The law, in its infinite majesty, etc.
I'm having difficult imagining what apparatus is involved in taking the output of legislative assclowns and injecting it with...majesty. No less infinite majesty. Is this just something people get told in law school? This is also why I've always been so flummoxed by arguments in favor of some "original intent" - have these people read the Constitutional debates? They are fairly well archived. No one agreed on the reasons for anything! There was no unifying intent! It just seems profoundly dishonest.
Similarly, this. These laws don't seem to do anything except screw over people who've already been screwed over. Like getting pregnant and having an abortion is some sort of mischievous adolescent rebellion currently sweeping the nation, desperately in need of legislative interference? What?
I am aware I am probably preaching to the choir, but unaware of what else to do, since stories like that make me sad, angry, and pessimistic.
I do like the post title, however. "And too many people were invited."
This is out of control. Stepping away from the computer now.
We'll be here when you get back!
But dona, the windmills are still standing! You can't leave now!
I'm having difficult imagining what apparatus is involved in taking the output of legislative assclowns and injecting it with...majesty. No less infinite majesty. Is this just something people get told in law school?
I assumed 1 was a reference to the famous quotation by Anatole France, "The law in its infinite majesty forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets and to steal bread"
</StandpipeBlog>
having an abortion is some sort of mischievous adolescent rebellion currently sweeping the nation
Zactly. At the risk of sounding like mcmanus, the problem here is procedure. And I don't care how much or how little you agree with killing unborn babies, if you are going to allow the termination of a pregnancy by a minor there is going to have to be a legal procedure. The amount of slut shaming can be adjusted to local mores.
The linked article is very good.
Some of the situations it described were exactly what I would have predicted but several were even more bureaucratically absurd (or depressing, or both) than I would have imagined.
I haven't bothered to read the underlying research yet, but research on differences in parental responses to teen sexual activity in the Netherlands and the US seems like it would be at least tangential to this conversation.
if you are going to allow the termination of a pregnancy by a minor there is going to have to be a legal procedure.
Why?
11. cuz she is a minor. Full stop. She either needs parental permission or a judge's ok. This is surgery.
13: That sounds as if you believe there's a general legal principle that a minor can't get medical care without parental notification, and we're talking about specially loosening that principle in the case of abortion.
There isn't any such general principle.
I was 18* and unable to check myself out of a hospital without parental notification.
*In a state where majority comes at 19.
15: Well, you should have thought about that before you got yourself pregnant, Moby.
I crashed a car and didn't have time to put on my seatbelt for the whole windshield thing.
Why?
On a technicality, LB. As TLL says, the girls in question are minors. Would you want them to be able to demand extreme cosmetic surgery without adult intervention? The principle is that doctors don't do interventions on legal children without the say so of a responsible adult. If you think, as I do, that a different adult might be appropriate in these cases, you have to pass a law. Go to it.
15: That could have been hospital policy, or could have been a particular state law.
Dad said it was a state law. And that the Buick needed a whole new front end (bumper, hood, two quarter panels, windshield, grill, radiator).
if you are going to allow the termination of a pregnancy by a minor there is going to have to be a legal procedure.
pwnd by LB, except the "Why" is replaced by "no, there doesn't"
also pwnd by dona, very sad and outraged by the article.
I will withhold my usual kidlib rant, constrained by a desire to avoid heteronormativity (why do men have parental rights at all?) and a recognition of some complications of custody (should one guardian die etc.)
that a minor can't get medical care without parental notification
Much as we're on the same side, I think elective medical care is probably the crux of the biscuit here. Breast implants are a useful comparison.
Would you want them to be able to demand extreme cosmetic surgery without adult intervention?
Doctors are generally adults, and patients, whether minors or adults, can't generally demand that any procedure be carried out on them. I call analogy ban.
Breast implants are a useful comparison.
We're going to need to see some photos.
Breast implants are a useful comparison.
With abortion? Really?
The fact that both you and Chris went for the cosmetic surgery analogy suggests that there's a thought process behind it that I'm missing, but boy am I missing it.
Doctors are generally adults
Thank you.
Obviously I have trouble with impulse control. In a minute I am going to perhaps hallucinate a battle between sheep way over there, on the other side of the room, and see if that helps me be productive.
But before that:
Noooooo. Saying abortion is surgery is like saying....I don't know, something else that is technically true but entirely misses the point. Which is that abortion is unlike any other surgery, and involves a whole bunch of other complicated stuff.
I would be curious to know, though, if there are legal avenues for minors to get potentially life saving surgery that their parents object to. Christian scientists, etc. I really have no idea.
Also, I'd say the appropriate amount of official government slut shaming is...none. Definitely none. I acknowledge that this is a political opinion that places me on one end of a spectrum, but I do not like it.
I am not horrible upset with a law requiring one parent consent so long as you have an effective judicial bypass procedure. The difficulty comes when you have one judge in a locality who opposes abortion and doesnt want to follow the law.
Would you want them to be able to demand extreme cosmetic surgery without adult intervention?
Demand?
Extreme?
I will grant that as a kidlibber, I do cede many of my personal preferences for protection of children to specfic or general communities, and in many cases lose them entirely.
Ten-yr-olds denied inplanted ram's horns? I have work to do to explain why they are so much less competent to make that choice than a twenty-yr-old. Because...they are ten?
29 also alludes to a good point. First tri, we are not really talking about difficult medical work.
So, do we require parental notification before a hospital can provide delivery care? (So sorry dear, but before you can have a kid you're either going to have to get a signed note from your mom or a waiver from a judge)
27: Seriously. Ogged should be here comparing it to getting a tattoo.
COSMETIC. SURGERY.
Really?
No.
Just...no.
I...I do not actually know how to respond to this. Did the people suggesting cosmetic surgery as an appropriate analogy read the article? I'd say that's a good place to start. Otherwise, off the top of my head, I've never heard anyone credibly claim that being forced to live with their natural boobs is akin to rape. Forced pregnancy, on the other hand, has a different history.
30: You didn't follow the link did you...
Breast implants are a useful comparison
That should be good for 1000 comments, easy.
The market, in its infinite wisdom, will provide for people like the ones in the linked piece. Post-op complications get way more dicey, but, you know, comment 1.
If you want some resources, go here http://reproductiverights.org/en/project/parental-involvement-laws
29.3: I've seen that, with Jehovah's Witnesses. It isn't pretty, but you do go to court.
33: Not elective.
Having gotten around to actually reading the link, I would suggest an alternative law that all those arguing in support of 'parental notification' will presumably think is just wonderful: Any pregnant girl has to get a signed note from both her parents indicating that she has notified them that she doesn't plan to get an abortion, otherwise she will be forced to have one.
36:
Yes I did. It was an excellent article.
The fact that both you and Chris went for the cosmetic surgery analogy suggests that there's a thought process behind it that I'm missing
elective
Saying abortion is surgery is...
A crucial premise in Blackmun's argument in Roe v. Wade.
I didn't say surgery, I specifically said procedure.
I used the word "demand" because "Free abortion on demand" is a time honoured slogan of the feminist tradition.
I think the law in this instance is an ass, but whinging about it will get neither you nor the poor bloody young women who are getting fucked over by it nowhere, unless you can come up with an appropriate alternative formulation. Critically you need to persuade the electorate that cases of under-age pregnancy are categorically different from trivial interventions. I'm hoping for some actual proposals for action here. Or at least propaganda.
15 was, while true, overstated -- most states probably do have laws requiring parental consent to the provision of any health care to a minor. I was kind of messing with the concept of general principles: there's no obstacle to changing such laws generally.
But in any case, those laws are commonly ignored for low-risk procedures with older teens: I certainly went to the doctor on my own, got prescriptions and so on as a teenager without specific communication between my parents and the doctor on each occasion.
As I have mentioned before the Center for Reproductive Rights is a great organization. Send them some money.
My wish list:
More money is spent on education and contraception.
More doctors would perform abortions. That is going to be a huge obstacle very soon.
42: It's the lowest-risk means of treating pregnancy -- allowing the pregnancy to continue is much more dangerous for the patient. Does that really count as elective?
But anyway, ignore most of the above today, for this conversation.
We have young women walking into clinics, courtrooms, or legal offices having made a rational choice that should not be interfered with. There really is nothing else for me to talk about.
I have no way to argue, and no inclination to argue with men who think they own their daughter's wombs.
potentially life saving surgery
Hey, I'm adamantly pro-choice and were I King of America, minors wouldn't need parental notification for pregnancy termination. But the number of abortions that are legitimately life-saving procedures or emergency medicine is a very, very small number.
48 corrected
men or groups of men, and some women
48 is right, but we moire or less agree that. Now, what is to be done?
But the number of abortions that are legitimately life-saving procedures or emergency medicine is a very, very small number.
100% of abortions reduce the risk of morbidity and mortality related to pregnancy. Life-saving? Not all that many women die in childbirth these days, although some do. But abortion is significantly safer.
But in any case, those laws are commonly ignored for low-risk procedures with older teens
I don't know about where you are, but lately I have to sign a consent form just to get the flu shot for myself. When I was 16 or so, I used to get outpatient stuff no problem without my parents, but I think the combination of tort law and federal regulations have made it harder to skirt rules like that.
no inclination to argue with men who think they own their daughter's wombs
We're talking about the current legal structure (which none of us drafted), not our parental preferences.
You know what you never see? Data on women who, for whatever reason, had no choice but to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term and the effect the experience had on them, particularly those who gave the child up for adoption. You'd think if that data (if it exists) were at all encouraging, the anti-abortion people who be all over it.
Also, I'm still gonna argue that abortion is qualitatively different. I'm not a studious enough feminist to have Roe v Wade down, and we didn't get there in the one ConLaw class I took in HS (shockingly!). But dammit, it's different.
And this has been a powerfully unsympathetic argument when I've made it in the past, but man, do I find it convincing. Think of the symptoms of pregnancy and childbirth out of the whole 'miracle of life' context -- just focusing on what's happening to the woman. Like, imagine the whole nine-month process -- rearranged internal organs, loosened ligaments, distended abdomen, fatigue, nausea, culminating in hours or days of agonizing muscle cramping, usually leaving permanent damage of one kind or another -- happening to you. You'd think of an outpatient procedure to keep that from happening as elective, non-emergency care?
52 is especially true if you consider having a child as a form of morbidity.
Also, I'm still gonna argue that abortion is qualitatively different.
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that everybody here would agree with that. The point is, how to persuade the senior judiciary of the United States (and most other countries) of this fact.
It's the lowest-risk means of treating pregnancy -- allowing the pregnancy to continue is much more dangerous for the patient. Does that really count as elective?
LB makes such an excellent point. Everyone assumes that abortion is so much riskier than birthing the baby. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
The "partial birth" abortion case was an attack on women's health. They banned a procedure that is the safest procedure in certain MEDICALLY NECESSARY situations. Sadly, this fact was not shouted from the rooftops.
Proposed alternatives....
First one is free, second one half off? Seriously, this is probably as heartless as any other alternative, but a minor double or triple dipping abortions is probably also having some other difficulties the state might be interested in?
Any law making it more difficult to obtain an abortion is going to traumatize the hell out of someone. No way to avoid it.
Are there other medical procedures that require the permission of both parents?
61: I don't know all fifty states, but I bet not, just because of the cumbersomeness issue.
Oops. But then that means someone, somewhere, is keeping records of who has had an abortion.
I don't run for office for many reasons, only some of them involving photographs.
57: your pseud appearing in the "recent comments" sidebar is delightful. Particulary in this thread.
It's the lowest-risk means of treating pregnancy --
I'm guessing that if you could somehow search every speech and platform of anybody who won a single state-wide election in the U.S., you would never once hit the phrase "treating pregnancy" and that if you did you'd find the candidate's press secretary calling the press and explaining that the candidate had meant to say "prenatal care" or something
These laws don't exist in all states. Doesn't that imply that in the other states, it is at least possible for a minor to get an abortion without parental or judicial involvement? If so, it's clearly not true that there's a general 'no medical procedures for minors without approval' rule, at least in those states.
My understanding is that the background rule is that parents generally have a right to approve medical procedures for their minor children (with exceptions for exigent circumstances, like being rushed to the hospital). Medical care generally, not just cosmetic surgery or purely elective procedures.
States have enacted specific exceptions that allow teens to seek treatment for things like mental illness, contraception, drug and alcohol treatment, and abortion, without the consent of their parents, on the theory that teens will be discouraged from getting necessary medical care in the first place in those areas if they are forced to reveal the treatment to their parents.
If you're in favor of increasing teen access to abortions, as I am, then parental notification laws are a horrible travesty, but it's unsurprising that pro-lifers disagree, and I think it's fair to say that the pro-life approach is more generally consistent with the rules applicable to parental control over medical treatment for minors.
Here's the rule for Connecticut, but I believe (without checking) that something similar is true for California, as well.
Most states dont require permission of both parents.
Id have to look, but consent of one is most common with a judicial bypass procedure bc SHOCKINGLY the female has some rights, even though she is a minor.
But, it would seem since she has a decision about one of two possible procedures, she should get to decide. The default shouldnt be the more dangerous one.
51:I'm with twisty
Revolution!
(Before you consider that unserious, you need to read how twisty explains it. She is not an unserious feminist.)
No link. Google twisty IOZ revolution
Goodness Gracious. My 1st googling came up with this from IOZ which starts...
Ever entertaining in her outrage, renowned agitatrice and bee-keeper Twisty Faster pens a peroration on the underlying dumbness and horror of phallo-feminism, which is the conviction by certain men of the liberal-arts-educated set that, having once attended a Take Back the Night event as an undergraduate, they stand as valuable allies in the struggle for vaginal equality. Whatevs, dudes
I must absent myself from righteousness awhile...
Are there other medical procedures that require the permission of both parents?
All of them, except for things narrowly carved out by statute or emergency situations, is my understanding. That at least was the advice given to me by my family lawyer during my divorce.
I think it's fair to say that the pro-life approach is more generally consistent with the rules applicable to parental control over medical treatment for minors.
Yeah, this is mostly true, 15 really was overstated (as I said above, but should say again).
What complicates it is the constitutional right issue -- parents can veto other medical care, because it's not a matter of right. (I actually don't know where the line is where doctors would start going to the courts if a parent wouldn't consent to life-saving or risk-reducing care -- there's got to be one, but that's not the current issue). Parents can't constitutionally be given a flat veto over abortion, though, so the parental notification laws are often written by abortion opponents to amount to a practical veto.
70: But in practice they don't -- you or your wife can take the kid to the doctor separately without both showing up, right?
72 -- I think that's basically right, and that doctors don't usually ask for both parents' consent if one parent is present, particularly when the couple is married.
But doesn't the doctor have both parents' consent somewhere on file? Actually, I don't think Jammies gave written consent when we took HP to the popped arm socket clinic.
55: Data is being collected, if slowly, but surrendering a child for adoption is seriously traumatizing for a significant number of people who do so, and the anti-abortion and pro-adoption folks very explicitly downplay this for obvious reasons. (I've gone back to that sentence and put in "people" where I had "women" because there are certainly men for whom this is true.)
Yeah, this is mostly true, 15 really was overstated
15 was an anecdote, so I don't see how it could be overstated. 21 was my recollection of a highly informed opinion that was only valid for one state more than twenty years ago. And, obviously, the notification was post hoc. I had already received care (basically, they ruled out a concussion) before anybody thought to call my parents.
78: Sorry, not your 15 was overstated, my 14 was overstated. Numbering error.
Related: With only the padding provided by the sun shade and a garage door opener, my head is hard enough to break a windshield without suffering a concussion.
Very interesting, Thorn. I wonder how much more traumatic than than the other options.
does anybody get the consent of both parents for anything? I think it is only a problem if the medical provider knows that one of the parents objects.
(82 was in response to 80)
(I have been completely sucked in, haven't I?)
82, 83: The title and insurance are now in my own name, so I'm not willing to try again.
It is OK, donaquixote. You're just limbering up for the liveblogging when you go to bars. Chatting will keep you in practice.
The point is, how to persuade pray for the early death or incapacitation of the senior judiciary of the United States . . . .
In the meantime, it's about state laws: overturning existing crappy laws; preventing crappier ones; and passing better ones.
Oh man. Liveblogging from bars. THAT'S definitely gonna happen. "She's pretty hot, and I'd say only a 50% chance that she'll try to burn down my house. Can I have a vote please?"
Thank God for a barely serviceable pseudonym.
I don't think doñaquixote quite understands the quid pro quo expected for the Mineshaft's sympathy and advice.
A while back there was an article about folks live-blogging sex. I didn't quite get how this worked in practice, but apparently some people had figured out the mechanics.
Point me to some archived examples, Sir Kraab.
donaquixote didnt read the fine print about sharing.
Good news though. You do not have to say "who wants to sex Mutumbo" unless you suspect other Unfoggeders are in the room. But, it might be a nice ice-breaker.
I've been reading Fugitivus for a while now (her blog is amazing), and one important thing that she mentions in this post but discusses at greater length elsewhere is that her entire office goes to incredible lengths to downplay the fact that they're the ones helping girls meet the terms of the law. Everything they do is hush-hush in case the anti-abortion nuts get wind of it and make a federal (state?) case out of things.
In terms of comparing the law to other laws requiring the participation of *all* legally-recognized parents, the only one that I can think of involves child passports (and while I know it can be a pain in the ass, I imagine it's well justified in terms of preventing parents from kidnapping their children and taking them to a country that does not extradite to the US).
89: I can see how one might instant message or post to twitter during sex--but not good sex (which is the kind we hope donaquixote has--much luck!).
We're always going to vote YES, Miss Q. Don't wait for our confirmation. Assume you have it, and use your opening line.
No, wait, I wasn't being sarcastic! Liveblogging from bars is certainly going to happen. Liveblogging sex, however, seems complicated, and, unless under truly extraordinary circumstances, the risk/reward of getting caught on your blackberry when they come back from the bathroom seems prohibitive. But funny.
90: Reading the archives would take all the spontaneity out of it.
Less obligatory, more on point, and NSFW.
95 & preceding: Another near-tragic misunderstanding to be laid at the door of the emoticon ban.
The possibility of commenting during sex has been discussed here before, but I don't think anyone's managed to do it yet. So you'd be teh hero, DQ.
100: On the Internet no one knows what you're doing with your dog.
Or Kobe's dog for that matter.
in Alaska
The author of Fugitivus doesn't say she's in Alaska, she's using the passing of parental notification in Alaska to point out how parental notification works (fails, (re-)victimises) in her unnamed state.
100: It's good to have goals.
98: 404, Nathan Williams! 404!
The possibility of commenting during sex has been discussed here before, but I don't think anyone's managed to do it yet.
Surely transcription software could make it relatively easy?
94: Oh, God, I don't have an opening line anymore. I don't think I ever did. I tried to steal a friend of mine's once, except this happened: I walked up to a girl in a bar and said (as my friend had said to a passing stranger on the street), "I don't know where you're going, but where ever it is, you're going to up the average."
Girl sitting on bar stool looks around.
"Where I'm going?"
...
I might have been drunk.
I've rarely been successful at picking up when I've been so directed, unless they happen to enjoy awkward humor. Normally I have fun and somehow get laid.
"Oh God, OH GOD, DON'T STOP, FULL STOP. No, don't stop! Full stop. Dammit, comma, don't stop! Exclamation point! Exclamation point! Exclamation point!"
My favorite pick-up line starts with standing next to the intended. Then ask, "if you were a pirate, would you wear your parrot on this shoulder [tapping the shoulder close to you] or this shoulder [reaching for distant shoulder, and settling arm over the person]?"
Who doesn't love to consider herself a pirate?
Actual line used on me in grad school: "So. Do you work exclusively on Lacan?"
107 is just about the crappiest pickup move ever. Here's what you do: You walk up boldly and say "Tomorrow morning you'll be calling me Quasimodo 'cause I'm gonna ring [effect=double finger guns with wink and lateral click] your bell, baby!"
Alternatively, you study this video and adjust your dancing accordingly. There's text, but my browser screws it up, so I have no idea about the context.
89: The first time I slept with a fellow blogger* I wanted awfully to say afterward "hey, are you gonna blog this?" because I thought it was sort of funny, but it seemed also to stand a good chance of eliciting the reaction of mortified silence or half-dressed hailing of cabs, so I skipped it.
*by which I don't mean that I go around sleeping with bloggers so much as that I went on to date the gent in question so it was the first time we etc.
OT: It is really hard not to be sarcastic at people about astrology.
||
Hey, let's teach people to run over kids in the road, 'cause it's probably one of those annoying optical illusion thingies.
http://www.physorg.com/news203054814.html
|>
Well, then, see if I try it on you, togolosh.
107 -- IME, girls really DON'T love the Running Man.
110: thought that might be something more along the lines of "you'll know all about my hump."
I could tell you what kind of pickup lines work when the subject of your attentions is a fellow commenter.
I won't, though.
I also like just spreading my arms and grinning, "C'moooooooooooon."
Possibly would be more effective if not my arms.
109 is unbelievable and hilarious.
I can't remember a lot of instances of pick-up lines coming my way but I know a couple of times it has been some variant of "smile, it's not that bad" or (Je ne vous merdes pas) "Whatcha lookin' so sad for?" How do you respond to that, exactly?
I have gotten might comfortable, mighty quickly.
119: "My mom has cancer. Wanna fuck?"
What about "You look like a hooker I knew in Frisco. Are you?"
"Whatcha lookin' so sad for?"
"So.. much... death. So... much.... blood! The bodies! The bodies! Can you see them? They're all around us! WHY? WHHHYYYY?"
"That's a really nice shirt. It would look great draped over my headstone."
113: Actually it's kind of cute. There is some risk that 'pirate' and 'parrot' will end up swapped under the influence of alcohol, but only geeks care about parroty errors.
117: "How do you feel about Matumbo cosplay?"
Argh. Sorry, doña. In case manually mangling the URL didn't work, here's the fixed NSFW link.
The link in 112 is completely nuts.
//
I was looking for a graph that would show average husband height for different wife heights, or vice versa. My friend said that women who are 5'0" want to date taller men than women who are 5'8"; this seems unlikely to me. I could not find that, instead I found this:
>
Actual line used on me in grad school: "So. Do you work exclusively on Lacan?"
I don't get it.
but only geeks care about parroty errors.
Arrrrrgh.
My favorite pick-up line: "I wish I were your derivative, so I could be tangent to your curves."
It is a truth universally acknowledged that a single man in possession of a good mustache, must be in want of a wife?
It's better as "lie tangent to", I think.
120 is right; it's impressive. I think 118 is a more Unfoggedian Unfogged comment than any I have ever written.
132: You know, nothing against tangents, but isn't it more fun to intersect at more than one point?
"Wanna fuck" was always good enough for me
1) Didn't care about getting laid 200 times a year by 50 different people for twenty years
2) Usually the mutual attraction was obvious
3) Kinda repulsed by using seduction, enticement, persuasion, deception etc to get someone into bed; the idea of "talking someone into bed" or a "slick and effective pickup line" reminds of the despicable stuff I see on geek boards like hypno-porn
4) not attracted to people who demand I jump through hoops like a trained seal before they reward me with a sardine;they usually aren't worth the effort and are selfish in bed
136: Curves can be tangent at multiple locations.
137: I feel certain that there's a middle ground between "talking someone into bed" or a "slick and effective pickup line", and "wanna fuck."
137: may I get out of the van now, sir?
DQ, you seem to be just the thing this place has needed, like the new character brought in to revive a sitcom in decline.
Going back to 70, and Halford's attorney's advice that consent of both parents is required for any medical care. I am guessing this has to do with your coparenting rights and obligations vis a vis one another and not as to The State. That is, a doctor wouldn't get in any trouble for performing a procedure with only Mom's consent, but Mom might. (As someone very opinionated about all forms of medical care, I am grateful for all legal mechanisms protecting my ability to be involved in any medical decisions affecting Rory.)
DQ, you seem to be just the thing this place has needed, like the new character brought in to revive a sitcom in decline.
Going back to 70, and Halford's attorney's advice that consent of both parents is required for any medical care. I am guessing this has to do with your coparenting rights and obligations vis a vis one another and not as to The State. That is, a doctor wouldn't get in any trouble for performing a procedure with only Mom's consent, but Mom might. (As someone very opinionated about all forms of medical care, I am grateful for all legal mechanisms protecting my ability to be involved in any medical decisions affecting Rory.)
144, 145: I know it's considered poor form to actually read linked posts, but the linked post addresses this issue with regard to abortion: namely, the clinics feel the need to follow the letter of the law strictly, to the detriment of patients since the law is quite vague, in order to avoid legal problems.
Yeah, thinking about it, I think 144.2/145.2 are right (or, at least, I don't know the situations in which a doctor would be required to obtain prior consent from both parents).
I'm quite sure that if one parent objected to a procedure, though, and insisted that the minor not be treated, the doctor would not be able to perform the procedure.
146 and in general: I haven't entirely finished the linked post (which is thus far excellent and enlightening) yet, but the sort of state law(s) described do seem ripe for legal challenge based on their vagueness.
IANAL, of course, but one would think, perhaps naively, that what constitutes compliance with a law should be spelled out quite clearly.
140: ...you'd learn how to switch no matter how impossible it is.
Wait. The rest of you dont comment during sex?
reminds of the despicable stuff I see on geek boards like hypno-porn
I'm just curious, Bob; do you try to troll them, too?
I DID NOT GRAPH RELATIONS WITH THAT WOMAN
Moby: Nah, men just smell too gamey.
Di: I'm smiling. I'm happy to be the annoyingly cute nephew who writes a tell all later for meth money.
153.1 interestingly that same rationale has been used here (can't find it right now) by at least one male commentor to explain his visceral distaste for members of his own sex.
Who wants to have sex w jerky? Actually, I'm sure it has its place, but its not for me. No offense to the men. I hear straight women quite like it.
I am essentially toucan sam when it comes to picking sexual partners, assuming normal sinus function.
There's probably a little more to it than that.
160 to 157. Smell, or scent, is important, of course.
The link in 112 is completely nuts.
Boy howdy, yes sir-ee.
144, 145, 147: Are you two only talking about non-abortion procedures? Because the poster certainly seems to think the legal threat to abortion clinics is real if they don't follow a "both parent must be notified" law.
158: Me too, always going for the fruit loops.
I can never show my face again here, right?
Smell, or scent, is important, of course.
Yes, one must make sure to only have sex with the right variety of jerky, just like you want to pair the right wine with your food.
Wait. The rest of you dont comment during sex?
Well, not during sex with other people.
I like to think I smell "unique."
I just clicked on that link. WHOA. What do they do when someone swerves to avoid said joyous, angelic mirage child, and hits an actual living thing?
Also, once I realized what it was, I'd probably speed up and blast through it.
167 gets it exactly right. Despite the tortured nature of the jerky metaphor -- tortured for me if only because I'm a mostly-vegetarian.
... Oh noes. I'm sorry, Stanley.
I shout "Kobe!" every hundredth orgasm.
I'm glad that's in West Van, not the city itself. I don't want to drive over there during the experiment. The article says the police will be patrolling - maybe it's illegal here to drive over an illusion.
I'm sorry, 166. I wasn't actually being self-referential, just tired.
On that note...
his visceral distaste for members of his own sex.
What about their other body parts?
176, 177: I now have the image of a sort of paper-doll cutout of a male, and am trying to strip out the smelly parts. What are we left with? The entire groin area is obviously gone, as are the armpit areas. I don't know how, say, ears fare. Possibly the belly is okay (not too low!) No feet, of course, probably no ankles either.
We've got the face from the nose (*maybe*) up, and something hazy in the torso area, and maybe some thighs and calves in the vicinity of the knees.
MEN JUST SMELL BAD. YOU KNOW IT'S TRUE.
Men (some men, particular men) smell lovely.
Gah, I couldn't stand it, okay?
||
Cyril: Whom do you mean by "the elect"?
Vivian: Oh, The Tired Hedonists, of course. It is a club to which I belong. We are supposed to wear faded roses in our button-holes when we meet, and to have a sort of cult for Domitian. I am afraid you are not eligible. You are too fond of simple pleasures.
Cyril: I should be black-balled on the ground of animal spirits, I suppose?
Vivian: Probably. Besides, you are a little too old. We don't admit anybody who is of the usual age.
Cyril: Well, I should fancy you are all a good deal bored with each other.
Vivian: We are. That is one of the objects of the club.
|>
178: Dude, the answer is the neck.
184: ? I'm pretty sure the neck reeks of scent.
185: Ah. I'm tired and misread - I thought you were only taking out the "smells bad" parts.
(And thus suggesting a body part that generally smells good.)
186: Oh. Yeah, no, take out the "smells of sexuality, specifically male" parts. A pretty stupid exercise, overall, though. The parts I did take out don't particularly smell bad in the first place, barring extraordinary circumstances.
Men are lovely and their bodies are wonderful. That's what I say.
If men really smelled like beef jerky, I would probably be gay.
I haven't been close enough to smell a man for around thirty years. Maybe they smell different nowadays. I don't remember minding them very much. Of course the smell varied.
Never really been an olfactory kinda guy anyway, for a lot of reasons. Nor taste. Very sensitive about touch, on the other hand, and very good at it. I'm the guy who finds the contact.
Wow, Megan, it's almost like you know me.
But in any case, those laws are commonly ignored for low-risk procedures with older teens: I certainly went to the doctor on my own, got prescriptions and so on as a teenager without specific communication between my parents and the doctor on each occasion.
That was not my experience in MA or upstate NY. My Dad asked me to call the doctor to make an appointment for a physical or something, and they wouldn't do it without talking to my parents. That's probably not a legal requirement per se, but it was how things worked.
155: 'Twas I, and I stand by my olfactory theory of hotness. DQ has greatly endeared herself to me by supporting my theory. All the rest of you need to go out and sniff more people - you'll see that I am correct.
151:I'm just curious, Bob; do you try to troll them, too?
Actually, I lied. I don't visit such places, but I was misdirecting away from where I do see "12 Sure Steps to Get your Date Home With You"
I do still troll Yglesias if only enrage Max. But Yggles has enough I'm usually not needed. In this case the thread got diverted into talking about the Irish. Here ya go, fans, xposted just for you
Painter and Coates.Listen to Painter talk about her two black Americas, the two-tiered society in which a tiny minority of blacks are accepted into a deracialized UMC rich elite and the vast majority struggle at the bottom. Notice that she seems to imply this condition will last forever. Look at which group she belongs to.
Read Coates, "Painter is probably right, and it makes me so so sad." Coates, you make me sad.
They are doing their jobs. The academic "Marxians", academic feminists, black studies profs are there to keep the focus away from class and capital, promote the idea that social justice is a 500 year Neo-Gramscian counter-hegemonic project, and above all, tell us that social disorder and direct action are immoral and counter-productive.
"12 Sure Steps to Get your Date Home With You"
1. Date your roommate.
It has been asked "Why Unfogged?" and I gave this some serious thought last night. Of course I don't go near conservative sites
I like the company of women, and my favorite blogs are Digby, FDL, Thoma's, places where are lots of respected women & LGBT commenters. I like mixed blogs that talk about a range of subjects. I read at places like Pandagon and IBtP. Those places, and Mad Men blogs, have male commenters. But the guys act differently there.
Unfogged guys:
talk fashion
flatter
sex talk
dirty jokes
school stories
work stories
face, they flirt
divert away from "serious" subjects as much as possible
but do talk about relationships, lend a shoulder stuff
defend the women's honor
attack outsiders and those who are "different" or discomfitting" not just me...DS
This place has the atmosphere of a meat market, a pickup bar.
That's really interesting.
This place has the atmosphere of a meat market, a pickup bar
See 198. Mrwowr!
This place has the atmosphere of a meat market, a pickup bar.
Don't neg me, bro!
200: It has been asked "Why Unfogged?" and I gave this some serious thought last night.
I don't see the answer to this question in the rest of 200, though. Is it there, and I'm missing it?
203: I read that as bob saying that he disapproves of the gender politics around here, and comments in an attempt to influence them.
Actually I should remember not to engage 203 (I only read it by accident -- I've been doing really well!) because it is exactly the combination of maudlin, self-pitying, impressively wrong, intentionally insulting, stupid and point-missing that gets me going. At least it doesn't mention Searle!
204: Oh. It's not working. Though I guess it is true that bob interrupts the, er, rhythm quite often, which isn't always a bad thing.
divert away from "serious" subjects as much as possible
To be fair to Bob, that seems pretty accurate for my case. To be fair to me, fuck serious.
I read that as Bob saying that he really likes us, and shows that by pulling on our ponytails and running away. If we screech and chase him, he got what he wants and does it again.
When did parsimon eat the jam off your cake?
the combination of maudlin, self-pitying, impressively wrong, intentionally insulting, stupid and point-missing that gets me going
That's the best definition of trolling I've seen so far. There's shit-disturbing and belligerent too, if you want to put a finer point on it, but those are essentially covered in "intentionally insulting".
210: I think 206 was really to 200 not 203.
208: Likewise guilty as charged, but the founder approved of leavening in the blog. To wit.
210, 212: hah! Oops! Jam's all there, parsimon. Not 203.
Damn, I hope 206 was to 200 rather than 203.
215 crossed with 214. Good; I mean, I know we haven't seen eye-to-eye on everything, but I object to "maudlin."
Bob's trolling annoys me when he sticks too long on a single subject (cough Obama cough) but I'm glad he's got a varied repetoire. Trolling Egyptology was pretty awesome.
Anyhow, the answer to "why Unfogged" is "bored at work", no?
Trolling Egyptology was pretty awesome.
Why? I don't get this. He'll troll anything he can get an angle on, and it doesn't matter if it's internally consistent, and it doesn't have anything to do with his true beliefs, whatever they might be. I mean, who cares? He's just trying to fuck things up.
That's the universal answer to "why Unfogged', but I think this iteration of the question was specifically asking why Bob trolls us and not the other sites he reads. I'm sticking with my theory that he has a crush on us.
Trolling on Egyptology is at the very least a bit awesome.
A site where it is possible to troll on Egyptology is obviously even more awesome.
Actually, the comment section here continues to have something I don't see on many other blogs: commenters directly engaging with one another in a sustained way. You get that at CT and Obsidian Wings, and on Making Light, but with the exception of the latter, they tend to stay very on-topic. That's not a bad thing, of course; it can be a bummer at times here if one comes into a thread late and would like to talk about the OP or an earlier subthread, but things have moved on entirely.
bob was presumably not taking his "Why Unfogged" question very seriously in the first place.
220: eh, the fact that unfogged had a conversation about Egyptology is awesome. Trolling mostly sucks.
Q: Why did the Egyptian cross the road?
A: it's too hard to explain.
We don't have a "relationship" to bob, we live inside him.
The bits of serious that come out occasionally here are interesting more than half the time.
I liked the last couple of books that were widely recommended here, and the music threads are always good.
talk fashion
When will this style come back?
http://www.sazzvintage.com/product/58282.html
Does anyone know why bonds denominated in anything but USD, EUR or GBP are so hard to buy retail? Real-denominated Brazilian 5-year bonds pay nearly 9%, but there don't seem to be any brokers.
Also, global warming worst case (thermohaline circulation interrupted by melting ice, europe ices over in the following century) looks less likely
http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2010/09/09/climate-change-a-slowdown-on-polar-melt/
Possibly serious topics are uncommon because posting frequency here is high and having something to say takes a little longer.
OK, sorry
http://thresq.hollywoodreporter.com/2010/09/tell-all-book-paris-hilton-hid-cocaine-in-crotch.html
206: You don't really understand Bob. You're just a simulation of someone who does.
When will this style come back?
Never went out of style.
Possibly serious topics are uncommon because posting frequency here is high and having something to say takes a little longer.
I don't think that's it. There just aren't that many active front-page posters, and they may feel pressured to post something which winds up serving as an open thread.
front-page posters,
not relevant to the quality of the conversation, I think. Where I wrote posting, please read commenting.
A conversation about something serious takes more time than does being light, and thinking about what people said and mulling over assumptions or facts or whatever means a delay in responding. On the other hand, pontificating with no sense of the personality of the contributors usually tends to bloviation, so the point about sustained interaction is probably right.
219:There is I think at lot of unrealized potential here, among the ..."laydeeez", potential inhibited by some questionable life choices and companions.
I think we have already determined that it isn't I tweety wants to keep in line, in place.
...
Leaving the pane with Marcy Wheeler (that lady is tough, smart, and really hard on Obama) talking about "Our Banana Republic"...I go to the following I read last night
I go to Corrente accepting Brad Reed's apology at Crooks and Liars
BR:
*Now would be as good a time as any to issue a mea culpa to Lambert and the folks at Corrente, who are much smarter than I am: You were right about Obama! I was wrong. I stupidly voted for neo-liberalism in the Democratic primary when what we really needed was populism.
Back to Corrente, "lambert" links to Violet Socks PUMAs, one year after. I remembered one of the guys here the other week just spitting at the very thought of the PUMAs
1. Investigate fraud by the Obama campaign in the TX caucus in 2008. Here are the incident reports.2. Restore the PUMAs to the discourse and the history. On Obama -- and especially how the Obama campaign treated women -- the PUMAs got it right.** That needs to be said. Violet gives a fine summing up of the history.
So I spent a little time thinking about the primary season and who around here were the most enthusiastic defenders of Obama and the most virulent attackers of women. Ya know? Who controlled the discourse? (I won't speak of the conveniently absent hilzoy, out while the getting was still good)
And whether that difference from other mixed blogs endures (See Digby, FDL, Thoma, ad infinitum) and how it might show up in other ways of infantilizing women.
I was just, ya know, thinkin. My mind works this way, to the extent it works.
230: Where I wrote posting, please read commenting.
Ah, okay.
Say, Moby, whan did you live in CMH? Do you remember Ronald Koal?
who around here were the most enthusiastic defenders of Obama and the most virulent attackers of women
You're in top form, bob.
I know sexism and misogyny when I see it, even when it tries to be funny and flattering. I do like you. Some of you.
226.3 I'd wear that shirt in a heartbeat.
Bob, there isn't a cigarette paper between Obama and Clinton politically, and anybody who believes otherwise is delusional.
231: What?
What?
I don't...I mean...what?
I know sexism and misogyny when I see it
The problem comes when you see it everywhere, and 236.last is God's own truth that the PUMA people refuse to accept.
Ok, on second thought, better to stay out of it. I am retracting my inquiry, such as it was.
Frankly, I think that a lot of opposition to Obama (as well as support for him) is basically driven by psychodrama that has more to do with a personal emotional investment in the narrative of politics than with a realistic assessment of what an actual sitting president in 2010 can or should be doing. I think that's the most parsimonious explanation for the PUMAs and for Bob.
And 236 is basically right.
ug. Violet Socks. Used to enjoy her long ago, then things went downhill.
234: I assume he means me, at least in part (we have a history, see). Hilarious!
Hey, remember when he called Blume a suicide wife and said she deserved what she was going to get? Or when he called his own partner (who he calls his "roommate" for some reason) a "fucking BITCH" because "[t]he way women display and treat their 'toys' is another reason I have never had kids."
We'd be poorer without his company, really. He's trying to help us! Because... he's a feminist!
Fabulous.
What does "PUMA" mean here?
Sorry, I dearly need to have lunch; I associate the term with any number of things, including some kind of PUMA=Cougar, but that doesn't really make sense for the way in which people are using the term here, so I'm missing some nuance.
237, 239: he's a troll, a really nasty one, and he's trying to wind people up. It's really best to ignore him, a well-established truth we manage to forget with some regularity.
Maybe he meant Blume was a suicide girl who was all tatted up and flaunting around? Blume is VERY showy like that.
Oops, fucked up the first link in 243. Here you go!
a well-established truth we manage to forget with some regularity.
Unfogged is like an old-fashioned watch -- it needs someone to get it wound up, or else it just stops.
247: if you read on, he actually did! 'Cuz totally.
236.2 is a great opening. You are wrong.
That is why Lambert insists on revisiting the PUMAs, because the Obamites are re-writing history.
Clinton committed during the campaign to keeping people in their houses, for instance. Which means banks and finance would have taken the hit instead of consumers, and means the economic history of the last two and next twenty years would be different.
Her health care was different. Her tax policy was different. There were other differences, explicit and implicit.
No, the gap wasn't huge, about the difference between Boxer and Difi. Maybe a little wider. But big enough.
"Party Unity My Ass"
The HRC dead-enders, as epitomized by Larry "Whitey Tape" Johnson.
252: To me they'll always been epitomized by the various "feminist" women who said that they hoped abortion ended up banned (since it didn't matter to them anymore) in order to teach younger women a lesson.
Clinton committed during the campaign
Which, as we know, is always the best predictor of a candidate's actions once in office.
Some cougars may be PUMAs as well. Watch out, young Obama-voting men!
Blume may be an ok person, but a friend should check her for hidden bruises.
PUMA's were the friendly Dems who decided that:
a) Obama isn't a true liberal
b)Hillary is
c) Obama is going to crash the economy with his class warfare and raising taxes on the rich
d)is a Muslim terrorist type
e)Obama is a scary black dude who hates white people
f)McCain is more of a liberal than Obama, and therefore any true liberal Democrat should vote for McCain
Anybody else here go through a phase of reading No Quarter for the Crazy (tm) back in the fall of 2008?
Wow. That was out of the park.
Bob, I have no doubt whatsoever that if HRC was president, you'd be providing her exactly the same level of affection that you have for Obama.
260: But that's not counting for Bob's racism!
Wasn't B somehow involved with the Su/icide G/rls thing at some point?
oudemia:
Yes. Reproductive rights did not matter to them at all. Lots of not-so-subtle aggression regarding racial issues.
259: I bet he could go further. In fact, I bet he will.
264:Are you calming down now, tweety?
Your rage and need to dominate is scary.
Your need to "protect" women is typical.
251 -- I may have been the one with the recent dismissive PUMA reference. And for good reason: whatever Sen. Clinton had to say about housing in the first third of 2008, but the final third, things had completely changed. Looking at differences between what she said about health and taxes, and what candidate Obama said, without taking Baucus, Nelson, and Snow into account isn't productive.
Aw c'mon guys, that's not even a new routine.
I think we have already determined that it isn't I tweety wants to keep in line, in place.
Is this about "Hone in on" again? Because he was wrong there.
Hey, remember when he bitched about the thirteen-year-old that never fucked him?
Is this about "Hone in on" again? Because he was wrong there.
Wrong. Someone should check Moby's whole family for bruise marks, the bastard.
And all the blah blah blah about the PUMAs
from guys
I am have to go get some quotes from women who know what they are talking about.
258: Anybody else here go through a phase of reading No Quarter for the Crazy (tm) back in the fall of 2008?
Yes, somehow it served as an effective salve for my election anxieties.
oh geez.
Where are we with the liveblogging DQ's pickup efforts?!?!?
257: Blume may be an ok person, but a friend should check her for hidden bruises.
bob, this is seriously stupid and not cool. Stop it, please. Walk away from the computer or something, at the very least.
233: From '93 through '01, with much time spent there in the early 2000s. And, to the second question, no.
270: I found someone in the phone book who will check for nits. Is that close enough?
Parsimon you really don't get how this works, do you?
268 was before I read 257, which is completely unwarranted.
I don't think it's related to educational level. The men who voted Bush and Obama into office are, by and large, well-educated and fairly affluent. It's the valuing of opinion over substance that is the problem, and the educated may be more vulnerable to that particular flattery than the uneducated. When have you ever known a conservative male that didn't think he was the smartest guy in the room? They all do.
Everything is reduced to politics. We couldn't talk about Hillary's history of actual liberal accomplishments because Obama doesn't have any. That made the opponents equal even though that political equality was dishonest. They couldn't talk about what Obama had done for ordinary people so they wouldn't talk about what Hillary had done for ordinary people. And because of that, we have a whole group of educated people who will scoff at the idea that she's ever done anything for anybody (they don't know about it therefore it didn't happen) and then go on and explain that they expected her to govern as far right as Obama has - as if there's anyway to come to that conclusion based on her actual history. Whereas when you look at what Obama has actually done in his life, there is nothing surprising about what he is doing now.
"PUMA" takes on all kinds of dimension! Between 254 and 258, I have trouble taking this seriously as a type worthy of concern -- leaving aside whether it's a caricature in the first place. Are there current representatives?
That is why Lambert insists on revisiting the PUMAs, because the Obamites are re-writing history.
I imagine this as an update to the SNL bit about the Norton-Bobick fight. "You are about to witness a crime. Hello, this is Duane Bobick. According to statistics, every fifty-eight seconds a white man is brutally beaten by a black man..."
279 makes less sense than "hone in on."
I mean the dude has said utterly fucking unconscionable stuff pretty much every single day he's commented on the blog, and yet people still engage him like he's not an unjustifiable dickhead who just makes shit up to be disagreeable. He's going to take it as far as he can and see if people still engage him like he's not completely a troll because that's the game. That's what makes trolling fun.
The fact that it's directly, incredibly personally insulting to me and my wife is like a bonus. He's gotten to the advanced level! What the fuck kind of community would let somebody get away with that? And yet the next time he brings up some marginally coherent political point, people will still engage him like a human, rather than a slightly less schizophrenic ToS? Point: mcmanus!
The PUMAs loved Palin too. In their eyes, she was a true feminist who was being unjustly attacked.
Huh. OSU? I lived there 89-98. RK died in 93.
Does the Blue Danube still water down their liquor, I wonder?
I listen to women with facts rather than dudes with swinging dicks. Excuse the fiuck out of me.
Next, we get to the heart of the matter. Reed has issues with women just as the Tea Party activists do with African Americans. He can't help but lie about Hillary. His progressive ideals aren't as valuable to him as his bigotry is. He can't admit that Clinton's voting record is very close to Boxers' and far to the left of Feinstein. Like misogynists everywhere, he can't bear to actually educate himself as to what Clinton has accomplished in her lifetime. If his eyes weren't so clouded with bias, he'd see a women who has devoted her life to making life better and easier for ordinary people from the time she got out of college. She wrote Children Under the Law (the intellectual accomplishment that Obama lacked utterly) and opened a legal aid clinic to help low income families deal with family issues. She chaired the Board of Legal Services and got Ronald Reagan to expand the budget, rather than cut it as he originally planned. She rounded up funding to build health care clinics in rural Arkansas to make health care more accessible and affordable for rural residents. She created a home schooling program for parents whose toddlers didn't have access to Head Start and formed a micro-loan program for low income entrepreneurs. Her failure to get her health care plan passed was followed up by her throwing herself into the creation of sCHIP. And as a senator, her initiatives focused on expanding access to education and health care, and opening up opportunities for small business people in New York. She opposed the Bankruptcy Bill, voted against CAFTA and FISA, supported every bill to increase the minimum wage, and co-sponsored the Employee Free Choice Act. She walks picket lines and has a nearly perfect record on union issues. And as for the Iraq, she supported Hans Blix in going to UN involvement to get the inspections finished. She didn't support the invasion and said so directly in her floor speech. And unlike Edwards, she owned her vote.What do you want to bet that Reed doesn't know any of that? What do you want to bet that the only things he knows about Hillary Clinton come directly from the Obama campaign, and since he has so many issues with women - yes, I think he's a bigot no better than David Duke - he's never taken the time to actually educate himself.
Don't congratulate him. This is just one more pathetic attempt to beat up on the caricature he's created for himself of Hillary Clinton.
It's fucking pathetic. Yahoos like this, with yahoo posts like this one, are why we have a right wing, Reaganite asshole in the White House pissing all over Democratic accomplishment. Until this jokester can say that he was wrong about Clinton, and that disenfranchising half the voters of two Democratic states to make sure that Obama got the nomination was wrong, he hasn't made any progress whatsoever.
You know, Bob, until fairly recently I'd thought of you as kind of nuts on political issues, but nuts in a direction where I thought your heart was in the right place enough to make it worth having you around ranting about stuff. The last couple of months, though, you've really been an unrelieved asshole: I've stopped feeling vaguely pleased that you had a place where people were listening to you some, and started hoping that no one had the impression I didn't think you were out of line.
As I always end up saying under these circumstances, I'm not about to ban anyone. But I dearly wish you'd put a sock in it, or find someplace else for your more vitriolic spewings.
Updated to the present tense, 284 continues to be correct.
Lori and Basement Angel are your go-to women who know what they're talking about? Being familiar with both, let me just say: that's some funny shit, there.
283:Like sifu tweety doesn't personally insult me every time I show up. Check out this thread, like every other thread, and see who goes personal first.
But "I made him do it"
Another typical expression.
And with that, I'll stop engaging because I endorse 287.
287 crossed with 283, and my apologies that I hadn't said something along the lines of 287 sooner.
273: As soon as I go out, will! Busy this week (painting a house on top of everything! Mind numbing labor has proved a plus), and figure I need to get the ex out of my head a *little* bit, otherwise I'll talk about her all the time. No one wants to be that girl. I have my pride. It's shame that I lack. Somehow.
Hey, guys, turns out that sauteeing frozen whitefish in a bit of butter and a blob of dijon mustard was no bad plan.
Unrelated to that, it took a hell of a lot of people to explain who/what mcmanus is to my partner during this weekend's meetup. I'm not sure she'd really get the point of trolling anyway, but she kept thinking she was misunderstanding and we coukdn't possibly be saying what we were saying. And I'm with Tweety.
Somewhat echoing LB, I find the actual insults very childish. So, I tend to not even read Bob's comments when he starts insulting and baiting.
Much like that book-burning guy in Florida, why give him the oxygen and respond!?!? That is what fuels people like that.
289:You are better than that. apo.
The way it works among people without prejudice, bias, or misogyny is that you would go to the 1st paragraph of 286 and show that that long list of Clinton accomplishments is a pack of lies.
It doesn't matter who that list comes from.
It does prove that "Obama and Clinton are the same" is not true. Whether that statement is always motivated by misogyny is a different question.
the founder approved of leavening in the blog
The founder also made a comment years ago along the lines of "I'd like to know why you're all so enraged about [something], but since I don't read bob's comments, I'll never know."
283.2: bob isn't quite mentally balanced, and we know that. He goes through phases, and he's in a really bad phase right now. He's said as much, in some quieter moments.
To bob: shut the fuck up on these matters, in this vein. You're completely wrong, not seeing clearly, and are upsetting people significantly. Stop it.
why give him the oxygen and respond!?!? That is what fuels people like that.
There's some interesting writing to be done on why "don't feed the troll" doesn't work -- that is, I'm sure it would work if you could do it consistently, but it's almost impossible to do. I'm not sure exactly why it's so hard, but it is.
285: Yes. But, I don't recall going to the Blue Danube. I was in grad school and actually working hard. I remember Larry's and the Out-R-Inn, but mostly I was south of campus or in northwest of Columbus.
300:
Eh, I do it for other people too when they start with the personal insults. Other commenters have certainly made inappropriately personal insults. They gone down a little in my brain, and I tend to not really read their comments.
Take that! I'm ignoring you, and you, and you! That doesnt feel so good, does it?!?!
"don't feed the troll" doesn't work
The FBI, Interpol, the State Department and Obama feel the same way about Pastor Jones, apparently.
I miss quality crazy old coots like Emerson.
Blume may be an ok person, but a friend should check her for hidden bruises.
I've got a big one on my thigh where I dropped a stone tabletop the other day, some on the backs of my arms from practicing galavasana, and one on my butt from falling off my bike.
Also, I get this crap at work all the time:
Client: "WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING BC He/SHE DID ______!"
Me: "No, we dont. Sometimes doing nothing makes it go away faster."
302: But you need everyone to do it all at once for it to make the trolling stop. One-on-one ignoring may make you feel better, and it's a good idea for dealing with people you find unpleasant, but the trolls still get fed.
287:Well, LB, you may not have noticed, but Obama keeps getting worse, the state of the nation keeps getting worse, and the Obama shills keep getting more corrupted.
Whatever I am, 20% U-6 unemployment, now projected for a decade, is a catastrophe like we have never seen. Worse than the 30s. This is real.
Do you read Krugman? DeLong? Yglesias? There is panic and despair that is accelerating as we head to a Republican Congress. There are a lot of unbearable assholes on the left out there nowadays.
305:
I'll volunteer to review those bruises. Trust me. I'm a professional.
Sifu, I'm only looking as a professional.
The Blue Danube is still there, but somehow just doesn't seem the same since the smoking ban.
one on my butt from falling off my bike
Mind if I check that one?
But you need everyone to do it all at once for it to make the trolling stop.
Which is precisely why I find your comment that you won't ban anyone baffling.
some on the backs of my arms from practicing galavasana
So cool. Unless your husband is forcing you to do it, of course.
300: well, partly because it just makes them escalate until they find a button that works, I think. You can only calmy ignore somebody spewing incomprehensible hatefulness in the middle of your conversation for so long before the cognitive dissonance becomes unmanageable and you're too distracted to evade a jab at a sore spot.
LB: You know the basic saying: When you argue with a fool, people cant tell the difference.
You know what you are going to get when you engage them. Why are you shocked or insulted when you get it?
307: There's that aspect. Also there's the barking dog- problem. You can ignore your dog barking, but your dog will just bark louder.
294: Unrelated to that, it took a hell of a lot of people to explain who/what mcmanus is to my partner during this weekend's meetup.
I actually had a rare Unfogged-explaining success when I related the original "OPINIONATED !3-YEAR OLD/may I get out of the van now sir" comment to my youngest. I was sure it would bomb, but I just had to try it on someone and he has the right sense of humor. I'm thinking I must have explained it great! (Then he asked me for five dollars.)
Part of the gig is that people like Krugman and Yglesias keep looking attractive with delusional thinking.
Krugman:"We need a trillion dollar stimulus"
Yglesias:"We need massive monetary expansion"
See, by talking delusional policy they can try to deflect their own and others rage, despair and terror. But the rage, despair and terror are still there.
I tried to un-mix my metaphors in 314, but I'm not entirely sure I succeeded. Arguing with... buttons? And then there's a... vomiting... boxer?
314:Sifu thinks he won the swinging dick contest.
I am not apologizing to that asshole. I am very far from the first he has gone vendetta on. The others are gone.
Oh, you miss Emerson?
309:A professional might be a good idea.
310: What was the name of the place in German Village with the little lady and her accordion (piano?)?
"A friend should check her for hidden bruises" should really become a phrase in common use here, signifying a completely ludicrous over the top personal attack in the service of a losing argument.
Anyhow, banning people sucks, and Bob has brought amusement value to the site before, and least for those of us who appreciate crazy old lunatics. That doesn't mean he's not lying or being an asshole at least 75% of the time or that people would probably be mentally better off ignoring him most of the time.
You mean bob isn't performance art? Better tear up the NEA grant app I've been working on.
323: the ToS is pretty funny sometimes, too, perhaps unintentionally.
319: Bob, the fact that I think you're being too much of an asshole to have a conversation with doesn't entail that I think you're either right or wrong about any individual thing you say. I can think you're not worth talking to without thinking the economy's in good shape.
312: It may be baffling, but it (a very, very high standard for banning) has worked pretty well to produce a longlasting, high-engagement comment section here for a very long time by blog standards, and while I don't think it's the only reason, I think it's been part of what's worked.
I'm going to have to vote with Halford.
Who will play Bierce and come up with the Unfoggeder's Dictionary?
Seriously, I'm just imoressed that Blume knows the source of her bruises. Mine are typically huge surprises. Supposedly the upcoming (non-abortion) D&C may fix some of that, though.
323: He does watch a lot of movies and his reviews are sometimes interesting.
Also I keep hoping he'll inadvertently explain Ulysses to me.
Hey kids! How about them mid-terms!
Scrolling up the thread, checking the gender
dogs pissing on bushes
Mine are typically huge surprises.
It's the bee.
329: That used to happen to me when I was a teenager, in the summers. Not just bruises I couldn't remember getting, but big scrapes and cuts that I'd find already half-healed and not notice having gotten. The combination of sailing and charging around in the woods was rough.
Once or twice a year my mom would end up with a black eye from a climbing mishap, not to mention a ton of other bruises, scrapes, and scratches. The resulting conversations could get bizarre/awkward/annoying ('No, I really did slip and body slammed a big chunk of granite')
Max & Erma's? The crappy Mexican place on High by Patterson had an extremely eccentric very elderly piano player as well.
It's funny how living or even visiting someplace animates writing-- I have really loved Thurber ever since living there.
dogs pissing on bushes
I always carry a plastic bag in case I need to crap. Anyway, I read (on the internet, so it must be true) that if you squat to crap, you'll have a lower risk of 'roids. Balancing on the toilet seat is way beyond my coordination, so the bushes is it.
I agree, by the way, that banning people is very, very fraught, and as often as not leads to boring-ass forums. Not banning anybody, on the other hand, generally leads to forums that are 100% trolls. Unfogged has been able to find a happy medium partly through the force of community disdain, and partly (in the past) through the generally laudable misanthropy of one of the front page posters. Even without that latter factor extant, it certainly takes a highly skilled troll with a shitload of time on their hands to defeat the latent systems in place.
On the other hand, a good percentage of the people who read the site probably skip a good percentage of the threads (not to mention any discussion of "serious" topics) because they've attracted the few (one?) diligent troll(s) that have been able to penetrate the force field.
STILL UNDETECTED!! OH YEAH!!!!
Mine come from running into door jambs, furniture, (parked) cars, the occasional person, and pretty much just about anything else that one can run into because of a combination of poor depth perception, bad peripheral vision, and a poor sense of where my body ends. I've noticed that as I've aged, though, I've largely just stopped bruising unless it's a really remarkable collision.
It's funny how living or even visiting someplace animates writing
But isn't it doubly annoying when the details are wrong? (I'm looking at you, Dan Brown).
The combination of sailing and charging around in the woods was rough.
LB crewed on the Hispaniola.
Dan Brown is not a writer.
He's more of a seer.
Dan Brown is not a writer
What then, yarnspinner? Teller of tales? Seller of schlock?
That's not writing. That's just typing.
336: I sprained my neck doing drunk gymnastics in college and ended up in a neck brace. A (really beyond odd) woman in my class asked me what had happened. I answered, smart assedly, X did it (X being the name of my then boyfriend). Now, X had a bit of a bad reputation, not for violence at all, but for catting around. I guess that is what prompted the very odd woman organize a room for me in a battered women's shelter.
Another friend in grad school got hit in the eye with a squash ball. She couldn't walk down the street for about two weeks without women coming up to her with or shouting out variations on "Girl, no man is worth it!"
330:"Ithaca"
Science = Home
Astronomy = "Starry Skies Above"
Impersonal Catechism = "Moral Law Within"
The length of sections mark the eccentric (they're working off a drunk) paths of comets (B & S), circling circling Molly until S breaks gravity to meet Nora Barnacle and B collapses to the center stumbles on the rearranged furniture (Molly tried to exhaust Blazes Boylan) as he lays his head somewhere toward the foot of the bed, in the vicinity of a black spot, Molly's period.
Home is the sailor.
Gotta love the right wing of the CDU: WWII all the fault of the evil and racist Brits and Poles who wouldn't let Germany get its rightful due like a little piece of Poland and hegemony in Europe. For those who read German, Historischer Kontext
Hartmut Saenger über den Beginn des Zweiten Weltkrieges 1939 The shit's caused outrage, but the coverage has been remarkably poor in explaining just how radical Herr Saenger's article is.
I've told a story here about knocking an industrial size box of plastic wrap off a shelf and catching it with both wrists against the cutting edge - it didn't go deep, but I had ragged, ugly scabs right across both wrists. I was terribly embarrassed both because it looked as if I'd tried to off myself, and as if I didn't have the sense to do it right.
352: Maybe accidents like that explain why the cutting edge on plastic wrap sucks. I should stop complaining.
352: Speaking of German, I came across something by Leon Wieseltier and it occurred to me for the very first time (how had this never occurred to me before?!) that the man's name is Weasel Beast. Does this have some further meaning of which I am unaware?
350: Thanks, bob!
until S breaks gravity to meet Nora Barnacle
that's not actually in the book, is it?
sifu will not be ignored, will he?
does anybody remember stras? (besides Emerson) and before that? and before that?
You do realize his self-appointed "enforcer" status? Are y'all happy with that?
Are you sifu's followers? Can he browbeat you enough to get anyone banned or driven away? Is his repeated success to your liking?
Does his persistent obsession with purity, control, and power give, oh, just slight worries about RL activities?
355:Yes, of course, multiple places in multiple places, heavily disguised and cryptic.
Search U for "barnacle goose" for instance
Are you sifu's followers?
When the pupil is ready, the master appears. Sifu is a title, after all.
357: Meh. No. No. No. No. Not Applicable. No. No. Sure. No.
Thanks, Moby. I trust I'll be better once the tumor/polyp/bleedy thing gets scraped out. It's no big deal, but the bruising is a noticeable side effect.
355:Not directly in the "naturalist" timeline, maybe.
Although in the Molly monologue...oh, never mind.
Stras was crazy too.
I always though Bob and the ToS were two aspects of the same person. Throw in stras and maybe it's a troll trinity. Three troll personalities in one body.
360: Disagree with Moby's answers. How can anyone not remember Stras?
I like stras. He got worked up and we didn't always agree, but I like him.
365: I don't think the question was simply if one could recall the particular commenter.
Stras was before me. I barely overlapped with Emerson.
Stras I miss. He got too touchy about being disagreed with to hang around, but I'd be happier if he had.
366
Much like bob though, in that he'd get really worked up about a random thing he'd read on the internet that he had no expertise in, and then refuse to admit that he didn't know what he was talking about.
Does his persistent obsession with purity, control, and power give, oh, just slight worries about RL activities?
I thought on the internet no one knows you're a dog.
Jeez. Bob-o-mania.
196: I do still troll Yglesias if only enrage Max.
You're hardly enraging me by trolling Yggles. Besides, I read just about every thread here sooner or later, so I've seen your trolling here and it's much worse than it is on Yggles. Or it was at any rate, I haven't been checking Yggles comment threads much the last couple of weeks. At any rate, after consideration of everything you've said bob, I've come to the conclusion that you didn't vote for Obama, regardless of what you say. That is to say, you're a Republican. Shame on me for even renting whatever psuedo-revolutionary bullshit you were peddling at any given moment, you silly PUMA man.
If I need to listen to a lefty about why Democrats suck, I'll listen to Emerson (or Stirling or Ian Welsh), not you. In the meantime, I'll take your self-reportage of mental issues as gospel. Have a nice day! };>
262: Wasn't B somehow involved with the Su/icide G/rls thing at some point?
She had a column over there for awhile. She also had a column at Inside Higher Ed. In fact, I think she's had a column for awhile at just about every place on the face of the earth except the New York Times.
max
['Troll troll troll your boat, gently down the stream...']
Really, not like bob in detail at all. If you're generalizing on the level of "often more excited than someone else might be on the same topic", sure, but not more than that.
Does his persistent obsession with purity, control, and power give, oh, just slight worries about RL activities?
Tweety is the White Obama!
Although in the Molly monologue...oh, never mind.
Please finish your thought!
OT: This is something to be pissed off about:http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/09/08/obama/index.html
So I have a technical question; two, actually.
How do people keep track of bygone conversations on unfogged? I use delicious for tagged bookmarking, but for instance I don't imagine I'd bookmark smugness evidence or whatever.
Secondly, wrt flickr or other sites where people use pseuds associated with logins, are friend associations typically anonymous, or does identity leak? That's poorly phrased-- I guess I'm wondering how common it is to maintain several virtual identities (several in the sense of unlinked to each other but linked to other people). Again, I wonder about tools to keep that organized. Or is there just an organic process where any anonymous blog traffic or photo traffic is obviously not personal with no conscious effort expended. The mention of Ogged's flickr account in conjuction with discussing commenters' mental health set this line of thought off. fb seems like the place where the screen would be most difficult to maintain.
Oh, looking at unfogged links on delicious is kind of interesting. Easy to see how interested but presumably passive readers view the place, and when there were more of them.
Emerson tears it up on the face-book, y'know.
Secondly, wrt flickr or other sites where people use pseuds associated with logins, are friend associations typically anonymous, or does identity leak?
It's a problem -- I know heebie worries about it, and I would too except that I have hardly any realname internet presence. Mostly a Facebook account that I don't really use. But it has crossover between blogpeople who know my real name, and random real life people who I really wouldn't want showing up here, and I occasionally worry about it.
It always seemed like invoking 'national security' with no cost was a problem. I'd be OK with the government asserting it in cases if it also caused them to automatically lose the case. Only do it when it's really worthwhile, then.
379: It is awful. It's funny -- that sort of thing (Obama's justice department fighting for the national security privilege as a method of concealing administration crimes) probably affects fewer people and does less total damage than economic fuckups, but it does more to convince me that they're really not on our side. I gave them a year or so where I figured the justice department was transitioning from Bush's positions, but that excuse is long gone.
How do people keep track of bygone conversations on unfogged? I use delicious for tagged bookmarking, but for instance I don't imagine I'd bookmark smugness evidence or whatever.
I don't keep records -- anything I bring up from the past I remembered and searched for.
The Democratic Party (and not just the Obama administration) is not on your side on military, economic, or civil liberties questions. They are only marginally less awful than the GOP. They are markedly better on my pet issue (separation of church and state), and usually (though not consistently) better on other social issues.
I've heard he does, but even so, I can't bring myself to get a facebook. I want him to come back here. (Not that anyone who has extracted herself from here should be lured back in. Just if he wants to one day.).
389 I view it slightly differently. The Dem party is a fairly broad group whose left wing is quite close to what I believe to be a good policy. However, the rest ranges from pure opportunists to center-right types and the resulting compromises tend to be closer to the latter than to the progressive wing.
And, for more on Germany, though I'm not sure if anyone is interested, here is the editor of FAZ writing an editorial on freedom of speech which is in bad shape as shown by the attacks on eugencist racist central banker Thilo Sarrazin, the far right expellee types I mentioned above, and going further back in time, ex CDU member of parliament Martin Hohmann who was kicked out of the party for giving a speech explaining that Ford's "The International Jew" had it absolutely right about them evil semites.
389: At the risk of sounding pathetically naive, sure, the Democratic party is not on my side generally. But I still think that anyone who is on my side on any of those issues, who has a shot in hell of coming near any actual power, is a Democrat. Not that any substantial fraction of the party qualifies as being on my side in this sense, but if such people are anywhere, they're in the Democratic party. Obama and his people, specifically, within the Democratic party, do not appear to be on my side.
I am have to go get some quotes from women who know what they are talking about.
By all means, bob, fuck off and go find some women who'll say what you want them to. Then stay there.
wouldn't want showing up here
See, this is what's interesting to me. Identities here are persistent but discardable. I am having trouble seeing the reasons why that's an appealing combination.
The associations I come up with are pet ownership (living things that lack agency but can display affection or at the very least be controlled or discarded) and brand identity (lightweight identity, readymade by somebody else in that case). Maybe those are incoherent associations, or maybe the small number of people who are actually here says something as well.
327.last: I've got no problem with a very high bar (although my preferred height would be lower than yours), but FFS if accusing someone of domestic abuse doesn't clear it, what does?
if accusing someone of domestic abuse doesn't clear it, what does?
I admit to being puzzled by this as well. Maybe he'll go all SdB and threaten to out somebody to their employer or something.
Generous of Emerson to friend Sifu after being driven off by him. If I've got the story right. I also miss stras.
Maybe Moby could stand by to offer a joke after every bob comment, kind of as the Helium to bob's Strindberg.
Generous of Emerson to friend Sifu after being driven off by him
Bullied the dude into it. Sad, really. You're all sheep, baaing before my wrath.
Much like bob though, in that he'd get really worked up about a random thing he'd read on the internet that he had no expertise in, and then refuse to admit that he didn't know what he was talking about.
Ding ding ding. I went and bought a book because stras recommended it, only to find out it bore almost no resemblance to his characterization of it. And when I pointed that out to him, he tried to bluster his way through.
practicing galavasana
You can do that? That is seriously cool.
I guess I missed all that, and the read kerfuffle as well by hints made in some comments. Divas are difficult, but entertaining.
372:At any rate, after consideration of everything you've said bob, I've come to the conclusion that you didn't vote for Obama, regardless of what you say. That is to say, you're a Republican.
Now, that is crazy. Really.
I'll listen to Emerson (or Stirling or Ian Welsh)
Say when. You pretty obviously don't listen to them at all. Crazy and lying.
For God's sake, Stirling got banned by Sean Paul Kelley of all people for going over the top on Obama. To paraphrase SPK: "Goddammit, he is still my President."
395: This isn't actually blog policy -- we don't have much in the way of blog policies, front-page posters just do things. I don't think I've been the first mover on any of the actual bannings we've had, which means that no one's ever made it over my personal bar before someone else was moved to take action. But the standard I'd use would be more form than content-based: high-volume incoherence (like, consistently posting strings of several nonsense or abusive comments in a row) or racist or obscene abuse. Think the ToS.
...but FFS if accusing someone of domestic abuse doesn't clear it, what does?
We have lawyers here. I didn't do that.
consistently posting strings of several nonsense [...] comments in a row
Wuh oh.
Disturbing or harassing off-blog interaction makes it over my limit as well.
387 -- Transitioning would mean asking for a brief stay to reconsider some positions -- as the gov't did in GTMO habeas cases, while it formulated a position on detention power that rejects Article II as an independent basis. (Some appeals court judges are refusing to take this change of position as an answer, though, and so the government is winning arguments they are not even making.) The state secrets thing, though, is unforgivable.
386 is the correct answer, of course. If you don't want to show Mrs. Reynolds the black box data, or whatever, then you have to pay her claim.
It was only a one vote loss (5-1-5 actually) and the dissent is pretty good.
You can do that? That is seriously cool.
Yeah, Sifu makes me. "Astanga or else!"
Transitioning would mean asking for a brief stay to reconsider some positions -
Yeah, I held onto the transitioning excuse for longer than it really made any sense. But I gave up after about a year.
407:And would a mere statement by Sifu be sufficient proof? Just checking, looks like you seeking an opportunity.
404
Yeah, you misunderstood bob. He was saying that someone should check Blume for hidden bruises because they are hard to find and Sifu probably just doesn't know where to look for them.
If I've got the story right.
That isn't how I understand it at all. I figured Emerson quit in disgust after the read fights. But I don't know that.
Anyway, 395 and 396 are a very good point. Bob seems to be playing the Crazy Uncle version of the Known Asshole problem (in which assholes get away with being assholes because everyone knows they are assholes). I don't even mind Bob, but really. What would be more offensive than calling someone a wife-beater?
406:Shrugs
We have lawyers here. Do they think my statements above would be sufficient for a strong slander case?
If not , then have I been slandered?
414: Yeah, I meant that facetiously.
My (rough, incomplete) understanding is that Emerson stopped posting here out of being too frustrated with the politics and bored with the non-politics aspects of the place. It was easier to talk about politics when we could all line up against the Bush administration -- now that we're stuck with Democrats in power who are still ghastly, differences between the moderately left of center and the very left are more difficult and frustrating.
What would be more offensive than calling someone a wife-beater?
This kind of question is why my standard for banning is form rather than substance.
What would be more offensive than calling someone a wife-beater?
Child molester? Pigfucker? Cowboys fan?
Blume may be an ok person, but a friend should check her for hidden bruises.
+
Does his persistent obsession with purity, control, and power give, oh, just slight worries about RL activities?
406, 420: how dare you deny him his plausible deniability? That's basically arson.
You know, I really do not start these personal fights. Emerson always got more personal, more quickly than I do.
I usually post something substantive, sifu or someone says "can we ban the crazy troll" and the fight begins. It is always more personally insulting toward me (sifu above accuses me of pedophilia, by Josh standards) than I am toward the vast majority of commenters.
Megan, LB:Do you think I make personal attacks on you?
Does anybody remember ttam apologizing in the Egyptian thread? Go read it.
The fact is, sifu is your good buddy, and he has given eveyone permission, even a duty, to make personal attacks on bob mcmanus. It's tribal, support sifu or bob. sifu demands it be that way, not me.
Are we mad that I don't run away or back off when attacked?
Are we mad that I don't run away or back off when attacked?
bob is "Horatio at the Bridge"?
Answer: One that I am increasinlgy disinclined to participate in, owing to the unearned respect shown to decency-flouting psychopaths.
Comments like this are another reason why I like having a very, very, very high and form-rather-than-substance based standard for banning. This comes off as a nasty kind of blackmail to me, Knecht: I'm understanding you to say that the front-page posters' failure to ban Bob evidences unearned respect for him, and that you're not sure you want to post at a blog that respects Bob.
I like having people here who say things I find wildly wrongheaded: I like arguing. Therefore, I do not want my failure to ban someone taken as any kind of statement of agreement with or acceptance of their stated views. If I ban Bob for the godawful shit he says, I've endorsed any other crazyness the rest of you lunatics come up with, and while I love you all collectively and individually, I'm not up for that.
Does anybody remember ttam apologizing in the Egyptian thread? Go read it.
Comment 193.
Off to swim step away from the keyboard for a bit.
419:Child molester? Pigfucker? Cowboys fan?
substituting dogs for pigs, Emerson accused me of that
sifu accused me of child molestation, by josh std
I ignore the boys since aikman
I do not turn threads into "about bob"
Check out the Egyptology thread to see how it happens. Please.
In that thread, i think minivet says something like "No, bob, I don't really see exactly what you are doing wrong, the comments must look ok, but they must be bad, because you are."
Think about that.
No, I'm not running away.
427 is funny. Is that actually what was being referred to? Because that's funny.
312, 314, and 339 hereby endorsed.
Um, I don't know anything about anything, but I can say it got distinctly less fun when that one dude started yelling humorlessly and for no apparent reason about political issues that seem as though they were current several years ago.
I don't know about anything else. It does seem like if what you really want is a fight, that's the kind of thing you'd do. If you're more into light-hearted, clever, and funny conversation, then, well, you don't.
The former seems tiring.
substituting dogs for pigs, Emerson accused me of that
I remember one thread with him drifting from Wittgenstein to bestiality. Those were the days.
You know, more than anything else, it's the self-pity disguised as self-righteousness that goads me. Oh, poor fucking bob, nobody understands his noble cause: to be a tool on the internet. WOE. WOE.
If you're more into light-hearted, clever, and funny conversation
You're clearly part of the problem, doña.
What would be more offensive than calling someone a wife-beater?
I'd go with accusing them of causing a friend's suicide. But I'm biased.
Well, I like to be goal-oriented, Sifu.
From the Egyptology thread
Bob:Was my comment at #2 "spitting bile with every word?"
minivet::I wouldn't describe 2 that way, agreed, but each one starting with 2 has some allied quality. I'm not sure how to describe it.
What, am I a genius subtle troll? Yet sifu's "stupid the blog up" simultaneously
430:Fuck you, tweety
195 in Egypt thread
ttam:"FWIW, strongly expressed disagreement [including lots of swearing] doesn't really register as hostile to me either, but directly personal comments along the lines of some I may have made above (ahem) do."
ttam's insults, that were apparently just ok fine with Megan and L:izardbreath
"you ignorant opinionated bloviating know-nothing arsehole"
"I just think you are blowhard fuckwit "
No problems with ttam, though. If he used that sort of language and attitude toward you, Megan, you would think it appropriate and civil?
430:Fuck you, tweety
Are you tired, or something?
436: I don't think we're having a contest.
432:Many of political "trolls" are very tired of politics.
We should totally have a contest, because I'm so ready to trump y'all with "genocide".
I am obviously in the minority, but I like reading bob's rants about Obama, et al. In a let's you and him fight sort of way.
I am less interested in the personal when did you stop beating your wife stuff, but I find pixels don't hurt that much.
443: I knew that was you.
I am obviously in the minority, but I like reading bob's rants about Obama, et al. In a let's you and him fight sort of way.
"Let's you and him fight" is not a very inclusive game, TLL. I mean, if you want to sit back and watch people fight about politics without contributing, I feel like there are plenty of outlets.
As someone who's been on the business end of bob's bluster, I can say that it's a lousy place to be. And when I was there and most people here didn't rise to my defense*, or, worse still, some people took the time to note how much they enjoyed bob's wit**, it really made me pretty miserable. But then he was nice to me that one time, so now I think Sifu probably does beat Blume.
All of which is to say, it's pretty easy to ignore bob if either you're very thick-skinned or you're not the focus of his ire. And ignoring him, at least when he's in one of these moods, is certainly the way go. But for people who find themselves dealing with his vitriol, it can get really tough. Put another way, Apo's right: it's best not to care about anything that gets said here. If only it were so easy.
God, I find myself tiresome.
* I now think I understand why this was the case. Or at least I don't really care any more.
** Not when he was engaging with me, mind you, but generally.
I have to up to the book-burning thread to see if I am being gratuitously attacked up there. Haven't checked since I commented
dot dot dot
Yup.
Becoming fair game for any and all at the Unfoggetariat feeds not my ego, but certainly my misanthropy.
There are many, Sifu. But I like this one. And I can't attack Obama from the left, because I don't have the vocabulary. So I listen and learn.
This comes off as a nasty kind of blackmail to me
I wouldn't read it as blackmail so much as a simple, honest statement about the features of a community that influence whether one continues to participate. Teo has said more than once that similar consideartions are why he's not around as much.
So I listen and learn.
From bob?
That can't end well.
Weird. No one is talking about bob *at all* in the Koran thread. Much less attacking him. Interesting.
453:Oh, oh, sure they aren't
"The pyramids were built by kitty cats from outer space!"
...rob helpy-chalk
I am so oppressed
LB in 426 is very smart.
441, 443 -- I actually think the "offense-off" is a reason to be very leery about banning people. I mean, anytime anyone disagrees with me, I think they are being personally offensive and should be executed and their offspring should be enslaved until the seventh generation, but that's probably not a good way to run this site. I'm not sure why, but I find the calls for group solidarity in banning in the face of negative comments off-putting (am I now excusing Bob's inexcusable behavior if I don't call for his execution? I hope not), as I did in the read case, and I think "man up and fight back" or "ignore" are better strategies. But these are really just personal preferences.
Of course, Bob is genuinely being a dick and should apologize.
456:Of course, Bob is genuinely being a dick and should apologize.
Not to tweety or blume
Anybody else think they have a personal complaint, that I have personally attacked them unjustly in this thread?
457:Lighten up
I actually think the "offense-off" is a reason to be very leery about banning people.
In case it wasn't clear, I agree. I don't really know what my end goal of pointing out bob's trollishness is, since it doesn't involve banning him and the chance that he'll wake up one day and realize "wait, I'm a terribly negative influence on a community that otherwise has a bit to offer!" is, well, negligible.
On the other hand, I think there's a non-trivial chance that the trollish need for escalation will eventually result in him doing something that at least raises the issue, because apparently I hurt his feelings and he has a lot of time to kill, which is a recipe for internet disaster.
Perhaps more likely is that I will get fed up and leave (even more likely is that Blume will get fed up and leave) -- or, like, more leave, since I only read half the threads or something and I think she reads even less -- but hey, that's the internet.
Of course, Bob is genuinely being a dick and should apologize.
This seems even less likely than him having a moment of clarity and quitting the blog.
Repeat:Anybody else, other sifu and blume, think they have a personal complaint, that I have personally attacked them unjustly in this thread?
Italicized quotes, please.
I may have lost my temper, I'm ready.
I called max crazy, but he has been remarkable hostile lately. But I am sorry max.
Step up. It will be informative, the long list of calumny.
Well, now that I've apparently angried-up the shut-in, it's time to leave the office. Good luck, fellow calumnauts!
I find the calls for group solidarity in banning in the face of negative comments off-putting
I think it points to the fact that there aren't good options for readers who want to stay.
Ignore doesn't work, because we all know that there is no ignore when the shit flings in your direction.
There's fight back, but then you have to trust that you have a track record. You have to hope that people notice that you aren't like that when you aren't provoked, and that the other person does a fair amount of provoking.
The front-pagers don't want responsibility for the decision, or have a policy like LB's.
So what is there left to do? Saying nothing and staying out of the dispute can leave friends feeling like no one has their back. Saying something sounds like piling on.
If we had options that achieved more, or were more tactful, we'd do those. But Unfogged doesn't offer better options in this situation.
Didn't every other similar case end with the person- advocated-to-be-banned leaving voluntarily? Way way back I can remember ogged saying to one or two people something more along the lines of "I think it's time for you to go." I don't know if there was an official ban. The problem here, which I think Knecht is getting at with the comment about procedural liberalism, is that there's no procedure in place to do something if someone doesn't leave voluntarily.
Anyway, I have too much work to do this year and I'm actually committed to doing it, so I'll probably slip away.
461:I'm waiting. I certainly am not going to scroll up this mess.
463:And this how it always starts. This is what passes for "added value" on Unfogged?
Everyone should do what I do with insults: just internalize them.
bob is "Horatio at the Bridge"?
Nah, TLL, Horatius Cocles at least had other people on his side.
463 is not a standard that I'd want to be held to, either. Since when do we need to add value?
To 464, there's always "realize that this is basically a super-addictive procrastination device that doesn't matter to my real life at all, step away from the computer a bit, and maybe come back later and engage on my own terms."
Didn't every other similar case end with the person- advocated-to-be-banned leaving voluntarily?
Sorry. I really do see this as unjust. This is a vendetta by sifu tweety, blume, and few allies with the rest, most of whom I like and think I treat well enough, like Megan says in 464, having to choose sides and pile on.
Yes, knecht, there have been people in this very thread in this heat, who said I add value to blog. I am more likely to notice than you, of course. Search for yourself, tho, I am not quoting flattering comments.
469.last: That'd be more persuasive if people hadn't formed real relationships based on their interactions here. I mean, if this place doesn't matter to our real lives at all, who exactly is it I had brunch with on Sunday?
For myself, I usually leave here if I get angry at something written here.
My interest in arguing without learning something new or sharing a laugh is pretty limited, so I haven't been around that much either. I don't mind insults or crazy ideas much, unless they're noisy and repetitive.
other sifu and blume
Since these are the very people Bob slandered, this does not make much sense. Accusing someone of a real crime is different than calling them crazy or cussing. Bob, you love your dogs. Has anybody here used this against you to say something cruel? If people are hostile now, it's because you've been repetitive and occasionally mean. Yes, other people have been mean too, but IMO less consistently.
FWIW, I'm with 426 and 456, but christ Bob, if you're feeling cranky stay away from the keyboard. I do.
added value
90% of comments fail this test, as does most TV programming.
Speaking of read, this was sad (I'll just link to the blog)
"#
i tried to watch The assasination of Jesse James
but the dvd didn't have subtitles so it was difficult for me to get what the actors were saying and after the first train robbery scene i felt i don't care whether he gets killed or not and, like, perhaps he deserves to die whenever
must be the movie is deeper than this but i was not in a calm mood to enjoy any psychological drama
Comment by read | August 30, 2010
#
s
Comment by read | August 30, 2010
#
Read, It drives me crazy when you post a second comment correcting your first one. I'm going to start deleting them.
Comment by Adam Kotsko | August 30, 2010
#
Could you correct the mistakes as I've noticed them, please? I'm sure there'd been many more unnoticed ones.
Thanks.
Comment by read | August 30, 2010
#
I'm not going to be your personal editor. Everyone makes mistakes -- no one particularly minds yours.
Comment by Adam Kotsko | August 30, 2010
#
Well, then, my corrections are my comments too and getting deleted I consider as if I am not welcome at the site. Sorry.
Comment by read | August 30, 2010
#
I don't care if you comment or not.
Comment by Adam Kotsko | August 30, 2010
#
I know. Thank you for your hospitality until now.
Bye.
Comment by read | August 30, 2010"
Friday Afternoon Confessions by kotsko (11/3)
"I confess that I did not handle a situation with a long-time commenter as well as I could have this week."
(I have been watching read trying to find company at the Weblog for a long time)
Sure, but "remember these are only pixels" (and the opinions of a subset of people with whom we spend a whole lot of time) works until it doesn't work. If you argue for this place being a community, which maybe you don't, then the usual things that matter to humans (being ignored, being falsely accused) matter even though the media is text.
who exactly is it I had brunch with on Sunday?
I hate to break this to you, Josh, but . . . those were zombies.
Has anybody here used this against you to say something cruel?
You're kidding, aren't you? Of course, they have.
Whatever cruelty was possible, I have been subjected to by the usual suspects. Not most here, of course, just a few.
475: You're just jealous because you bailed.
Tell you what, if sifu and blume apologize first (I won't bother with the rest, like knecht) for their repeated insults, welcome me to the Unfogged community and promise to be more welcoming and less hostile, both separately, I will then apologize in turn, we can shake hands over the nets, and make a new start.
I will try to be nicer. Promise. Try, because in the heat of argument, sometimes things slip.
I don't want to fight and don't like when things get this ugly. I think we can get along.
243 above by sifu wasn't the first insult toward me in this thread, but it was the most vicious, and started the fight going
I had not addressed sifu tweety before that, IIRC, nor referred to him by name
Check out 243
Actually 201 on is pretty vicious by the community, with little engagement on substance, including sifu at 206
But again, between my comment at 200 and the one at 231, I make no response to all those going at me
I only explode after 243.
bob is a regular Rodney King
457:Lighten up
Oudemia is one of those humorless feminists.
Do you people even notice stuff like, at 209?
Megan:"I read that as Bob saying that he really likes us, and shows that by pulling on our ponytails and running away. If we screech and chase him, he got what he wants and does it again."
Is it just taken for granted that I have no feelings, am fair game, that I am the nasty one?
Check out the thread from 200 on. Try to really see. Note that I attacked no one, or responded in kind, until sifu at 243. Is there no one who can be fair here?
Check yourselves out.
But if they will apologize first, and I ask for no apologies from all the others, I will try to find comity with sifu and blume.
My god, check out the thread Sifu links to in 243. I was warm-to-neutral towards you Bob before that, I liked hearing about your dogs. Don't tell me you're glad I'm insulted, and then whine about how everyone's horrible to you.
480 - if bob's Rodney King, does that mean one of us has to marry him?
461.1: No, I only noticed the ad hominems directed at Tweety and Blume. I did, however, think the comment about the bruises was over the line -- and, honestly, I found it more offensive to Blume than to Tweety, because (as you note) Tweety is capable of dishing it out pretty well himself when he's in the mood.
464 gets it exactly right. 456 gets it exactly wrong. This blog has always been a community (at least as long as I've been following it). The character of that community is constantly evolving, and it will become what it becomes. I'm a big fan of playful teasing -- especially if it's funny! But I personally am not fond of overt hostility and personal attacks.
And my first comment after 231 and 243 was 251, which was substantive, about the difference between Clinton and Obama
But somewhere after 50 comments attacking me, with monstrous ones by sifu, I lost my temper at 257
sifu then appealed to the crowd.
Who was inciting and instigating? Check out 200-257.
483:nosflow, you have not been involved today. I respected you for that.
484:We have all been assholes in comments.
for their repeated insults
I'm quite sure you'll not find a single direct insult from me in this thread.
Just pointing out the distance from reality here.
No, I only noticed the ad hominems directed at Tweety and Blume.
And why did you only notice that one?
It's easy. 200-256. Is there anything there I might find objectionable or hurtful?
Don't want to bother?
If that's what counts as an insult on unfogged, we're all in a world of hurt.
484 - no, actually, I try quite hard to not sound like an arsehole on the internet, mostly because I find it quite smugly satisfying to maintain the moral high ground. Once you start being an arse, you lose.
We are all in a world of hurt.
That, or close to it...ahhh Full Metal Jacket
Nosflow is involved, as are all the front-pagers. It is an unfortunate downside to an honor that is otherwise all panty-parties and free drugs.
Thisone is fun.
Try to find an insult or ad hominem from me towards bob in that thread. And then look at the final comment. And then ask who is escalating.
I'll cop to not taking him as seriously as he demands. Yawn.
I've only lurked for many years. And Bob has his ups and downs. But I'd hate to see him banned. The read thing was awful. And Bob reminds me of guys I knew in the 70s. (I actually thought I knew him the first few years. But it later became clear that was not the case.) Guys who were smart and caring but maybe had too much of the bad acid (or whatever) after awhile. Some of them went off the rails entirely. Some are comfortable executives now. Some sort of alternate between smart and caring and a bit of rage. I still have a soft spot.
And if my partner had something like that with my injured dog I probably would have called him something worse than "bitch" --- but not (likely) posted it in comments.
Not that his comments to Sifu and Bloom are remotely reasonable. But a lot of people who are not always reasonable are still (mostly) good people who can contribute.
Can we just go for a fucking walk please?
494:As far as I am concerned, they don't have to be.
I am not asking for anyone to be banned or censured or driven away.
I am even willing to apologize and make friends, under the conditions in 478 above.
499:a little while, around 7 as usual.
And props to LB, for directly addressing the issue even though I'm sure this drives them all nuts, and isn't even more interesting than the last time it happened.
Also - someone to advise through a break-up and an intra-blog fight? What could Unfogged love more?
496:comment 104
Naw, look, one fight a day.
I am waiting on Blume to do 478. She can prove herself by making the first step. I suspect she might be able to influence tweety.
This can be a great place
This is not, in fact, the fun kind of blogfight.
503.1 ?? That's not close to answering F's challenge, there, bob.
LB, were you in on the fun 200-256? Do you care to check?
478
My arms are open, blume, tweety. It's easy. Just a few words. You don't even have to mean them.
505:I don't want to fight. I have an answer, but don't want to start another argument, and b) am really seeking rapprochement with blume and tweety.
469.last: That'd be more persuasive if people hadn't formed real relationships based on their interactions here. I mean, if this place doesn't matter to our real lives at all, who exactly is it I had brunch with on Sunday?
I didn't have brunch with anybody on Sunday, but I also think that (a large part of) what makes unfogged interesting is all of the various relationships between people here. I'm not buying the "just pixels on a screen" description.
For that matter, part of why people take Bob seriously is because he is, much of the time, part of the community. I've definitely seen Bob be very gracious at times (but, ari at 447 is a propros as well).
And why did you only notice that one?
Personally I, like JMcQ, thought that 257 was appalling as soon as I read it. I didn't say anything at the time because I didn't want to be part of a pile-on but, if there's any accounting to be made of this thread, I think that was indefensible.
Since you asked.
507:Wait, wait
Why the hostility? Why is everyone else trying to start more fights while I am seeking peace and comity?
What am I doing that I am the bad guy again?
Hey, everyone who isn't bob?
Maybe, before you post another comment in this thread, you should think, "why am I doing this? what is my goal?".
508: me neither, just making a bobservation.
509:Oh I meant to be appalling. I hoped after 50 fucking consecutive personal attacks on Bob, it might draw some attention to the way I am treated every fucking day.
Does anyone have even a clue as to why I could get upset by 200-256?
Hey, the rule is the last foul, usually not committed by a star.
I am completely serious, I will forget this thread and any previous offenses and make nice, as nice as my non-responses 200-256. More nice.
478.
Having been away from my computer screen all day, I would usually try to catch up on the comments, but I get the impression I don't actually want to read this thread. Is that right?
But I feel duty bound to make you feel the full brunt of my seething rage at you every time we cross paths, because I think you're doing terrible damage to a community I cherish
Didn't your mother ever tell you not to scratch mosquito bites or pick at scabs? Doing this does not help.
Actually, I liked the OP and that discussion. the bobopalooza, not so much. A little too one dimensional.
515:203 was fair and kind, LB. You were not in on the public burning, as far as I can tell.
Do I have to apologize to sifu and blume, LB?
Do I have to?
They will be right back at me tomorrow, 1st comment, but ask, and I will do it. Of course I have known they won't apologize, give me an inch. do nothing but lay hate every fucking day.
But ask, if you think this is the justice of Unfogged.
You can ask.
And why did you only notice that one?
Because I was responding only to this question:
Repeat:Anybody else, other sifu and blume, think they have a personal complaint, that I have personally attacked them unjustly in this thread?
No, I really don't.
It's hard to know whether to say anything. I find myself in agreement chiefly with Halford at, e.g. 456.
To the general suggestion by several that people choose to spend less time here *because of bob* ...? I don't think that nearly explains things, and it does amount to scapegoating. Teo, for example, first voiced his concern about hostility and argumentation here quite a long time ago, in connection with B. I'm really surprised if it's the case that people spend less time here strictly because of bob, and for no other reason. He doesn't solely account for the conflict and/or loss of flavor here. I'm not suggesting that we should now examine those other sources, but let's not continue the hyperbole.
am really seeking rapprochement with blume and tweety
If that were earnest, you'd be doing it over email. What you're doing now is performing.
Sorry, neb. 522 posted before I saw 511.
523:I don't do email. This is me. my public self.
521 before I read 511, but you have a point neB. My friend the psychiatrist would say the reason I am responding, my goal in this, is re-enacting the drama of responding to the hostility between my parents as I was growing up. Maybe this time, if I try to play mediator *just right*, then everyone will see the light and we can just be a happy family again.
But nosflow and LB, the structural problems I mentioned in 464 are the reasons we keep doing repetitive unhelpful things. I know the front-pagers don't want to hear it, but you can fix this and we can't. The status quo is wrong in a way that animates people, and all regulars can do is say a few of the same things while the people who could change it don't. So here we are, again.
I don't mean change it by banning any particular person. I mean by intervening in back channels, which I believe Ogged used to do. Or creating a process for people to complain about egregious shit. Or disemvoweling. Or moderating. With Ogged gone, that function has gone missing, which is why we keep fruitlessly doing the same things.
Aaaand, if you're fine with these periodic outbursts in this form, then the blog is serving your needs and there's no need to change it. That's always a possibility.
Aww, c'mon LB, If you really think I am the only one at fault, or mostly at fault, this shouldn't be a hard call. Everyone will approve.
I am earnest, I am serious, I am sincere. I will mean it from the bottom of my heart.
I just trust your sense of fair play, well whatever, you can decide why you do it.
Just ask me to apologize.
528:I know it goes on, but I am not happy with discussions in email or "back channels" I am as open and outfront here as possible, starting with my name.
Friends or acquaintances get thru these things. Groups shouldn't isolate in cliques with secret discussions, unless it involves RL problems.
LB has a fine sense of justice and a phenomenal view for the heart of the matter, but it isn't fair to put this judgment call solely on her.
I don't want the front pagers to be judges in any particular call, but I do wish there were ways we could do this differently than regulars weighing in, which goes so predictably wrong.
Well, Ogged wrote directly to the people in the event, so it wasn't a back channel from them.
And, with all that, I have to go for a few hours. Don't mean to leave a conversation that I've stirred up, but if I don't, my hair will remain the same length.
532:LB has a fine sense of justice and a phenomenal view for the heart of the matter, but it isn't fair to put this judgment call solely on her.
Why not? Apparently the balance of trangression is obvious, according to dozens of regulars. According to what I have been reading today from most of you, there shouldn't be any difficulty at all.
And 528 is directly asking for "refereeing" by the moderators and front-pagers. How would this be different?
I say bleahh to 528. I'm not quite sure why these attempts at policing turn me off, but they really do and I find them a little hysterical. I mean, Bob was outrageous (and the demands for apologies and conditions are a little pompous for my taste) but really, who cares.
I guess I agree "just pixels" isn't quite right, but this isn't like living with people in real life, either. There's a range of behavior routinely tolerated here that wouldn't work the same way in RL, which is mostly a good thing.
Because there would be a process in place before it happened, so that whomever does take responsibilty for this (which I don't think anyone especially wants) would be able to point to a process rather than her own decision.
Because the stakes wouldn't necessarily be banning, but might be a Time-Out until the person is Ready To Behave. Or with disemvoweling, maybe some of the too-escalated feelings can be averted before they happen. Because it wouldn't be so dire, and it wouldn't be all on one person, after the fact.
it isn't fair to put this judgment call solely on her
As to whether bob should apologize to Blume and Sifu for the suggestion that he beats her? Duh, of course he should. Several people have said so.
If the larger question, as constructed by bob, is over who has been more insulting to whom over time, IT IS RIDICULOUS and juvenile to pose, and we sure as hell don't need some kind of structure in place in order to address such matters. What, a thumbs-up / thumbs-down arrangement? Is it a voting people off the island kind of thing?
Oh,"imbalance of transgression"
The wife and I had a horrible fight over the dog, worse than anything I posted. We got over it, reached a compromise. Things are great.
I guess I'm gone. Nothing resolved. No hurts relieved. That's a shame. Now there will be grudges and "secret projects?" Well, I knew that would endure from the usual suspects no matter what I did.
I am enraged on the Internet, but I am not often personally hostile or insulting, or at least no more than most of you. (We are all assholes in the archives, is what I meant to say.) I will comment as I need, and will try to ignore attacks and stay substantive. But today is over, and excepting preview, there will be no apologies.
I did not wish for today to happen, and did not start it, although I presume there will be an argument about that. But as far as I am concerned, it is finished.
The dogs are waiting.
: What, a thumbs-up / thumbs-down arrangement? Is it a voting people off the island kind of thing?
I agree with Megan in 528: it seems like Ogged used to intervene in spats. In those situations he would be playing the role of benevolent dictator. That worked because Ogged was boss of course, and that's why Megan is appealing to the front page people (unless I misunderstand her) since they are the only ones who can fill Ogged's shoes. That wasn't a system with committees and whatnot but it was a system.
max
['You don't need the man himself, but you need someone to play the role(s).']
I got busy and behind on this thread. But, I think we need a way to reduce tension and trolling without requiring a heavy hand or eliminating trolling completely.
I pondered this and came to the only possible solution. I propose unfogged become a MMORPG.
Commenters would get a limited amount of GP (Godwin Points) for a certain number of comments or days. Then, GP could be spent on trolling or flame wars. Ideally, there would be other things you could do to get GP. Maybe more GP for writing a very good pun or pointing out a typo or (the best) pointing out a typo in a comment that was pointing out somebody else's typo.
1 GP = comparing another commenter to Hitler and once you ran out of GP you'd have to make only supportive remarks until you earned more. We'd just have to rank all other insults, offenses and outrages in terms of "Hitlers." GP could, if you were nice or too emo, be spent on alternative rewards (i.e. the blink tag works for you).
Look, this is not a college Honor Court or your business's HR department. We're not here to arbitrate disputes or hand down rulings on who's right or wrong or specify the number of Hail Unfs you should say for penance.
Some of us get quite enough of that with our children as it is.
But maybe we've been naughty and need to be disciplined, apo.
Apo only disciplines commenters who make personal appointments.
I'm first in line, people.
Where's TEC when we really need her?
I know I said I wasn't getting more involved, but some of this stuff about what ogged supposedly used to do is getting ridiculous. Even with the occasional intervention, there were more than enough ugly fights back then, and some ugly driving people off incidents, and people leaving partly or largely as a result of that. Whatever made the blog better before, I don't think it was more moderation or lack of disputes among commenters.
I'm actually serious about my having too much work, but it's awkward to say "hey, I'm signing off" in some random thread. So why not pick the ugliest of them all?
And yes, some of that might contradict what I said above (where I was making the point that actual official banning was rare even with people who seem to have been banned).
Anyway, I think everyone's rightly left this thread now, so I will too.
Psst...Hey, parsi, very very smart ari gave me a gift up at 447. I didn't feel like using it cause I like him this month. Rauchway...
so now I think Sifu probably does beat Blume.
more context
worse still, some people took the time to note how much they enjoyed bob's wit**, it really made me pretty miserable. But then he was nice to me that one time, so now I think Sifu probably does beat Blume.
..ari
Just think about it. Was it about the words?
For the general public, the Obsidian Wings rules worked really well. Newbies understood the rules.
Thank you, ari
Goodnight all. Better tomorrow.
But nosflow and LB, the structural problems I mentioned in 464 are the reasons we keep doing repetitive unhelpful things.
The structural problem of you being vindictive?
Ignore doesn't work, because we all know that there is no ignore when the shit flings in your direction.
Of course there is; don't be silly. You're an adult.
As for these:
I don't mean change it by banning any particular person. I mean by intervening in back channels, which I believe Ogged used to do. Or creating a process for people to complain about egregious shit. Or disemvoweling. Or moderating.
You must be bats if you think the second, fourth or fifth would make a difference here (I'm not sure what you mean by "moderating", anyway, do you mean, say, comment approval (not gonna happen)? A whitelist (aka banning by proxy)? Do you mean attempting to intervene in the discussion in productive ways (leads to complaints about structural problems)?)
Ogged got Walter Sobchak to leave through back-channel activity of some sort or other; I think it was … banning him, just not publicly. He got abc123 to leave by asking him to leave, I think. I got someone to leave by saying "you're banned" and got J/ff R/b/rd to leave by asking him to leave. Do you see any of that working here? What good do you imagine a "process for people to complain" would do? You can already vent by emailing the posters, or each other; any further good would have to come by someone's taking action, which would have to be of some other kind, such as, say, moderation, "back-channel activity", disemvoweling, or banning. (Disemvoweling would be work, you know.)
Disemvoweling would be work, you know.
Plus, it really doesn't hurt comprehension much.
I think LB and neb are worthy successors to ogged as enforcers, and are handling this situation very much as ogged would have. bob is an unrepentant asshole, but Bitch and Emerson also were, and they spent a significant amount of time in ogged's crosshairs on the way to becoming absolutely essential contributors here. (It was before my time, but I think maybe Bitch was actually banned for a time.)
Knecht wrote 454 as a bitter indictment of bob, and every word of it is dead-on, but to my mind it captures a part of bob's very real contribution here. Seriously.
Sifu is also completely right about everything here, including 460, where he proposes that the right answer isn't banning bob.
For my part, I will say that bob has prompted me to think about arguments that I would not have otherwise considered, and for this I am grateful. I might feel differently had I been targeted in the vicious personal way the way that Sifu (most obviously) has been, but there it is.
Also, to make it clear how perverse I am: I really enjoy these meta threads. From my first day here, I've always been fascinated by what makes this blog work so well, and I still haven't really figured it out.
555: Rather a lot of people respond to bob in non-constructive ways, and Megan is really not one of the leading culprits. Singling her out as a structual problem due to her vindictiveness is churlish.
(It was before my time, but I think maybe Bitch was actually banned for a time.)
Yeah, that was not exactly done with grace, either.
Banned somewhere around here; welcomed back to the fold here.
what makes this blog work
Oh, probably it's the epithets on the order of:
You're vindictive!
No, you're churlish!
We have standards, you know.
560: Nothing but rakes, rogues, harridans, and strumpets up in this joint.
561: you forgot slatterns and Fucking Irish.
561: you forgot slatterns and Fucking Irish.
We have a policy about the Irish.
Honestly, the party in Heebie's uterus kinda sucked.
Definitely the worst time I've had in a uterus.
Oh man the uterus used to be cool, though.
All those coat hangers didn't bother you when you were a fetus, Jesus?
That was probably too gross.
Heebie's uterus used to be funny, but now it's just shrill.
The funny thing is that I went from writing up my Sunday School lesson plan to reading 571. My life is complicated.
And I was like, WTF? I don't even have a coat.
You must be bats if you think the second, fourth or fifth would make a difference here (I'm not sure what you mean by "moderating", anyway, do you mean, say, comment approval (not gonna happen)? A whitelist (aka banning by proxy)? Do you mean attempting to intervene in the discussion in productive ways (leads to complaints about structural problems)?)
Well, people with authority could decide to do whatever they think will work. But if, for example, someone triggered three serious complaints, she could be asked to take it elsewhere for a week. That wouldn't have to be public. Yes, we'd have to take the responsibility of having a complaint seriously. But it might save us from having the same freakin' fight repeatedly.
Let's make it easier: when was the last time bob added any value to a thread at all?
I really liked the title of this post, which wouldn't have been possible without bob.
The odd floozy drifts past.
I'M NOT ODD, I'M COMMON.
If I were a journalist, I'd try my best to come up with an article about Bernanke dropping a turkey from the helicopter. It would be harder if I was a sports reporter, but still I think doable.
If you were a journalist, you'd misuse the subjunctive and comment in the wrong thread.
From the Wikipedia entry on lanugo:
As the lanugo is shed from the skin, it is normal for the developing fetus to consume the hair with the fluid, since it drinks from the amniotic fluid and urinates it back into its environment.Huh. Maybe I wasn't having as great a time as I thought the last time I was in a uterus.
581: "I swear to God, I thought Larry Summers could fly!"
582: sweet christmas now I have two jobs!
I really did comment in the wrong thread, didn't I? Well, just as well.
But if, for example, someone triggered three serious complaints, she could be asked to take it elsewhere for a week.
I asked bob to take it elsewhere above. You may have noticed.
It's "As God is my witness...", Stormcrow. Respect the canon.
I did notice. If there were some procedure behind that, we'd have known if you were speaking with the Voice of the Blog Overlords, or as neB, one of many. We and bob would have known whether it was for half an hour or forever. We would have known whether it were on pain of banning or on pain of your repeating yourself. Without a procedure, that's all arguable. And if something is arguable here, it will surely get argued.
At least I got two blogposts out of this, so thanks Unfogged.
To 522: Just to clear up the apparent miscommunication, when I made the reference to Teo drifting away because of this sort of thing, I did *not* mean to suggest that Teo abandoned us because of Bob. I was referring more broadly to general "tone," to what seems like an increasing tolerance for personally hostile digs.
I know blog fights are nothing new around here. The fun ones, however, I recall as being much more focused on substantive yelling and less on personal venom. This may be purely my own perception. (Certainly, it seems plausible enough that the venom stood out less to me back when I was immersed in unattractive, unclothed venom on a daily basis.)
ToS has a lot of wisdom here. this is where I go for soft-porn chat and AIPAC snitching.
look, bob said a really shitty thing about blume and it would be wiser and kinder to apologize. does he get the asshole exemption in general, like, "that's just bob"? sort of, yes. I do know people like him IRL and love them--my dad is basically bob mcmanus only with crippled dogs that he rescues from busted pitt-bull fighting breeders, and custom welds special wheelchairs for.
but also: think about how mad ninja his trolling skills are that he could approach, daily, a mass of people inclined to think he is (at least much of the time) just trolling for the lulz, many of whom actively dislike him because they think he is the trollingest troll ever, and yet everybody rises snapping to the bait every fucking time! seriously, this mother-fucker trolls texas wu-shan tribe flatland style. every day I shake my head in wonderment and say, wow, parsimon (to pick a name at random) actually responded to bob's situational on-the-fly political barnstorming/call to the barricades. why, dude? if you're not amused then don't get in a fucking conversation about it. I'm sure it's easier to ignore his remarks when he's not saying hurtful things to me personally. ari, if anything he said to you came up in the context of, say, a historical-political discussion, maybe step back and ask yourself, why was I arguing with bob mcmanus on a topic on which I am unusually well-informed? sarsly, ignore that shit people. ain't nobody making you read it.
or rather, ari, if anything he said to you came up in the context of, a historical-political discussion, maybe step back and ask yourself, why was I arguing with bob mcmanus on a topic on which I am unusually well-informed, when I could have been masturbating?
ain't nobody making you read it.
I was told there would be a test.
why was I arguing with bob mcmanus on a topic on which I am unusually well-informed commenting on blogs, when I could have been masturbating?
This post's title makes me think of Talking Heads' "Memories Can't Wait".
It makes me (and probably the rest of the parents) think of this.
Nooo, Brobee! Don't eat the chicken bone!
600: In retrospect, I am so very glad that I was finished with parenting a young child well before Yo Gabba Gabba came on the scene.
I'm blissfully unfamiliar with US small children's TV shows, but having spent some time hanging out with my cousins' kids let me say that the Brit and Polish ones made my head hurt.
603: I'll take Of Montreal and Cornelius over the musical stylings of Barney any day of the week.
Mr. Blandings, I love you. And you love me. We're best friends as friends can be.
Much U.S. children's TV is British. Fireman Sam, Thomas the Tank Engine, Make way for Noddy to suck goat balls....
605: Both Barney and the Teletubbies were verboten in the Kotimy household.
You watch too much PBS, Moby. Much of US children's TV is bad anime selling toys.
Ours is young so we've avoided much of that so far. But Phineas and Ferb is very good and not British as far as I know (but some of the characters are).
I know what we're going to do today!
600: I've been trying to think of something that rhymes with 'uterus' that would scan like the original song.
613: Yeah, me too, but "ludicrous" is as close as I've gotten.
Get on the bus to the party in my uterus.
It will be something that is new to us, the party in my uterus.
I thing this song is ludicrous, so let's party in my uterus.
She says if we let the doctor neuter us
We can go the party in her uterus
It may help to have heard the original tune. Probably not.
Blandings has the right idea about moving to two word phrases, though
There's a party in my uterus
It's cuter than us
It's a computer truss
There's a party in my uterus
It's a commuter bus
There's shooter fuss
Brush off that cooter dust, 'cause there's a party in my uterus!
Thnks, Apo, but I'm at work so speakers off.
A carnivorous uterus would be malodorous, wouldn't it? Explains Summer's Eve sales.
Everybody's insides are malodorous.
SPEAK FOR YOURSELF. MINE SMELL LIKE MYRRH.
sarsly, ignore that shit people. ain't nobody making you read it.
-- this is such unusually good advice, and yet sometimes the easiest way to avoid reading that shit is to just completely avoid the whole site. I'm seriously surprised that you guys haven't banned bob yet; talk about sticking to your procedurally liberal guns. Just do it already.
And what people were saying earlier, about missing stras, I miss him too, but his humor came through a lot better on other websites.
Sez you. My guts smell like a pine forest. You'll have to take my word for it, though. I won't get near LB and her knife just to prove you wrong.
627: You appear to be confusing me with my sister. I'm the short one, she's the scalpel-wielding eviscerator.
628: In my head, that was shouted like McBane shouts "Mendoza."
You appear to be confusing me with my sister. I'm the short one, she's the scalpel-wielding eviscerator.
I was more referring to your frequent offer to cut me. I assume you had palmed the scalpel from your sister's office.
Do I threaten to cut you more often than I threaten other commenters? Huh.
On the assumption that I have some good reason for that, TLL is banned!
307 But you need everyone to do it all at once for it to make the trolling stop. One-on-one ignoring may make you feel better, and it's a good idea for dealing with people you find unpleasant, but the trolls still get fed.
I have failed in all my attempts to get this labeled as the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man problem
why was I arguing with bob mcmanus on a topic on which I am unusually well-informed?
Long since done. And, in fact, I've stopped blogging entirely! It turned out that having a conversation with the Internet about history and politics wasn't much fun for me. Anyway, with all this free time on my hands I've already masturbated sixteen times today! written well over a thousand words today! (Six of one, half dozen of the other, really.)
It's too bad there's no way - or is there? - to ban someone from a single thread. That way if someone is a jerk, there's a swift, low-stakes consequence that allows everyone else to continue pleasant conversation. I'd be comfortable administering that like a motherfucker.
Hell, I am not going to stop defending myself on the internets when personally attacked. I am very offended, no astounded, that people think I must.
So, alameida at 594
1) look, bob said a really shitty thing about blume and it would be wiser and kinder to apologize
ari, who you apparently are addressing, said at 447
so now I think Sifu probably does beat Blume.
That really needs to be addressed definitively before I will even think about apologizing. Was ari joking and I was not? How do you know that? Do I need to "emoticon when I say that?" Emoticons are banned!
Etc.
The conclusion here is that no one was offended who did not want very very badly to take offense, and that the entire bloody fight had absolutely nothing to do with anything I said. I knew this all along.
2) why was I arguing with bob mcmanus on a topic on which I am unusually well-informed?
alameida, many of the people here are public intellectuals, lawyers and teachers.
I was an obnoxious and offensive, but very bright, precocious, and dedicated student, with an obsessive desire to learn back when they skipped me two grades in a hope that the larger, older students might intimidate me. My teachers loved and hated me.
I would be shocked if my type was unfamiliar to Unfogged RL.
The "Little Bobby Tables" treatment:
delete from comments where user_id in (select user_id from users where user_name='bob mcmanus')
Doesn't someone here have the MySQL password?
why was I arguing with bob mcmanus on a topic on which I am unusually well-informed?
Good grief, this is weird. Have you been on the Web long?
I have actually heard of people who have spent weeks arguing with Jonah fucking Goldberg about a book entitled Liberal Fascism
This is a true story, hard to believe though it may be. I swear.
There is a lot of dishonesty in this thread.
Cretans are always liars, vicious brutes, lazy glutons.
That's the spirit, Moby. HEEEELIIUUUM!
I just couldn't live with the lies any more.
We're gonna get a little place. And we're gonna have a cow, and some pigs, and a chicken. And some alfalfa, for the rabbits. (You can guess who will get to tend the rabbits.)
C.mon guys, "we don't argue with under-informed people who say something wrong on the internets" is really fucking funny
(I did really like the "unrepetent asshole" way up above)
Somebody is wrong on the internet? Say it ain't so!
So, whatever happened to idiocentrism?
And, in fact, I've stopped blogging entirely!
On which day in history?
Cretans are always liars, vicious brutes, lazy glutons.
But, they have fantastic asses.
Do I threaten to cut you more often than I threaten other commenters?
I don't think so, no. But I'm a bleeder, and a coward.
Cretans are always liars, vicious brutes, lazy glutons.
But, they have fantastic asses.
The gluton is the fundamental particle of the ass, is it not?
ari, 447:so now I think Sifu probably does beat Blume.
apparently, alameida read that particular comment and didn't even see this. did not see it
So what was my point, besides exercise?
knecht was right, but knecht is also very wrong. Carl Schmitt is right.
We have a little liberal microcosm here, and what we discovered in this thread is that facts, reason, rules, argument, process are not merely irrelevant to discourse but are in fact the tools of deception, self-deception, group identity and it's enforcement, and morality itself. Haidt was right about how liberals identify themselves, but liberals are even fiercer than conservatives in the other three moral foundations.
It's about emotion and tribalism. It is about friend-enemy. It is about violent feelings.
The distinction between friend and enemy thus refers to the "utmost degree of intensity ... of an association or dissociation."
A political community exists, then, wherever a group of people are willing to engage in political life by distinguishing themselves from outsiders through the drawing of a friend-enemy distinction (CP 38, 43-4). A group's capability to draw the distinction between friend and enemy does not require, Schmitt holds, that the group already possess a formal organization allowing for rule-governed collective decision-taking.
On a descriptive level, Schmitt claims that liberalism has a tendency to deny the need for genuine political decision, to suggest that it is neither necessary nor desirable for individuals to form groups that are constituted by the drawing of friend-enemy distinctions. Liberals believe that there are no conflicts among human beings that cannot be solved to everyone's advantage through an improvement of civilization, technology, and social organization or be settled, after peaceful deliberation, by way of amicable compromise. As a result, liberalism is unable to provide substantive markers of identity that can ground a true political decision. Liberal politics, consequently, boils down to the attempt to domesticate the polity, in the name of the protection of individual freedom, but it is unable to constitute political community in the first place
Why ban Bob? You won't like your honest answer.
I mean, did Emerson just stop paying, or did he say something too radical for his service provider?
I mean, did Emerson just stop paying, or did he say something too radical for his service provider?
I'd like to know too.
654:Trollblog
I don't do facebook.
The great thing about facebook is you can turn off the assholes with one click. Easy and fun!
Liberals believe that there are no conflicts among human beings that cannot be solved to everyone's advantage through an improvement of civilization, technology, and social organization or be settled, after peaceful deliberation, by way of amicable compromise
I'm comfortable with this sentiment. Also, I don't know what's so funny about peace, love, and understanding.
I don't even know what drove him from unfogged. Did someone cast aspersions on his sexual practices?
657:Except the ones that collect your data.
659:Me. I did it. All by myself.
I bet you skipped the thread.
dude, bob, don't shit on me, I'm defending you! people have said a lot of evil shit to you too, in this very thread and elsewhere. I tend to regard this as part of the push and pull of internet arguments, which you don't mind, because if you did mind, you wouldn't get into so many arguments with people on the internet, Q. E, mother-fucking D.
I thought the specific claim that blume was being physically abused by sifu and she was trapped in the relationship was a particularly, unusually shitty thing to say, and even uncharacteristic of you. it may have been a worse thing to say to sifu than to blume, taken all in all, but in the former case, I think sifu can dish it out with the best of them, so he can take it too, while blume was being dragged in. asking someone "when did you stop beating your wife" is also a hallowed trollish question. to ari, I was saying, not: don't argue with ignorant people who didn't attend the finest east coast colleges on the internet, but rather: don't argue with bob mcmanus on the internet! because you know what it will be like! because you have seen this very conversation play our before, in infinite borghes-style recursions. so if that doesn't float your boat, get off the mother fucking boat!!1!
and fainting on the couch with the "we're losing the tone that made us so special" and "unfogged isn't a safe space anymore" and "ogged would never have let this happen" is kind of bullshit. ogged had a masterful way of calming the waters after stirring everyone up into a frenzy, but his true genius lay in the winding people up part. don't romanticize the past, people. and unfogged is not a safe space because its an open forum on the internet for christ's sake. people take responsibility for their posts and actions long term by retaining pseuds; sock-puppet-ing is the one unforgivable crime for this reason; if someone has behaved in a way you consider unacceptable, tell everyone, and then ignore the person. drafting in people to be on your side or you'll have hurt feelings towards the rest of unfogged that didn't stand up to you is weak sauce.
Yeah, I never make it all the way through the threads where people are driven out.
That's a fine tune.
and fainting on the couch with the "we're losing the tone that made us so special".
My couch is from Ikea, because I'm a liberal cheap.
my couch is made of teak re-claimed from old houses torn down in java, thereby granting me green absolution for my consumptive ways while I simultaneously participate in the destruction of traditional indonesian life-styles.*
*n.b. actually true
it may have been a worse thing to say to sifu than to blume, taken all in all, but in the former case, I think sifu can dish it out with the best of them, so he can take it too
This is undeniably the case, and obviously I was being specifically, intentionally mean in this thread, but for the record I generally contain myself to calling people stupid and/or really stupid and/or pathetic and lonely. Calling them, you know, violent, fascistic thugs who are no doubt abusing the people closest to them seems like a somewhat different genre of insult comedy.
don't argue with bob mcmanus on the internet! because you know what it will be like! because you have seen this very conversation play our before, in infinite borghes-style recursions. so if that doesn't float your boat, get off the mother fucking boat!!1!
This is sort of obvious, evident advice, but pretty much means bowing out of a large minority if not a majority of threads here, unless you're the kind of person who decides they can't abide one of the characters in a movie and thus simply mutes the TV during that characters dialogue. But that said, right, I think this solution has been widely comprehended and adopted.
667: The whole thing is true or just the destruction of traditional Indonesian life part? Because I bet you could save money by buying a couch from Ikea and finding a cheaper way to destroy Indonesia.
drafting in people to be on your side or you'll have hurt feelings towards the rest of unfogged that didn't stand up [for] you is weak sauce.
Brave words and all, but you know, it's also weak sauce to tell people how they should feel when they're the actual target of an attack, or how they should act when they see someone they like/care about become the target.
668:back, asshole? fine.
sifu has won, based on bob's utter demolition of his fragile flower, with her befuddled crying "who is this "bob" person? Why is he so mean?"
Longer
1) Blume is not unknown to the blog
2) we, her and I, do have a history, if not as extensive as the one I have with sifu
3) She can take care of herself, although it appears I am the only who will say that. Interesting
4) I actually doubt she was deeply wounded by my words, as much as mad about who said them. Someone might ask her.
447:ari:"so now I think Sifu probably does beat Blume."
someone might also ask Blume about that one
Tribal fucking bullshit, with a few subtribes involved, especially until 447 is addressed
the answer:ari is not bob. It wasn't the words, it was who said them. I like ari, I don't like bob
Liars
Di in 593:
I know blog fights are nothing new around here. The fun ones, however, I recall as being much more focused on substantive yelling and less on personal venom.
Alameida in 662:
and fainting on the couch with the "we're losing the tone that made us so special" and "unfogged isn't a safe space anymore" and "ogged would never have let this happen" is kind of bullshit.
My subjective experience supports alameida over Di here, but I'd take it a step further than alameida. This blog used to be much more nasty.
If I had to rank people around here for being personally insulting to me, the ranking would go something like this: ogged, Emerson, stras, Bitch and (for her brief time) read. And while they stood out, everybody used to be nastier here. (I certainly was.)
bob has always been bob (I would argue). What's changed isn't bob, but the general tone of the blog itself. bob fits in a little less well than he used to, now that the other agitators are gone.
And yet, everybody knows that ogged, Emerson and Bitch were huge contributors here. (And probably everybody but me thinks that stras and read were huge contributors, too, but even I'll admit they had their moments and overall added to the quality of the blog.)
Civility is overrated.
By way of illustration, I offer LB's 27:
The fact that both you and Chris went for the cosmetic surgery analogy suggests that there's a thought process behind it that I'm missing, but boy am I missing it.
I invite the veterans here to imagine how Bitch would have made the identical point.
ari is pretty much the only person who has been honest in this thread, among the regulars. I am probably missing a lot, but hey
Im sorry, alameida, when you ask me to apologize for my horrible horrible words, but don't mention ari, you are not showing your best side.
The point of the Schmitt if you wanna go irrationally tribal, wallow in it with pride.
"I don't like you, and I don't have or need reasons. You are not like us, we are not like you. You make us uncomfortable, you don't look or act like us. Stay on your own side"
Just be honest for once in your phony limousine liberal lives.
Then go burn a bible or kick a redneck or sumpin. You aren't better than them.
Emerson left because he ended up feeling that Unfogged's peculiar mixture of light banter and talk about serious topics (mostly within the mainstream range of opinion, but without a defined or enforced point of view), led to unendurable problems, especially as the real-world serious topics became more and more unpleasant. During the last period he was really losing it and picked a lot of fights, some of which he regrets.
Simultaneously and for much the same reasons he ended up quitting his commenting at a bunch of other sites (Crooked Timber, DeLong, EOTAW). He now creeps back to some of them occasionally, though without the earlier enthusiasm or diligence.
He is in touch with Read and several others on Facebook. Unfogged is not a good venue for her either.
He enjoyed it immensely while it lasted but the more distressing the serious stuff became, the harder it was to balance the fluff and the seriousness.
If that's really you, John, people here regularly speak of you fondly. You're missed.
Also, in your absence we've all agreed that analytic philosophy is bullshit.
Civility is overrated.
Sure. It's also not what's at issue here.
Emerson? Dude! You are sorely missed. I hope you're doing well.
Allow me to be the first to say that Emerson is sorely missed.
I checked the trollblog's apologia pro meus absentis for a possibility of cut-and-paste. It seems unlikely.
bob , the thing is, that comment was creepy in a way that "why don't you go eat a shotgun, you pig-fucking sack of puke" isn't. it was just...intimate, in a genuinely, let's slowly edge away from the paranoid schizophrenic muttering at the bus stop way. it was teetering at the knife-edge between "fucking bob mcmcanus is being a royal dick today" and "I need to look up this guy's isp because there seems to be a non-negligable chance he might actually hurt me or my family." but yeah, ari has said cruel things to you before. and? say what you want, but don't expect a fucking sympathy card.
685:ari has said cruel things to you before.
That has nothing to do with that I have been saying.
Dammit alameida, would you go read 447 carefully?
447:ari:"so now I think Sifu probably does beat Blume."
or try 668 or 553
Whatever problems were not with my words, but in their own heads. Could I pick up some particularly aggressive joke or insult from a thread around here, misinterpret or interpret it literally, and think it creepy and scary. Shall I do that?
I don't know why I should care what I write if no one can around here can read
PS:I really don't like people threatening to look up my ISP and effect me in RL. It has happened here before. I do think lizardbreath did say that was over the line.
It's really funny, I don't think you see those words in 447 at all.
An example of how prejudice can actually effect perception.
It goes like this
"Yes, ari also said that Sifu probably beats Blume. But he was joking, and you are creepily intimate. I know that because..."
This is tiresome. You people are supposed to be smart.
Dude A:Hey asshole
Dude B:Hey asshole
Dude C:Hey asshole
Dude D:Hey asshole
B:Did D just call me an asshole?
A & C:He sure did
D:But, but, you called each other...
A:B & C were joking. You weren't, D
D:Yes I was
B:Hey, what do you think, A & B, was D joking?
B:No. Let's kick his ass.
Games people play.
re: 691
I know that feeling -- I struggle to engage with political discussion on-line these days because I have nothing much to offer but impotent rage and despair.
And Emerson, you are missed!
691: If it's any consolation, Emerson, some of us aren't even in relationships anymore.
And Emerson, you are missed!
I just want to echo this sentiment.
Hi, John. Good to hear from you.
you DO have wisdom to share, John! we all miss you. I often think, if only emerson were here right now. we could pull you out from behind a potted palm, like woody allen and mashall mcluhan. "you know nothing of my work."
except tired old liberal platitudes, pop science, and a few pseudo-philosophical ideas.
If that isn't an exercise in false modesty, you're seriously doing yourself down. You're often wrong, but no more than anybody else, and you're always thoughtful, provocative and creative. I still dip into your book of essays from time to time.
Yay! Emerson! Whom we love and miss!
I have to agree with political football that this place really wasnt nicer back in the day.
Hi John! Comment here more often.
Emerson sucks. I'm glad he's quit, because it gives me more time to follow Ashton Kutcher's Twitter feed.
This thread is bullshit. Bob sometimes clearly is trolling, and can be randomly abusive at a slight provocation. But come on. Over the history of this blog, he has received 80 times more abuse than everyone else combined. Sifu has been incredibly abuse to bob for years now. That doesn't excuse any particular comment (the Blume abuse one for example), but the dynamic not just mean bob, and innocent everyone else.
Ashton Kutcher's twitter feed used to be so much more interesting before it started shying away from serious topics.
I have to admit the day I found out that a) Ashton Kutcher had a twitter feed, and b) people other than his immediately family read it, was the day I started to root for the cockroaches to win.
No hard feelings, but Emerson is still retired. Also, 12:01 is not Emerson.
701: I don't think the point is that bob is mean, exactly. The point is that he's a troll, and basically constantly says things -- often highly offensive things, calculatedly offensive things -- in an attempt to goad people into responding to him. This is trolling, and it makes for sucky threads. So, when I forget myself and 1. read a thread where people are engaging him or 2. read one of his comments in a thread where people aren't engaging him, I get pissed, because I know the game he's playing. Why I should feel bad for this outside of the fact that my engagement doesn't help with the whole "sucky threads" thing completely evades me, and how you could get there from this thread (even given that my first comment in response to [a response to] bob was probably an overreaction) I similarly can't figure.
I can be pretty mean to people on the internet; my argumentative style is biting, often more than I mean it to be, and on more than one occasion I've ended up turning my personal firehose of disapprobation on people who didn't really deserve it, or who -- while they were being, in my opinion, kind of stupid or ignorant -- were basically unprepared for it. In those situations, I've felt bad about it later. In this situation, I truly don't feel a bit bad, especially given the whole "let's bring real life relationships and uninvolved people into our baseless intimations of moral monsterhood!" thing.
705: What if I sulk and pout and kick my little feet?
I think that's a type of porn in Japan.
No hard feelings, but Emerson is still retired.
Well, I wish you'd unretire, because I was thinking about you while I was reading Chris Wickham's to me compelling book summarising the emerging historical/archaeological synthesis on post-Roman Europe and Middle East. I remembered you citing Pirenne in a discussion at Razib Khan's blog and I wondered what you made of Wickham's critique of his positions.
708: So Emerson should capitulate that much harder.
Who knew Heebie's uterus was so big?
Hey, Emerson! And I join everyone else in not having anything constructive to say about politics either, but if you ever re-emerge I'd be delighted.
I'd threaten to stamp my tiny feet with Oudemia until you started posting again, but at my shoe-size the effect just isn't the same.
691 705
I consider impersonation a more serious offense than random insults.
I ought say that I very much miss Emerson, no matter if I agreed with John Emerson or not. I always found (John) Emerson philosophically interesting, tho' I don't doubt he doesn't care.
Yeah, "the mafia" really ought to have been more of a tell.
714, 716: Which truth has been pretty much universally acknowledged on this blog.
Just sayin'.
unfogged is not a safe space because its an open forum on the internet for christ's sake.
I just wanted to quote this for emphasis. Also, this place is entirely more polite than it once was.
Also, this place is entirely more polite middle aged than it once was.
Fixed.
I can be pretty mean to people on the internet; my argumentative style is biting, often more than I mean it to be, and on more than one occasion I've ended up turning my personal firehose of disapprobation on people who didn't really deserve it, or who -- while they were being, in my opinion, kind of stupid or ignorant -- were basically unprepared for it. In those situations, I've felt bad about it later.
Definitely this, for me too.
Sometimes it isn't even meant to be mean at all. My natural rhetorical style involves a lot more swearing than I normally use on Unfogged -- I ramp the language down quite a bit -- and an exasperated 'Oh, fuck off!' sometimes comes across a lot harsher than it would face to face.
That said, I've been a bit snappy a couple of times recently [not specifically referring to the Egyptology thing].
Also, yes to 719 and above. Threads used to be a LOT nastier -- or at least the arguments were more heated -- some years back. I miss some of that.
You are a motherfucking motherfucker, apo.
You call that cursing, ttaM? You wouldn't stand out any elementary school playground anywhere in Philadelphia.
Also, I think chris y is calling all of us fat.
I've been meaning to talk to you about that, honey.
"I don't like you, and I don't have or need reasons. You are not like us, we are not like you. You make us uncomfortable, you don't look or act like us. Stay on your own side"
I've been thinking about this, along with my earlier comment about the sense of community being a necessary part of what makes unfogged interesting, and I think the quoted bit gets the emphasis wrong.
It's true, of course, that not everybody gets treated the same and this fact has been commented upon any number of times in the past. But, from my perspective, it isn't a difference between people I like and people I don't like. Rather there are some people on unfogged that I love*, none of whom I've met, most of whom I've exchanged no communication with outside of this forum, and, in some cases, people with whom I have had only tangential conversational exchanges with on this site. There are people that I love just because of how much they have shared of themselves in this forum. Inevitably this changes how I respond to their comments, and the same is true for half the people commenting here.
It can be an awkward dynamic at times, for all of the obvious reasons, but it is, overall, tremendously positive for the dynamic of communication.
What's more, I think that, compared to the classic days of unfogged I think the center, or core, of unfogged is more distributed. There's less feeling of everybody trying to catch the attention of the same handful of people, and more public acknowledgement of (some of) the various complicated affections between commenters**.
So, only tangentially to Bob, it is true that many of the commenters (and I include myself) don't have, in various ways, an online persona that is likely to inspire love, and that isn't fair, precisely, but it's a very different feel than a group that is expressing dislike towards people outside of the group***.
* cf Spider Robinson, "Make no mistake: it is love, not a shared hobby, that has brought us together here. Oh, we have as much trouble loving our own personal selves as the mundanes do - perhaps more trouble. But we love each other a great deal. Most important, we love our species, we love the damfool humanrace ..."
** There has also been discussion of whether comments directly expressing respect or affection for specific people are good, or whether it makes the place feel too insular. I am, actually, sympathetic to both sides of that question, but I also don't think there's any practical way to quash that at this point.
*** Of course it happens that people can be snippy towards others who make a point of keeping themselves separate from the group (see JBS, for example) but my point in the comment is about emphasis, not that there is only one way to describe the place.
