly view Asker's hammer-throwing as a form of revolution.
posted to MetaTalk by planet at 7:49 AM on September 9, 2010

I wish I could do a science experiment and post a similar question where the OP is a male*, and count the number of responses point out that the OP is wealthy, over-entitled, domestic abuser and he should be jailed for life** for throwing a hammer at the partner. My guess would be something like 99.5%

*obviously, with changes to the pregnancy details
**hyperbole
posted to MetaTalk by moiraine at 6:43 AM on September 9, 2010

YES PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD AND THE SAKE OF THAT BABY BE A SINGLE PARENT.

This is not a realistic, or even reasonable, goal.

Look. As much as you hate they guy now, you're stuck with him. You willingly got pregnant with him and he is the kid's father. Unless and until he actually does something that harms the child, he's the kid's father and that comes with certain unalienable rights.

Do not... [more]
posted to Ask MetaFilter by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 6:41 AM on September 9, 2010

Here is my best defense for the guy:

1. Whether or not buying a home makes financial sense, particularly now, is a question on which honorable people disagree.
2. Buying without him could have sent a clear signal: "I am doing what I want and don't care what you want, I'm not working with you as a team here."
3. Your decision to buy despite his wishes negates any reasonable expectation he would help on your #4 and maybe #5 (that one could... [more]
posted to Ask MetaFilter by salvia at 1:12 AM on September 9, 2010

I'm beginning to get the nagging feeling that RelationshipFilter to this extent is becoming harmful to the site overall. I could imbue all sorts of negative things on the asker, and I could rail against her SO, and all my judgments would be based on some text from an obviously biased perspective. We really have no idea about the relationship dynamic here, and any suppositions are reached across a deep gulf of conclusion. I generally stay out of these things, and will stay out of taking sides on... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by Devils Rancher at 5:19 AM on September 9, 2010

One answer said:
You have physically threatened him and manipulated him with suicide threats, and now you claim his actions "made you" do that. Whatever he says or does or how frustrated you get, it is not ok to attack someone with a hammer or threaten suicide to get their attention. No matter what they do, you always have a split second where you can choose between many options for your own behavior.
Another:
Whether or not he's a competant father...... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by John Cohen at 4:31 AM on September 9, 2010

I think that for many people, the set and setting concept also applies to pot. A small kernel of any 'negative' mood can bloom into a big scary tree with the addition of a bong hit. Likewise, positive thoughts and feelings frequently expand when herb is added to the mix. Maybe you could spend 2 or 3 minutes breathing slowly and deeply before smoking, in order to ensure that there are no overwhelming thoughts tangling up your mind.... [more]
posted to Ask MetaFilter by palacewalls at 4:18 PM on September 5, 2010

scody, be well. You are graceful and wise and I am thinking about you.
posted to MetaTalk by rainbaby at 6:29 AM on August 31, 2010

meth is actually schedule ii in the US and can be prescribed by doctors. reefer's on the bad ole schedule i - (1) Schedule I.—
(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
(C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision."LSD, psylocibin, and peyote are all on schedule i, not... [more]
posted to MetaFilter by jtron at 1:18 PM on August 27, 2010

Yeah, I, for one, am shocked to find out that roving bands of armed photographers are kidnapping these female tennis stars at gunpoint and forcing them to pose for NYT Mag. I can only hope the people who did this will release them in time for the Open to start or else there will be several byes in the early round. *finishes hamburger*

Seriously, folks, footage like this of both men and women is used all the time in TV promotions leading up major tournaments. I honestly... [more]
posted to MetaFilter by BeerFilter at 6:39 PM on August 25, 2010

Where in your lower back are you feeling pain? You say you're athletic. Does that include good core strength? Do you have balanced strength in your trans ab, rectus ab and obliques, glutes, hamstrings, quads, hip flexors, and back? How is your posture throughout the day? Stretches alone may not be the best solution.

If it takes a great deal of effort to put your socks on in the morning, I'd advise seeing a doctor. You don't have to be rolling around on the floor in... [more]
posted to Ask MetaFilter by moira at 10:46 PM on August 25, 2010

I want a bagel.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero

Don't you live in New York? I thought they grew on trees up there. I hope no one lied to me. We have biscuit trees in the south.
posted to MetaTalk by marxchivist at 12:42 PM on August 25, 2010

Anybody taking bets?

No.
posted to MetaTalk by rollbiz at 9:27 AM on August 25, 2010

Some such people would laugh at you or I for inappropriate amounts of emotion towards animals.

Actually, I've met plenty of people who slaughter and eat meat who do feel strong emotions for their food animals, right here within a few miles of me, many of them. Their feelings are not robotic, but quite complicated mixtures of respect, empathy, dependence, interdependence, sorrow, satisfaction, and pleasure.

But they see the... [more]
posted to MetaFilter by Miko at 9:14 AM on August 21, 2010

[few comments removed - this is now in MetaTalk. Please take side derails there and QUIT CALLING EACH OTHER RAPISTS. I can not believe I have to say this here.]
posted to MetaFilter by jessamyn at 10:01 AM on August 21, 2010

Implying that the women fabricated their testimony due to political pressure before all the facts of the case are known certainly is making a statement about the women's character.

Well, we can't have that. They're well-respected, trustworthy sources! What's that? Oh, we know nothing about them except their gender? Well that's still not on. Save your skepticism for when Assange is accused of assaulting some dude.

Presumption of innocence: the new offensive behaviour.
posted to MetaTalk by Durn Bronzefist at 4:54 PM on August 21, 2010

I feel like there's been a trend lately for any post that even remotely touches on gender politics or sexual politics to be derailed by a slew of MeFites eager to turn the discussion into some kind of ideological purity test.

YOU HATE RAPE, RIGHT? SAY IT!

I love this place because it's one of the few places on the web that accomodate complexity in discussions. We're better than this.
posted to MetaTalk by werkzeuger at 10:47 AM on August 21, 2010

And I also think, productive or not, it was only a matter of time before women began to show their anger. With increased rights comes increased agency, and why wouldn't women be showing anger against injustice towards them?

I think the point she's making is that sometimes there is female abuse and anger misdirected at individual men for things that other men did and that expression of that anger and use of demeaning language and actions by women... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by Ironmouth at 12:36 PM on August 21, 2010

Mondaygreens:

I agree with just about everything you said. But you end with

"The OP has the luxury of being anonymous; so I think in general MeFi is being more than generous and accommodating."

And earlier you were talking about someone else making inferences on deleted posts:

"Sure, you can make all kinds of inferences based on the deletion of... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by Phyltre at 8:57 PM on August 20, 2010

Oh, the hamburger thing. I actually laughed out loud yesterday when I saw a new user earnestly and helpfully advising an old user to use the hamburger notation so as to avoid looking like a jerk. It was just so cute, like, "Sir, I don't know if you're aware of this, but we have these things called 'e-mo-ti-cons' nowadays."
posted to MetaTalk by Gator at 1:34 PM on August 20, 2010

human ecologist, I don't think you can blame feminism for misogyny or misogynistic porn (if that's what you meant). I think they've been around longer than that. I suspect misogyny and misandry may have been around as long as people have had bad relationships with people of the opposite sex and had resentments about that.

I agreed with parts of what you said, and appreciated them, but not that.
posted to MetaTalk by nangar at 2:12 PM on August 20, 2010

Let's ask people to behave civilly by name calling!
posted to MetaTalk by furiousxgeorge at 9:03 AM on August 20, 2010

I suppose it's pointless to tell you your snappy response is embarrassingly superficial and demonstrates a lamentable ignorance of what sexism and gender issues are all about, because you presumably have no interest in remedying that ignorance. But if I'm wrong and you would like to learn more, there are a number of MeFi/MeTa threads that you might find illuminating.

Talking down and not answering! Well done!
posted to MetaTalk by Big_B at 10:42 AM on August 20, 2010

But I maintain that people really can control their behavior amongst their colleagues at work. To not do so is disrespectful and rude to your coworkers.

Oh, I totally agree with you, the above is the base line minimum standard for office environments. But people are people, things don't go perfectly and eventually somebody screws up. In this instance, that person appears sorrowful and is attempting to make amends in his post to AskMe. He's asking... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by nomadicink at 5:32 AM on August 20, 2010

It's tiresome to re-tread the ground that has been pretty fully developed elsewhere, especially when the people with whom one is interacting appear to be engaged in bad faith.

That's a funny point for you to make, considering that your entire rebuttal of his points was based on his gender and his race.

This site would be wholly improved if we acted and interacted as though the names we interact with are people first and... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 1:43 PM on August 19, 2010

Many are scolding because others didn't take the most charitable possible view...

Here's my interpretation (admittedly based on nothing other than guesswork). He PURPOSEFULLY and CONSCIOUSLY looked up her skirt. I doubt he did anything premeditated like lie on the floor or put mirrors on his shoes. My guess is that it's something like she was sitting in a chair and didn't realize that her angle and skirt length gave people a potential view. Sometimes... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by grumblebee at 10:29 AM on August 19, 2010

I can't believe the answers saying he might (or should!) be fired, or who expect he's likely to engage in physical or verbal sexual harassment. Yes, ogling is wrong. But it's really a sin of omission in the sense that often not staring at a woman's naughty bits involves a constant control of where your gaze is going (rather than making the conscious decision to look at those bits). In other words, sometimes it takes an effort to keep your eyes on the other person's face only... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by Deathalicious at 9:05 AM on August 19, 2010

He seems to be saying that if she had not been attractive, she could have lain on the office floor signaling incoming aircraft with her feet without once blipping his default-male crotch-centric radar. This paints him as even more of a douche.

Huh? If she had not been attractive, he would not have been interested in looking at her; therefore, he's a "douche"?

By definition, a woman who's... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by Jaltcoh at 7:10 AM on August 19, 2010

The bravado and weird phrasing [she was attractive!] to me sounds like a young man adrift in a new situation.

I agree, but I always approach AskMetafilter questions like scenarios during my ethics class. Our professor told us to take every given situation honestly and if you begin to pick apart things like "She was attractive," you're engaging in developing a character for a screenplay. Sure there are edge cases, but they... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by geoff. at 7:36 AM on August 19, 2010

What annoys me about these kinds of threads is when the first comment, inevitably some kind of pithy, bitchy judgement (one sentence long of course) gets favorited a million times, just because it's bitchy and pithy, and the first comment.
posted to MetaTalk by bearette at 6:43 AM on August 19, 2010

Am I the only one seeing the ageism and sexism here?

Not a goddamned chance of that, around here.
posted to MetaTalk by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:01 PM on August 13, 2010

It was my testicles. They're pretentious. I apologize. Again.
posted to MetaTalk by yerfatma at 6:41 PM on August 12, 2010

This specific situation seems to have been covered now, but it seems like there's been an escalation of bad-faith users, lately, who seem to relish walking the line and acting entirely tone deaf within the Metafilter milieu.

I wish we could all agree to retire the phrase "tone deaf" as a put-down of comments or posts in Metafilter. It seems to be short for: "I can't articulate any specific problem with what you wrote, but ... well, I... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by Jaltcoh at 6:53 AM on August 12, 2010

I'm going to politely ask again

That's the first time I recall seeing that from either you or any other mod, so taken on board for future reference, but I'm pleading not guilty to any food related comments up until this point.
posted to MetaTalk by UbuRoivas at 7:46 PM on August 9, 2010

We need a nice easy shorthand name for the logical fallacy that goes "Ah, but if you took the word [structurally privileged group] and replaced it with the word [structurally underprivileged group], would you think that was an OK thing to say then? Huh? Huh?"

It seems to be a Metafilter favorite.

We need a shorthand name for the fallacy of "Offensive stereotypes are okay in some situations as long... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by furiousxgeorge at 12:08 PM on July 22, 2010

muddgirl, I understand where you're coming from, but I do have to disagree about the nature of Skurnick's response. That first line does recognize the tribute as heartfelt, but it's lip-service. She also calls out Cohen by name, and implies he's "annoying," was "numbingly uncommunicative," and is trying to use the old "scorched earth" sympathy-getting trick. She calls his action "inconsiderate and catastrophically narcissistic." And mentioning how... [more]
posted to MetaFilter by phenylphenol at 9:35 AM on August 6, 2010

Thought you were walking away, zarq. Good thing nobody placed any bets about that, huh? Since, you know, that's what we do around here.
posted to MetaTalk by Gator at 5:43 PM on August 2, 2010

Use it for your practice. It sounds stupid, I know, but really. Everything around you, everything you think or do (on the mat or off, really), is a chance to inform your practice or distract yourself from it. When you see a hot dude, or when you think about how the woman next to you can totally do crow better than you, or when you notice your head's on the floor in a wide-legged bend and no one else's is -- those thoughts are taking you away from your practice. And that's okay -- thoughts arise;... [more]
posted to Ask MetaFilter by mothershock at 5:06 PM on August 2, 2010

After reading this, I'm not sure if MetaFilter's bigger problem is its increasing monoculture of agnostic-to-atheist left-wingers or the increasing cognitive dissonance brought on by people not responding in whatever timely fashion means to the inquisitor.

But either way, it's becoming a significant problem.
posted to MetaTalk by dw at 1:01 PM on August 2, 2010

I care when an influential branch of my country's predominant religion practices misogyny to this degree.

Calling someone a misogynist who fundamentally disagrees with you about why constitutes "misogyny" isn't helpful or interesting. Until you're willing to see whether what they're doing makes sense on their own terms, conversation isn't really going to be possible.

Maybe you're okay with that, but I'm not, and I don't think you should be.
posted to MetaFilter by valkyryn at 5:08 PM on August 1, 2010

I don't think andy_t is trolling. He is a self proclaimed new poster. Some of you jumped on him way too harshly. Unlike St. Alia, he IS asking to be educated and instead you guys are berating him and calling him a troll. Unlike St. Alia, he is explaining himself and wants enlightenment. And what do you guys do?

Now is the time for the slow-clapping.
posted by verb at 2:23 AM on August 2 [1 favorite +] [!]

Uh, gosh. andy_t,... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by futz at 5:59 AM on August 2, 2010

This is what kills me. Someone says something so incredibly dumb and antithetical to everything for which the US purports to stand, and now this is how the conversation is going. The stupid is so poisonous, it just rots and dumbs down everything it touches.

EXACTLY - Here is an example of this from the thread in question: "I wish we could pack up every meddling asshole from the south and ship them to Afghanistan where they can join their... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by Arch_Stanton at 9:57 AM on August 1, 2010

Trolls say things in which they do not believe, in a manner undirected at specific individuals, hoping for someone to rise to the bait and hook themselves. That's why it's called trolling. A troll's opinions are not genuinely held, just as that shiny bit of plastic which is the bait is not a true insect for a fish to bite.

Alia is not a troll. She might not be correct, or "in-line," but that does not make her a troll. It would be... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by adipocere at 8:22 AM on August 1, 2010

What good is being able to smoke pot if there's nowhere you can smoke?

Gee, I don't know:
1) I won't risk being arrested and having my property confiscated, all for possessing a plant
2) My tax dollars won't go toward arresting others for possessing a plant, either
3) I can still smoke to my heart's content on my own private property, rather than expecting everyone else to put up with it in the middle of public... [more]
posted to MetaFilter by vorfeed at 2:59 PM on July 29, 2010

You know, I'm more than okay with people being childless because they don't want children. That's a really good thing to know about oneself. I fully support people who make this decision for themselves and live their lives happily without children. I don't especially care if someone chooses or doesn't choose to have a child.

But I absolutely have no tolerance for the "childfree" who are so to the point that it extends to other people's children. You know the... [more]
posted to MetaFilter by zizzle at 12:01 PM on July 29, 2010