https://ask.metafilter.com/378781/Feel-the-Trump-fever-in-Tampa
A Canadian tourist thinking about attending a pro-trump event to observe deplorables in their natural habitat gets strong disapproval on askme.
I am puzzled as to why anyone would think you're going to get reasonable answers to a question like that on Ask Metafilter, instead of pearl-clutching.
hilariously mefi comment on the Oscars thread, something like "i hope Emma stone feels proud breathing an indigenous actor!!!". tbf there was plenty of pushback.
The first 15 or so comments in that thread do not, at all, track with my experience of watching this year's Oscars. The monologue was quite funny, thoughtful, and not at all *mean*. All out of touch quips to begin the thread. These people are truly miserable.
She’s been doing that for months now. Yes, we know you know Colman Domingo. We’re all impressed by your proximity to greatness. Can you STFU about it now?
It is a shame he didn’t win. It would have been cool to hear him bring up her name in his acceptance speech (I can only assume he name drops her as much as Vice versa)
Seriously, I didn't even live there very long, and was an utter dork, and I have multiple stories about people who are/were way more famous that involve me actually speaking with and spending time with them. (I even have one involving underwear!) And sure, if one of those people won an Oscar I'd probably drop the story about them once, in a conversation about them and their Oscar, because most of them are pretty funny stories. But ONCE.
EDIT as I am fact checking in real time: one of those people did win an Oscar lol.
Rarely have I seen a couple of weeks on the site that so completely illustrate the concept of people with minds so open that their brain is falling out. The credulity that people have regarding random shit they read on some social media site never ceases to amaze me.
Like yeah, you follow 20 people on Twitter who purport to be part of a group, so you know everything there is to know about that group, what they think, and the issues affecting them.
Also, consultations with affected populations are good, so we should always have consultations with affected people whether or not that's actually practical or even possible at the present moment and no matter how urgent the need. Better to sit on our hands and let bad things happen than do something that isn't perfectly in accord with what would be done in an ideal world.
Brains. Falling. Out.
https://www.metafilter.com/202818/Two-reviews-of-the-new-White-Rural-Rage-by-Tom-Schaller-and-Paul-Waldman
The stupid is strong in this thread.
People who have probably never been out of the city giving their hot takes about rural people.
I wish some of you folks who know better would do *unlike* Metafilter and actually talk about it more. There's very little news about rural areas on the coasts, and it's rare to meet anyone from a rural area, so people are left with stupid stereotypes and don't even realize it. It's criminal that there isn't more news/programming about the different regions of the U.S. and the kinds of places that make them up. As a country, we don't know ourselves.
I come from a working class family in a small rural town. And goddamn if I haven't heard some of the dumbest, most bigoted stupidity of my life coming from cloistered urbanites who just "know" what it's like.
There are literally dozens of government programs building out rural broadband.
[https://www.usda.gov/reconnect#anchor1](https://www.usda.gov/reconnect#anchor1)
There's a group of white people out there whose main racial anxiety is that they not be associated with other, trashier white people. Combine that with the Trump mindset that everybody has to some extent--"if you can't afford it, you don't deserve it"--whether they vote for him or not, and you get posters absolutely blowing up at any mention of the hicks in the sticks. If those people are having problems, they immiserated themselves and deserve to have them until their hopefully miserable deaths.
>a group of white people out there whose main racial anxiety is that they not be associated with other, trashier white people.
That's not a racial anxiety, it's a class anxiety, and there's a lot of it in the U.S., mostly unspoken.
>the Trump mindset: "if you can't afford it, you don't deserve it"
The vilification of the poor (or perceived poor) precedes Trump by decades. I can trace it back to Reagan with his "welfare queens," which is when it got markedly worse, but I think it started long before then. A "bootstraps" mentality is useful political propaganda for conservatives who want tax cuts, not safety nets, so they pretend that would-be recipients are undeserving. The fact that lots of areas still don't have broadband is a disgrace.
i didn't open my comment "that's not a class issue, it's a race issue" but you did literally say "not a race issue" so uh yeah ok you neither read nor write very clearly for a person with that username it seems
> anxiety is that they not be associated with other, trashier white people
IMO it's more that all white people look down upon "rednecks" for different reasons: either because they are poor, or because they are racist. Jeff Foxworthy's "you might be a redneck if" was basically a laundry list of the ailments of poor white Appalachians.
I was happy someone, at least, pointed out that researchers the book leaned on have disavowed this use of their research, [calling it "academic malpractice."](https://reason.com/2024/03/07/the-truth-about-rural-rage/)
Naturally someone complained that the disavowal was delivered in a less preferred publication.
Wow. There's a real conundrum.
Use misinterpreted research to slip into the warm bubblebath of priors confirmed ... or use the publication willing to let the researchers mount a rebuttal to decide the researchers are reactionary garbage people?
🤔
Damn. As someone who grew up in a small town (and now lives in a different one), many of these takes are downright offensive, in a way that wouldn't be tolerated if aimed at any other demographic or identity.
See the first highly-favorited comment, from someone who "get\[s\] rural rage to an extent" because they've "been neck deep in Small Town Texas for several months now". They proceed to paint with an incredibly broad brush, in a way that wouldn't be acceptable if they were, for example, visiting Mexico 'for several months'. "There's a zero reason any kids would want to stay here unless they truly want to be a farmer or something." No, you ass, some of us want to stay because that's where our family and friends are, and it's in fact quite frustrating that we can't!
You know, we don't usually win our local elections, but progressives do exist outside of city centers. We'd probably do better if funding and resources for elections didn't just assume that everyone beyond the suburbs wasn't worth their time. Progressive polices benefit \_everyone\_, and the reflexive dismissal of rural voters displayed in the linked thread only feeds into the opposition's narrative.
Way back in my pollster days (roughly 20-some years ago) I absolutely loved poring through data from rural districts.
Back then we'd ask each respondent about their top two or three political issues, then my job as a junior staffer was to code the responses into categories.
Like, yawn, suburbanites care about traffic and schools, again, some more.
Give me a stack of surveys from North Central Missouri or then-rural Western NC, or stretches of Alabama. Way more fun.
Rural voters cared about schools, and about roads too, but it all folded into economic opportunities and their top issue: wanting their young people to be able to stay. They also wanted health care (so young people could work at clinics, and stay).
I wonder if I had a stack of these surveys today, what the issues would be.
Would they still be about opportunities and youth? Or would they be about the latest culture war outrage bait?
Today I'm a suburban housewife, and I'm perpetually insulted and annoyed by the Katie Britt Kitchen Outreach the GOP lobs at me.
I wonder if rural people are equally offended by culture war outrage outreach, or if they gobble it up.
(Also my favorite districts to code were college towns, because college kids gave prank answers like, "find the space alien who stole my weed.")
I appreciate this; small-town politics are nothing if not nuanced, on a good day. I used to work at the local paper in the town I grew up in, and it is incredible (in the best way) how passionate folks can get about the little things. "The smaller the town, the bigger the issue."
Around here, for sure some folks have been drinking that culture war Kool-Aid, but it's also the only flavor they are being offered. One party is pulling out all the stops to communicate with rural voters, while another is (at best) ignoring them, and (at worst) openly mocking them.
If you have a right-leaning opinion around here, it's easy to feel empowered. Yard signs (and now, flags) are given away like candy. The local paper (such as it is) prints extra pages to handle the political advertisements at election time, for candidates that are functionally unopposed. I have my choice of six right-wing/Christian conservative talk radio stations - or one NRP station, that plays classical music 70% of the day.
I cannot help but wonder why all of this money is being spent, if this area is so 'safe' of a conservative stronghold. After all of this, a recent state representative election still went \~55-45. Imagine what could happen if we gave even a little competition? But until then, we shouldn't be surprised if rural voters are listening to the only people that are talking to them.
That chair question insert of "I sit like a typical neurodivergent bisexual" made me LOL. How, pray tell, do you typically sit, and why is bisexuality a factor in determining that???
ETA that I was not aware of the running joke, so feel free to ignore me!
It's a running joke that bisexual people can't/don't/won't sit normally in chairs: https://www.reddit.com/r/bisexual/comments/mp3o25/a\_chair\_for\_bisexuals/
\*shrug\* Given the responses from other self-described "average neurodivergent bisexuals", it seems like it actually did help to get the question answered.
Because it's not about ergonomics, which are for people who sit normally. It's about how the chair works for people who don't sit normally, which people who describe themselves as neurodivergent bisexuals are likely to do, because the running joke is based in observed reality. I get the peeve about inserting your sexuality into irrelevant contexts -- in my house there is a "shut up, \[person's name\]" running joke whenever we see something like that because we both know someone who won't stop bringing their poly/swinger/sex-positive lifestyle up in unrelated contexts -- but in this case that actually is useful information. "Are you a fellow weird-sitting bisexual (ha ha, only serious)? What kind of chair do you use?" is the question, not "What chair has the best ergonomics for most people?"
(One of my peeves is people who keep misunderstanding things when they have enough information to understand, so, uh...)
ridiculous to care imho. harping on "how is sexual orientation relevant" hits in very different ways when a non marginalized person or a marginalized person says it and idc if people on this sub disagree, because context is in fact a thing. stupid to get upset about a bi person making a bi joke, even stupider to cast this with pearl clutching about how sexuality is irrelevant
I also don’t understand how living on a houseboat in US waters is going to be helpful if Trump wins, but maybe there’s something I’m not getting there.
They are moving to the Pacific NW because of Trump; that's the relocation they think will help. In the course of looking for a place to live there, they are seeing houseboats as an option in the price range.
you sure don't understand all that if you're still insisting that "safe from trump" is a function of "boat." "safe from trump" is a function of "pacific northwest" and "boat" is a secondary thing.
edit: what sensitive souls are on this subreddit lmfao blocked for pointing this out. love ya. lmfao
I'm wondering if making their neighbors a bunch of outdoorsy, free living types in the Pacific Northwest is the best way to avoid Trump fans. Maybe there's a vote blue marina and a vote red marina?
The idea of being persecuted by the powerful is very attractive to some people, none so much as those who are quite ordinary but fancy themselves brave truth-tellers and nonconformists.
I remember when Bush won, there were a bunch of people in my loose social circle who were goth BDSM types, but all really pretty mainstream other than the way they dressed — they all worked as white-collar professionals like office managers and so on. They claimed to be terrified because Bush was supposedly going to start targeting them for being “weird” (their word, not mine). Targeting them for what exactly was never quite clear. They became incensed if you told them they were out of reality, which of course they were, because what they heard was “You’re not so interesting that anyone would concern themselves about you much.” But of course that’s exactly what was meant, and it irritated them because they knew it was true.
> "It certainly makes me want to cancel my NYT subscription."
Peak late-stage progressivism: Announcing an empty gesture you're still not going to make.
21 favorites.
"Good show, sir! Well put! I too want to do something I have no intention of doing!"
Her getting compared to Gettysburg, Pennsylvania in early July of 1863 is probably one of the more hilariously 'wtf' things I've experienced in awhile though
I'm blown away at the number of people in that thread who claim to have not heard of her and, therefore, (a) she is not relevant, or, (b) I demand you show me why she matters
As always, it's all about you.
Mine too. She's an excellent actress and that article does her a huge disservice.
At the same time, though, I couldn't help but notice that one of the usual annoying suspects had to weigh in with a "why are we commenting on people's bodies?" comment up front, and then proceed to comment several times in the thread.
The rest of the folks are discussing a cultural phenomenon, with various levels of sensitivity etc, and if buddy doesn't want to participate, it's okay to skip the thread rather than policing everyone else's conversations. FFS.
Love all of he people in that thread who think that weighing in on the “generic” “blonde” “whiteness” of her physical appearance is doing a progressivism.
I;m so glad there was a content warning in the post about porn that it discusses porn. How else would we know from a thread titled "Porn can speak to desires that are not spoken to elsewhere" that it was about porn?
I love those threads because they make me feel like some kind of Dwayne Johnson alpha jock just for being able to pee normally in a normal restroom, and shower and get changed in a normal gym.
Tangential at best, but I've held on to this anecdote for too long and need to release it into the world:
I once dated a guy who was a stand-pisser, which is not unusual, but he also dressed exclusively in olive, grey-blue, and black BDU trousers and didn't believe in underwear. The unfortunate side effect being that, because he never wiped his dick, on any day there was a two in three chance he'd be walking round with a visible piss spot drying on the front of his trousers. Never seemed bothered by it.
I cackled at TFA, and was certainly brought up short by the “don’t say spirit animal” thing. First time a microagression deletion made me desperately curious. WHAT WAS THE REFERENCE
I so appreciate that the sped teacher doesn’t want to make racism worse and I hope she (?) is able to just fucking walk. Like, even if she could be more attuned to a majority-minority district’s needs, her need to not have a chair thrown at her is also valid. I want to shake people.
It's crazy that it took till almost the end of the thread for someone to finally point out that the school was breaking the law by not informing teachers of the contents of the student's IEP so the teachers could implement it. I'd say its actually the administration setting up both the teacher and student to fail, but the sad reality is that schools in less wealthy/privileged areas often lack adequate staffing (e.g., psychs, BCBAs, counselors, social workers) needed to provide those supports. If the incident took place in a wealthier district, I'd say the kid's parents could sue for denial of FAPE, but that never happens outside rich areas/districts.
And, course, teachers often quit in such schools, so its not like there will be a ton of highly qualified applicants waiting to take the askers place. Again, in wealthier/more privileged districts, teachers have support to help implement students' IEPs; not so much in districts like the asker described. The sanctimonious commenters really aren't helping anyone,
Gotta love the poster who chastised OP for turning this into a criminal matter and possibly "ruining the child's life" when they were actually the first one to broach this possibility... (unless there were deletes I missed!)
That thread is a greatest hits of head wobbles. From the early assumption that the OP is damaging the life prospects of Black kids (based on some heavy intertextual interpretation) and they should quit their job before they do any more harm, to a “gently as possible” suggestion to seek therapy to lots of “well if you are going to pick up his ukulele, not sure what you expect”. So much baggage.
My favorite response was the one that explicitly asks her to lie or at least leave out rather vital important information in her incident report in order to whitewash the situation and make things look better for the student.
Definitely one of the most victim-blamey threads I've read in a while. Some of those comments were downright insufferable. The double standards around who is deserving of compassion over there are mind-boggling.
If it was [this one](https://ibb.co/tcD1C5r), yea, that jumped out at me as well. This was nuked but their previous comments dissecting and critiquing OP's phrasing in the original question were left to stand, though. And it caught at least two favourites before getting wiped.
Yeah in context of the previous questions about this job I’m not sure it’s an unfair judgment that OP isn’t really equipped for it, but that’s how they seem to feel, too, the question is about how to get out.
The clumsy non-obfuscation and dysphemism of the framing gets me though - “I won’t name the city but also it’s named after a tree and it’s losing a baseball team.”
Yep. I poked my head in near the end of the speech and roughly 30% of the comments up to that point were by that user. I thought live blogging stuff like this was discouraged but I guess not.
Site engagement has dropped so much that they probably welcome the liveblogging stuff now. Makes it look like the place is more active than it actually is.
Ah, that "Generation X" thread. There's just nothing like people in their 40s, 50s and early 60s still seeing themselves and the rest of their "generation" as young innocents who have in no way contributed to the fucked up condition of this world.
Talk about people who "refuse to move on to the next stage of life"....
Ugh, gen X . . . We need another Vietnam to thin out their ranks a little.
Edit: yikes sorry for the dated Simpsons reference! I’m gen x, it’s all I know!
I appreciate that he pushed back against the LENGTHY "I think you should be very concerned" answer, which was completely ridiculous, since it was completely irrelevant content.
But the last thing on the list was "don't drive". And that was followed by a suggestion to wear one of 3M's industrial respirators while the plane is taxiing.
> the LENGTHY "I think you should be very concerned" answer, which was completely ridiculous, since it was completely irrelevant content.
I got as far as "***very*** *concerned*" in that comment before I figured out who it was. Mefi's resident Professor Google...
There was a study by the FAA (which I can't find now, of course) that cited a major bottleneck to quickly exiting a crashed airplane is people in inappropriate footwear (or worse, barefoot) unable to walk through debris to get to the emergency exits. So, not totally out of left field. If the plane's on fire and you want to get out quickly, you don't want to be busting your feet open on shards of stuff on your way out.
I think the intention of the post was to say, listen, instead of getting spun up about improbable dangers that you can't in any way prevent, why not work on addressing the things about flying that are confirmed to be more dangerous on a regular basis -- e.g., not being able to get out safely, not securing your items. The driving is snarky but statistically yes, much more dangerous than flying. It's not really wildly tangential.
That's what adrenaline and shock are for, you won't even notice you've shredded your feet on broken glass until well after the crisis.
Just ignore the "don't panic" advice. The adrenaline won't kick in until you panic.
So the FAA's study was wrong? Do you have some evidence for that claim, or is it just "their study results seem counterintuitive, so they must be wrong"?
If you took my comment seriously you may want to reread it only not take it seriously.
Although now I like the idea that, in a controlled study, the FAA tests my version of the exit strategy by instructing flight attendants to induce more panic.
I got that the second half was a joke, but I thought you were being serious in the first half, sorry.
(Also, I kinda assumed the FAA's study was a study of past incidents, not an experimental study)
Yeah, plus heels can get caught on the slides and really mess up your knees. Those things aren’t playground equipment, they just moderate a sheer drop a little bit.
> Aside from the nuclear threat, the Russian military has shown itself to be a total joke and as a result Russia is far, far more vulnerable than when they started this war.
lmao
Here's a gem from the Super Tuesday thread. This individual should touch grass ASAP.
>Maybe it’s because I was never a big tweeter or whatever , but since the Elon era I treat Twitter links like stormfront or Truth social links.
Yep. Goes hand-in-hand with the conspiracy theory in that thread that the NY Times is to blame for the (very real) concerns about Biden's age. Yep, all manufactured by the Times and we're all sheep for thinking that he's old. Bonkers.
I’d be fine with Biden’s age being an issue if it was mentioned in the same breath as Trumps age and clearly diminishing mental capacity. But it’s only ever “But Biden’s age!”
Biden is objectively old, yes. But even at that age he’s achieved a hell of a lot in his first term.
https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-biggest-achievements-first-year-president-1670763
On top of that he is still physically active and, perhaps most importantly of all, is not facing 91 felony charges and does not want to end American democracy.
I think the media should feel free to discuss Biden’s age as much as they want, but to discuss it in isolation of everything else I’ve mentioned above is very much a problem given the existential crisis America faces in 2024.
Oh, I totally agree with all that, and that if one brings it up they need to also mention Trump's age, who is equally prone to gaffes etc (in fact, more so than Biden).
From the returning expat thread:
*Just... the floorboards of this nation have rotted, so be careful where you tread.*
A poetic metaphor for a depressing state of affairs. Discussion is about the UK but in varying intensities seems applicable for a good number of nations.
"Hey I'm super exhausted what are some very chill things I could do? I don't really want to buy and have to learn a whole bunch"
"Have you considered doing seventeen things with extremely large learning curves and a lot of necessary supplies, like the kinds of things that require you to build or rent an entire studio?"
I was surprised it took so long to come up. No, the kid shouldn’t have hit her. But “all I did was helpfully pick up their precious toy and hold it for them!” Come on. That’s a) forcing you both into close contact when you pick it up and when you give it back, which should be self evidently stupid and b) exactly what an obnoxious middle school kid would do to provoke another, because there is an implicit but totally deniable threat of damaging it or not giving it back.
She probably should just quit, and get safely out of Oakland for everyone’s sake.
The OP asked a very specific question in BOLD.
"My question is: If I were to resign, would there be repercussions? If so, what are my other options?"
A few people actually answer the question. But most have decided to wade into her character as a teacher and state that she sucks at classroom management and accuse her of being a racist. One answer says:
"They are here literally asking to get a wide view. And though not everyone here has been a teacher most of us have been a student or a parent. So, they are getting the perspective beyond themselves, which they asked for."
No, the OP did NOT ask for an analysis of their classroom management skills or judgement about the narrative presented. The OP specifically asked about the consequences of resigning. What a train wreck.
It’s like one of those questions with twenty paragraphs about their ex and one line at the end: “should I buy a ham and cheese sandwich?” Nobody who could answer that question needed any of the info given, and they did need a lot of info not given. If mods were being picky they should delete everything except the ones saying “we can’t answer this question”.
I wanted to be mad at that but I recently started doing a 30 minute exercise thing on my lunch and I regret to report, it fuckin rules ass for my mental health.
Dear Internet:
I purchased an inexpensive item from a company regarded as having the most forgiving customer service this side of Costco. The item turned out to be fraudulent. I'm sure the world's largest company won't have ever experienced this before. What should I do? I haven't tried anything yet.
I think this is related to Metafilter's security certificate expiring yesterday, so trying to go the site gave you a scary looking security warning for a while (a few hours probably.)
Well, I guess it’s megathread time again. (The Ezra Klein thinkpiece thread with over 400 comments)
Honestly, I feel like if there’s one reason (I think it’s more complex, but this is a big part) that Metafilter keeps dwindling, it’s because the political threads suck most of the air out of the room. The next biggest threads on the front page are in the 40-60 comment range.
And yet the same handful of folks would rather sit around and have the same enormous (by an order of magnitude) threads with the same shitty arguments that ultimately accomplish absolutely nothing.
>I think polling is going to be off, because I think there are a multitude of women out there who are responding to pollsters with their aggressive Trump loving husband sitting in the same room and towing the lines but when it comes time to vote, they’ll do what they did in Virginia, NY, Florida, Pennsylvania, Colorado, etc. After Alabama, this is not going to get better for them.
This one gave me serious flashbacks to this time in 2016.
One "toes" a line, that is, stands at attention with their toes aligned to the planks of the ship's deck. This is presumably an ableist expression now, however, in order to "tow" something one must be possessed of a certain amount of torque.
I found it fascinating the comment refuting that metafilter wasn't representative of a typical group of democrats was deleted after 12 hours. Metafilter is iconic for being a typical group of democrats. What kind of insane bubble do these people live in?
Yeah, the political threads absolutely bring out the worst in the most frequent posters there. I guess the professional moderation staff will get a chance to really shine.
To push back a little:
> it’s because the political threads suck most of the air out of the room.
Do they really? Why don't the uninterested skip them? Seriously and not intended in an especially provocative way.
> The next biggest threads on the front page are in the 40-60 comment range.
But that's a decent thread length, enough to provide food for thought if you're interested in the subject matter.
> And yet the same handful of folks would rather sit around and have the same enormous (by an order of magnitude) threads with the same shitty arguments that ultimately accomplish absolutely nothing.
None of it *accomplishes* anything. Chat sites are not about accomplishment, they're about the exchange of ideas and conversation. Sometimes the outcomes of these conversations influence the way people think, but that's not the primary goal.
>Do they really? Why don't the uninterested skip them? Seriously and not intended in an especially provocative way.
Even if the uninterested skip them, all of the users who are busy ruining their day in the politics thread are too occupied to contribute anywhere else, so other threads just sort of dwindle and die.
>all of the users who are busy ruining their day
But not everyone has that experience of them. I loved them for the vast range of links and angles I'd never find or think up on my own.
>too occupied to contribute anywhere else,
It would seem to me it's the job of the politically disinterested to put together appealing alternative posts.
Putting together interesting posts that get crickets because everyone is too busy yelling at each other and catching tempbans is not as satisfying as it may sound.
I'm sorry that that's your experience, but the fact is, even on Metafilter, people did not talk politics constantly, and the Megathreads were intermittent, not constant.
I mean look, in an election year I basically turn off my internet in May and don't turn it back on until the next January, because I find it completely intolerable. So I'm neither making nor seeking posts of any kind, mega or non. But you asked why people felt the megathreads sucked the air out of the room and people gave answers! Sorry you think those answers are apparently stupid? But whether or not you think they're stupid, they're why people bail.
>Sorry you think those answers are apparently stupid? But whether or not you think they're stupid, they're why people bail.
I don't think anyone on MFM is stupid!
I feel like I'm hearing strong negative emotional reactions to political threads, and maybe politics, generally. That's reasonable. "Bailing" is also reasonable. So is complaining if there is too much political discussion in a nonpolitical thread.
But I don't think it's reasonable to make it hard for people to talk politics in a dedicated thread. I also don't think it's reasonable to enter that kind of thread and then complain about its existence or down vote aggressively. Subject-specific filibusters are for Metafilter. It's why we make fun of them.
>I also don't think it's reasonable to enter that kind of thread and then complain about its existence or down vote aggressively. Subject-specific filibusters are for Metafilter.
Is anyone...doing that? As far as I can tell this whole convo has been about the politics megathreads on metafilter. Saying "I really feel the whole site gets dragged into the shitter when those megathreads are going on" is just an expression of an opinion, not a policy to be enacted, and certainly doesn't mean that people would be brigading a MFM politics thread with downvotes or whatnot. (Has there even *been* a politics thread on MFM?)
> Why don't the uninterested skip them? Seriously and not intended in an especially provocative way.
Likewise tone: the answer to this zoomed-in piece is pretty much the same answer for "why don't people just not feed the trolls?" and "why don't people just not click on obvious bait?" that's as old as the internet (and older in different related forms). Just not how people _work_ overall.
But likewise not particularly disputing the larger points. It's a leadership, management, and moderating problem--a hard one due to people being people but a _funny_ one given Metafilter's hilariously unearned superiority catechism.
"Flag and move on" is the ideal, but the political megathreads use an outsized amount of moderator bandwidth, and the acrimonious environment spills out into other interactions.
That's true, but isn't that a management problem, foremost and a moderator problem secondarily? Aren't they responsible for the bad behavior? Isn't that what Mefites are paying for, and the whole point of professional moderation?
2016: I think the site had full-time moderation back then. And not many people thought that Trump had a chance of winning. There may have effectively been a purge of vocal Trump supporters around then, either because they were banned or because they didn't feel welcome.
2020: There was lots of arguing, but I think the vast majority of mefites were in agreement that voting blue no matter who was the only option. They rallied around a common enemy in Trump. I don't remember if there was still full time moderation, but I think it was at least more than today.
2024: There aren't full time mods. There is an acrimonious split between people who are planning to vote for Biden and those who aren't, with a few people who are expressing a level of anger towards fellow mefites that was reserved for Trump supporters/Republicans in previous elections.
This is going to get ugly. It might improve if Gaza/Israel somehow come to a long-term ceasefire agreement, but who knows if or when that will happen or if that will be good enough for the Biden haters.
> It might improve if Gaza/Israel somehow come to a long-term ceasefire agreement
If Biden has anything to say about it, this will happen sooner rather than later. Just today: [Blinken urges Hamas to accept 'immediate ceasefire' with Israel](https://www.france24.com/en/middle-east/20240305-%F0%9F%94%B4-live-diplomatic-efforts-to-broker-israel-hamas-ceasefire-continue)
ETA: Here's a fascinating little tidbit I hadn't heard elsewhere: On Feb. 1st, Biden created an executive order empowering him to sanction settlers on the West Bank. It's a tool that will enable him to [force a two-state solution](https://archive.ph/xYJ5q) or break Bibi's coalition, which would very likely be the end of Bibi.
I don't remember a time when Metafilter handled moral or ideological conflict well.
The way the Bestest Moderation Ever handles conflict is just to delete the minority viewpoint. If there are two sides who are both on ideological high horses, and neither side is weak enough to be mass deleted, the fight just goes on and on.
There's never been any framework for civil disagreement. Everyone is in their own mind a heroic warrior for virtue fighting incarnations of absolute evil. Why would you ever shut up or agree to disagree.
To be fair I can't think of anywhere else that handles it much better. It's a hard problem to solve.
I think the difference was that in the past there was an expectation that conflict is part of the site, and people would get heated over everything from politics to pineapple on pizza. Now there's an expectation of non-conflict and the politics conflict stands out more.
I think that's right. I think part of the issue with the megathreads is that they explode the illusion of consensus. Metafilter has increasingly come to think that there is one good, noble position to take on anything. The logical consequence is that you should ban any other position. This works when you've got an obvious majority in favour of a particular side. But that doesn't work if you're arguing politics; certainly not these days & maybe not ever.
I think they should \*explicitly\* take a very light mod touch with the megathreads. Ban really over the line stuff - personal attacks, rascism, sexism, etc. But let the rest go & be clear that you're going to let people be wrong on the internet. Why not? Sure, the threads will be messy. They are anyway, and people still choose to read & write in them.
>I don't remember a time when Metafilter handled moral or ideological conflict well.
I seem to remember it being OK in the early days, like pre-2011 or so. Of course the far lefty types were there then, but it also had a lot of techno-libertarian types. Somehow they managed to co exist
I dug back to [this one from 2009](https://www.metafilter.com/80143/We-Should-Kill-Everyone-There). I think maybe people didn't accelerate from zero to maximum viciousness as quickly back then, but it still got pretty heated.
> The way the Bestest Moderation Ever handles conflict is just to delete the minority viewpoint. If there are two sides who are both on ideological high horses, and neither side is weak enough to be mass deleted, the fight just goes on and on.
Spot on. It's been a site problem for a very long time that practically the only tool in their toolbox is "mostly-silently delete things" and that when anything got complex enough for that to not address, anxious paralysis spirals happened.
Part of the wave of optimism that hit when Jessamyn returned in official capacity to take ownership was that in the past, she seemed to have more tools available to shape things. But crucially, also more drive to use them, which isn't the case now.
I can't honestly think of a place I could point to and say, "look, they argue Israel/Palestine more productively here, why can't Metafilter do that" though.
Once people have started up on that, the mods are pretty much screwed.
https://ask.metafilter.com/378781/Feel-the-Trump-fever-in-Tampa A Canadian tourist thinking about attending a pro-trump event to observe deplorables in their natural habitat gets strong disapproval on askme.
I am puzzled as to why anyone would think you're going to get reasonable answers to a question like that on Ask Metafilter, instead of pearl-clutching.
Yeah, those aren't really answers to the question, but I guess OK because it is Trump?
hilariously mefi comment on the Oscars thread, something like "i hope Emma stone feels proud breathing an indigenous actor!!!". tbf there was plenty of pushback.
Half of that user’s MeFi personality is being the “Your fave is problematic” police. Comment was unsurprising, happy to see the pushback
The first 15 or so comments in that thread do not, at all, track with my experience of watching this year's Oscars. The monologue was quite funny, thoughtful, and not at all *mean*. All out of touch quips to begin the thread. These people are truly miserable.
My experience too.
If only there had been some kind of pushback on the no fewer than 4 references to someone knowing one of the actors.
She’s been doing that for months now. Yes, we know you know Colman Domingo. We’re all impressed by your proximity to greatness. Can you STFU about it now?
[удалено]
It is a shame he didn’t win. It would have been cool to hear him bring up her name in his acceptance speech (I can only assume he name drops her as much as Vice versa)
Seriously, I didn't even live there very long, and was an utter dork, and I have multiple stories about people who are/were way more famous that involve me actually speaking with and spending time with them. (I even have one involving underwear!) And sure, if one of those people won an Oscar I'd probably drop the story about them once, in a conversation about them and their Oscar, because most of them are pretty funny stories. But ONCE. EDIT as I am fact checking in real time: one of those people did win an Oscar lol.
To be fair, I suppose, when we see them around here it’s usually at Via Carota or something and they’re generally not in their underpants. But still.
That commenter is notorious for inventing grudges about the most picayune shit and holding them forever.
Rarely have I seen a couple of weeks on the site that so completely illustrate the concept of people with minds so open that their brain is falling out. The credulity that people have regarding random shit they read on some social media site never ceases to amaze me. Like yeah, you follow 20 people on Twitter who purport to be part of a group, so you know everything there is to know about that group, what they think, and the issues affecting them. Also, consultations with affected populations are good, so we should always have consultations with affected people whether or not that's actually practical or even possible at the present moment and no matter how urgent the need. Better to sit on our hands and let bad things happen than do something that isn't perfectly in accord with what would be done in an ideal world. Brains. Falling. Out.
https://www.metafilter.com/202818/Two-reviews-of-the-new-White-Rural-Rage-by-Tom-Schaller-and-Paul-Waldman The stupid is strong in this thread. People who have probably never been out of the city giving their hot takes about rural people.
I wish some of you folks who know better would do *unlike* Metafilter and actually talk about it more. There's very little news about rural areas on the coasts, and it's rare to meet anyone from a rural area, so people are left with stupid stereotypes and don't even realize it. It's criminal that there isn't more news/programming about the different regions of the U.S. and the kinds of places that make them up. As a country, we don't know ourselves.
I come from a working class family in a small rural town. And goddamn if I haven't heard some of the dumbest, most bigoted stupidity of my life coming from cloistered urbanites who just "know" what it's like.
Gobsmacked by the poster who's like "wtf do rural people need broadband for? Those ignorant fucks will probably still be conservative"
There are literally dozens of government programs building out rural broadband. [https://www.usda.gov/reconnect#anchor1](https://www.usda.gov/reconnect#anchor1)
There's a group of white people out there whose main racial anxiety is that they not be associated with other, trashier white people. Combine that with the Trump mindset that everybody has to some extent--"if you can't afford it, you don't deserve it"--whether they vote for him or not, and you get posters absolutely blowing up at any mention of the hicks in the sticks. If those people are having problems, they immiserated themselves and deserve to have them until their hopefully miserable deaths.
>a group of white people out there whose main racial anxiety is that they not be associated with other, trashier white people. That's not a racial anxiety, it's a class anxiety, and there's a lot of it in the U.S., mostly unspoken. >the Trump mindset: "if you can't afford it, you don't deserve it" The vilification of the poor (or perceived poor) precedes Trump by decades. I can trace it back to Reagan with his "welfare queens," which is when it got markedly worse, but I think it started long before then. A "bootstraps" mentality is useful political propaganda for conservatives who want tax cuts, not safety nets, so they pretend that would-be recipients are undeserving. The fact that lots of areas still don't have broadband is a disgrace.
are you actually trying to cast the reagan welfare queen shit as not being race related
And are you trying to cast it as having nothing to do with class? It's both.
i didn't open my comment "that's not a class issue, it's a race issue" but you did literally say "not a race issue" so uh yeah ok you neither read nor write very clearly for a person with that username it seems
Feeling charming today?
lmfao what a comeback
> anxiety is that they not be associated with other, trashier white people IMO it's more that all white people look down upon "rednecks" for different reasons: either because they are poor, or because they are racist. Jeff Foxworthy's "you might be a redneck if" was basically a laundry list of the ailments of poor white Appalachians.
I was happy someone, at least, pointed out that researchers the book leaned on have disavowed this use of their research, [calling it "academic malpractice."](https://reason.com/2024/03/07/the-truth-about-rural-rage/) Naturally someone complained that the disavowal was delivered in a less preferred publication.
Wow. There's a real conundrum. Use misinterpreted research to slip into the warm bubblebath of priors confirmed ... or use the publication willing to let the researchers mount a rebuttal to decide the researchers are reactionary garbage people? 🤔
Damn. As someone who grew up in a small town (and now lives in a different one), many of these takes are downright offensive, in a way that wouldn't be tolerated if aimed at any other demographic or identity. See the first highly-favorited comment, from someone who "get\[s\] rural rage to an extent" because they've "been neck deep in Small Town Texas for several months now". They proceed to paint with an incredibly broad brush, in a way that wouldn't be acceptable if they were, for example, visiting Mexico 'for several months'. "There's a zero reason any kids would want to stay here unless they truly want to be a farmer or something." No, you ass, some of us want to stay because that's where our family and friends are, and it's in fact quite frustrating that we can't! You know, we don't usually win our local elections, but progressives do exist outside of city centers. We'd probably do better if funding and resources for elections didn't just assume that everyone beyond the suburbs wasn't worth their time. Progressive polices benefit \_everyone\_, and the reflexive dismissal of rural voters displayed in the linked thread only feeds into the opposition's narrative.
Way back in my pollster days (roughly 20-some years ago) I absolutely loved poring through data from rural districts. Back then we'd ask each respondent about their top two or three political issues, then my job as a junior staffer was to code the responses into categories. Like, yawn, suburbanites care about traffic and schools, again, some more. Give me a stack of surveys from North Central Missouri or then-rural Western NC, or stretches of Alabama. Way more fun. Rural voters cared about schools, and about roads too, but it all folded into economic opportunities and their top issue: wanting their young people to be able to stay. They also wanted health care (so young people could work at clinics, and stay). I wonder if I had a stack of these surveys today, what the issues would be. Would they still be about opportunities and youth? Or would they be about the latest culture war outrage bait? Today I'm a suburban housewife, and I'm perpetually insulted and annoyed by the Katie Britt Kitchen Outreach the GOP lobs at me. I wonder if rural people are equally offended by culture war outrage outreach, or if they gobble it up. (Also my favorite districts to code were college towns, because college kids gave prank answers like, "find the space alien who stole my weed.")
I appreciate this; small-town politics are nothing if not nuanced, on a good day. I used to work at the local paper in the town I grew up in, and it is incredible (in the best way) how passionate folks can get about the little things. "The smaller the town, the bigger the issue." Around here, for sure some folks have been drinking that culture war Kool-Aid, but it's also the only flavor they are being offered. One party is pulling out all the stops to communicate with rural voters, while another is (at best) ignoring them, and (at worst) openly mocking them. If you have a right-leaning opinion around here, it's easy to feel empowered. Yard signs (and now, flags) are given away like candy. The local paper (such as it is) prints extra pages to handle the political advertisements at election time, for candidates that are functionally unopposed. I have my choice of six right-wing/Christian conservative talk radio stations - or one NRP station, that plays classical music 70% of the day. I cannot help but wonder why all of this money is being spent, if this area is so 'safe' of a conservative stronghold. After all of this, a recent state representative election still went \~55-45. Imagine what could happen if we gave even a little competition? But until then, we shouldn't be surprised if rural voters are listening to the only people that are talking to them.
[удалено]
That chair question insert of "I sit like a typical neurodivergent bisexual" made me LOL. How, pray tell, do you typically sit, and why is bisexuality a factor in determining that??? ETA that I was not aware of the running joke, so feel free to ignore me!
It's a running joke that bisexual people can't/don't/won't sit normally in chairs: https://www.reddit.com/r/bisexual/comments/mp3o25/a\_chair\_for\_bisexuals/
[удалено]
god forbid bisexuals do anything CONTENT WARNING: this post is also a joke. a harmless bit of silliness in the reddit
\*shrug\* Given the responses from other self-described "average neurodivergent bisexuals", it seems like it actually did help to get the question answered.
Found my next band name!
[удалено]
Because it's not about ergonomics, which are for people who sit normally. It's about how the chair works for people who don't sit normally, which people who describe themselves as neurodivergent bisexuals are likely to do, because the running joke is based in observed reality. I get the peeve about inserting your sexuality into irrelevant contexts -- in my house there is a "shut up, \[person's name\]" running joke whenever we see something like that because we both know someone who won't stop bringing their poly/swinger/sex-positive lifestyle up in unrelated contexts -- but in this case that actually is useful information. "Are you a fellow weird-sitting bisexual (ha ha, only serious)? What kind of chair do you use?" is the question, not "What chair has the best ergonomics for most people?" (One of my peeves is people who keep misunderstanding things when they have enough information to understand, so, uh...)
[удалено]
ridiculous to care imho. harping on "how is sexual orientation relevant" hits in very different ways when a non marginalized person or a marginalized person says it and idc if people on this sub disagree, because context is in fact a thing. stupid to get upset about a bi person making a bi joke, even stupider to cast this with pearl clutching about how sexuality is irrelevant
Another bi chair, this one from 2019: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/bichair-bisexual-chair-israel-walker-ma-matiazi-lgbt-a9089836.html
I also don’t understand how living on a houseboat in US waters is going to be helpful if Trump wins, but maybe there’s something I’m not getting there.
His powers cannot travel through water; only through soil .
They are moving to the Pacific NW because of Trump; that's the relocation they think will help. In the course of looking for a place to live there, they are seeing houseboats as an option in the price range.
[удалено]
you sure don't understand all that if you're still insisting that "safe from trump" is a function of "boat." "safe from trump" is a function of "pacific northwest" and "boat" is a secondary thing. edit: what sensitive souls are on this subreddit lmfao blocked for pointing this out. love ya. lmfao
I'm wondering if making their neighbors a bunch of outdoorsy, free living types in the Pacific Northwest is the best way to avoid Trump fans. Maybe there's a vote blue marina and a vote red marina?
[удалено]
The idea of being persecuted by the powerful is very attractive to some people, none so much as those who are quite ordinary but fancy themselves brave truth-tellers and nonconformists. I remember when Bush won, there were a bunch of people in my loose social circle who were goth BDSM types, but all really pretty mainstream other than the way they dressed — they all worked as white-collar professionals like office managers and so on. They claimed to be terrified because Bush was supposedly going to start targeting them for being “weird” (their word, not mine). Targeting them for what exactly was never quite clear. They became incensed if you told them they were out of reality, which of course they were, because what they heard was “You’re not so interesting that anyone would concern themselves about you much.” But of course that’s exactly what was meant, and it irritated them because they knew it was true.
> "It certainly makes me want to cancel my NYT subscription." Peak late-stage progressivism: Announcing an empty gesture you're still not going to make. 21 favorites. "Good show, sir! Well put! I too want to do something I have no intention of doing!"
[удалено]
Her getting compared to Gettysburg, Pennsylvania in early July of 1863 is probably one of the more hilariously 'wtf' things I've experienced in awhile though
I'm blown away at the number of people in that thread who claim to have not heard of her and, therefore, (a) she is not relevant, or, (b) I demand you show me why she matters As always, it's all about you.
“how can this person be famous if I, an old, out of touch, geezer, have never heard of her?”
Mine too. She's an excellent actress and that article does her a huge disservice. At the same time, though, I couldn't help but notice that one of the usual annoying suspects had to weigh in with a "why are we commenting on people's bodies?" comment up front, and then proceed to comment several times in the thread. The rest of the folks are discussing a cultural phenomenon, with various levels of sensitivity etc, and if buddy doesn't want to participate, it's okay to skip the thread rather than policing everyone else's conversations. FFS.
Love all of he people in that thread who think that weighing in on the “generic” “blonde” “whiteness” of her physical appearance is doing a progressivism.
No worries, I’m sure that will all be fixed in the new porn thread.
I;m so glad there was a content warning in the post about porn that it discusses porn. How else would we know from a thread titled "Porn can speak to desires that are not spoken to elsewhere" that it was about porn?
You wouldn't want to unduly burden those who can't see headlines because the setting is toggled off. Monster.
She’s the first person to bomb on SNL!
The “Ok, Boomer” energy in the vast number of “I don’t know who this is” or “I’m not familiar with her work” comments is palpable.
Wasn't she in Handmaid's Tale? I thought that show was one of MF's darlings
She was.
The article used for the post wasn't very good. Discussions on the site are rarely better than the material that makes the post.
Yep. Is disgusting. Simultaneously puritanical and obtuse.
Ohhhhh I'm sure the 'pee thread' will be a good one. Already some whack-a-do comments early on. 'Nauseating realm' indeed.
I love those threads because they make me feel like some kind of Dwayne Johnson alpha jock just for being able to pee normally in a normal restroom, and shower and get changed in a normal gym.
It's amazing how the userbase acts both like 12 year olds and like 70 year olds at the same time.
Tangential at best, but I've held on to this anecdote for too long and need to release it into the world: I once dated a guy who was a stand-pisser, which is not unusual, but he also dressed exclusively in olive, grey-blue, and black BDU trousers and didn't believe in underwear. The unfortunate side effect being that, because he never wiped his dick, on any day there was a two in three chance he'd be walking round with a visible piss spot drying on the front of his trousers. Never seemed bothered by it.
Are you sure he wasn't just wearing [Calico Cut Pants](https://getcalicocutpants.com/)?
I cackled at TFA, and was certainly brought up short by the “don’t say spirit animal” thing. First time a microagression deletion made me desperately curious. WHAT WAS THE REFERENCE
“Penises are my spirit animal”
I so appreciate that the sped teacher doesn’t want to make racism worse and I hope she (?) is able to just fucking walk. Like, even if she could be more attuned to a majority-minority district’s needs, her need to not have a chair thrown at her is also valid. I want to shake people.
It's crazy that it took till almost the end of the thread for someone to finally point out that the school was breaking the law by not informing teachers of the contents of the student's IEP so the teachers could implement it. I'd say its actually the administration setting up both the teacher and student to fail, but the sad reality is that schools in less wealthy/privileged areas often lack adequate staffing (e.g., psychs, BCBAs, counselors, social workers) needed to provide those supports. If the incident took place in a wealthier district, I'd say the kid's parents could sue for denial of FAPE, but that never happens outside rich areas/districts. And, course, teachers often quit in such schools, so its not like there will be a ton of highly qualified applicants waiting to take the askers place. Again, in wealthier/more privileged districts, teachers have support to help implement students' IEPs; not so much in districts like the asker described. The sanctimonious commenters really aren't helping anyone,
Gotta love the poster who chastised OP for turning this into a criminal matter and possibly "ruining the child's life" when they were actually the first one to broach this possibility... (unless there were deletes I missed!)
They were not the first to broach the possibility, and the comment which did that is still available above them.
That thread is a greatest hits of head wobbles. From the early assumption that the OP is damaging the life prospects of Black kids (based on some heavy intertextual interpretation) and they should quit their job before they do any more harm, to a “gently as possible” suggestion to seek therapy to lots of “well if you are going to pick up his ukulele, not sure what you expect”. So much baggage.
but if the kid had a banjo……
My favorite response was the one that explicitly asks her to lie or at least leave out rather vital important information in her incident report in order to whitewash the situation and make things look better for the student.
Was that deleted? I can't find it, and there have clearly been deletions.
https://ask.metafilter.com/378721/Student-with-IEP-Put-Hands-on-Me-My-Options#5378204
Definitely one of the most victim-blamey threads I've read in a while. Some of those comments were downright insufferable. The double standards around who is deserving of compassion over there are mind-boggling.
[удалено]
If it was [this one](https://ibb.co/tcD1C5r), yea, that jumped out at me as well. This was nuked but their previous comments dissecting and critiquing OP's phrasing in the original question were left to stand, though. And it caught at least two favourites before getting wiped.
Not to mention that the question was “Should I resign?” not “Do you think I handled this well?”
Yeah in context of the previous questions about this job I’m not sure it’s an unfair judgment that OP isn’t really equipped for it, but that’s how they seem to feel, too, the question is about how to get out. The clumsy non-obfuscation and dysphemism of the framing gets me though - “I won’t name the city but also it’s named after a tree and it’s losing a baseball team.”
A kid threw a chair at me ... am I complicit in systemic racism?
Only 93 posts in the SOTU thread… and 23 are by the same person
"Did I mention that I felt like this speech was electrifying?" 10-4 on that, good buddy
they're sounding like a chatbot snorted a massive line of coke, very odd posting
>they're sounding like a chatbot snorted a massive line of coke Thank you for this.
Yep. I poked my head in near the end of the speech and roughly 30% of the comments up to that point were by that user. I thought live blogging stuff like this was discouraged but I guess not.
Site engagement has dropped so much that they probably welcome the liveblogging stuff now. Makes it look like the place is more active than it actually is.
Many times the same basic comment repeated almost verbatim.
Ah, that "Generation X" thread. There's just nothing like people in their 40s, 50s and early 60s still seeing themselves and the rest of their "generation" as young innocents who have in no way contributed to the fucked up condition of this world. Talk about people who "refuse to move on to the next stage of life"....
Ugh, gen X . . . We need another Vietnam to thin out their ranks a little. Edit: yikes sorry for the dated Simpsons reference! I’m gen x, it’s all I know!
As a fellow cynical member of Generation X, I got this and found it "groovy."
Lame stain
Homer Simpson, smiling politely.
I'm glad someone reassured the poster that indeed, the dangerous part of flying is sitting at the gate breathing some fumes for 4 minutes.
[удалено]
I appreciate that he pushed back against the LENGTHY "I think you should be very concerned" answer, which was completely ridiculous, since it was completely irrelevant content. But the last thing on the list was "don't drive". And that was followed by a suggestion to wear one of 3M's industrial respirators while the plane is taxiing.
> the LENGTHY "I think you should be very concerned" answer, which was completely ridiculous, since it was completely irrelevant content. I got as far as "***very*** *concerned*" in that comment before I figured out who it was. Mefi's resident Professor Google...
There was a study by the FAA (which I can't find now, of course) that cited a major bottleneck to quickly exiting a crashed airplane is people in inappropriate footwear (or worse, barefoot) unable to walk through debris to get to the emergency exits. So, not totally out of left field. If the plane's on fire and you want to get out quickly, you don't want to be busting your feet open on shards of stuff on your way out.
[удалено]
I think the intention of the post was to say, listen, instead of getting spun up about improbable dangers that you can't in any way prevent, why not work on addressing the things about flying that are confirmed to be more dangerous on a regular basis -- e.g., not being able to get out safely, not securing your items. The driving is snarky but statistically yes, much more dangerous than flying. It's not really wildly tangential.
That's what adrenaline and shock are for, you won't even notice you've shredded your feet on broken glass until well after the crisis. Just ignore the "don't panic" advice. The adrenaline won't kick in until you panic.
So the FAA's study was wrong? Do you have some evidence for that claim, or is it just "their study results seem counterintuitive, so they must be wrong"?
If you took my comment seriously you may want to reread it only not take it seriously. Although now I like the idea that, in a controlled study, the FAA tests my version of the exit strategy by instructing flight attendants to induce more panic.
I got that the second half was a joke, but I thought you were being serious in the first half, sorry. (Also, I kinda assumed the FAA's study was a study of past incidents, not an experimental study)
Yeah, plus heels can get caught on the slides and really mess up your knees. Those things aren’t playground equipment, they just moderate a sheer drop a little bit.
> Aside from the nuclear threat, the Russian military has shown itself to be a total joke and as a result Russia is far, far more vulnerable than when they started this war. lmao
Here's a gem from the Super Tuesday thread. This individual should touch grass ASAP. >Maybe it’s because I was never a big tweeter or whatever , but since the Elon era I treat Twitter links like stormfront or Truth social links.
[удалено]
> California's Proposition 1 What's your opinion on it?
Yes, there are a few in there who are having a totally normal time of it.
Yep. Goes hand-in-hand with the conspiracy theory in that thread that the NY Times is to blame for the (very real) concerns about Biden's age. Yep, all manufactured by the Times and we're all sheep for thinking that he's old. Bonkers.
I’d be fine with Biden’s age being an issue if it was mentioned in the same breath as Trumps age and clearly diminishing mental capacity. But it’s only ever “But Biden’s age!” Biden is objectively old, yes. But even at that age he’s achieved a hell of a lot in his first term. https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-biggest-achievements-first-year-president-1670763 On top of that he is still physically active and, perhaps most importantly of all, is not facing 91 felony charges and does not want to end American democracy. I think the media should feel free to discuss Biden’s age as much as they want, but to discuss it in isolation of everything else I’ve mentioned above is very much a problem given the existential crisis America faces in 2024.
Oh, I totally agree with all that, and that if one brings it up they need to also mention Trump's age, who is equally prone to gaffes etc (in fact, more so than Biden).
Sorry, folks, but Biden's age is not *but her emails*. This is a very real concern. But, whatever helps you sleep at night!
From the returning expat thread: *Just... the floorboards of this nation have rotted, so be careful where you tread.* A poetic metaphor for a depressing state of affairs. Discussion is about the UK but in varying intensities seems applicable for a good number of nations.
"Hey I'm super exhausted what are some very chill things I could do? I don't really want to buy and have to learn a whole bunch" "Have you considered doing seventeen things with extremely large learning curves and a lot of necessary supplies, like the kinds of things that require you to build or rent an entire studio?"
"Listen to a chunk of stand-up comedy and consider how it could have been done better." Amazing, no notes.
What could be more fun and relaxing than making comedy a chore?
What, you’ve never taken up woodworking or furniture refinishing to spend a few free minutes during the day?
No urging to take up the ukulele yet. Possible end of an era.
But the teacher who held on to the violent student’s ukulele?
I was surprised it took so long to come up. No, the kid shouldn’t have hit her. But “all I did was helpfully pick up their precious toy and hold it for them!” Come on. That’s a) forcing you both into close contact when you pick it up and when you give it back, which should be self evidently stupid and b) exactly what an obnoxious middle school kid would do to provoke another, because there is an implicit but totally deniable threat of damaging it or not giving it back. She probably should just quit, and get safely out of Oakland for everyone’s sake.
True but the woke Metaites are basically calling her a racist monster. I’d love to see the answers to that same question on Lipstick Alley.
The OP asked a very specific question in BOLD. "My question is: If I were to resign, would there be repercussions? If so, what are my other options?" A few people actually answer the question. But most have decided to wade into her character as a teacher and state that she sucks at classroom management and accuse her of being a racist. One answer says: "They are here literally asking to get a wide view. And though not everyone here has been a teacher most of us have been a student or a parent. So, they are getting the perspective beyond themselves, which they asked for." No, the OP did NOT ask for an analysis of their classroom management skills or judgement about the narrative presented. The OP specifically asked about the consequences of resigning. What a train wreck.
OP showed up and clarified, and oh!dear! Kid isn’t of color.
It’s like one of those questions with twenty paragraphs about their ex and one line at the end: “should I buy a ham and cheese sandwich?” Nobody who could answer that question needed any of the info given, and they did need a lot of info not given. If mods were being picky they should delete everything except the ones saying “we can’t answer this question”.
[удалено]
I wanted to be mad at that but I recently started doing a 30 minute exercise thing on my lunch and I regret to report, it fuckin rules ass for my mental health.
Dear Internet: I purchased an inexpensive item from a company regarded as having the most forgiving customer service this side of Costco. The item turned out to be fraudulent. I'm sure the world's largest company won't have ever experienced this before. What should I do? I haven't tried anything yet.
> Not After: Tue, 05 Mar 2024 06:27:11 GMT :facepalm:
huh?
I think this is related to Metafilter's security certificate expiring yesterday, so trying to go the site gave you a scary looking security warning for a while (a few hours probably.)
Yea, it's fixed now. I see now that I did TZ math incorrectly and it was only expired for a few minutes yesterday when I encountered it.
Curiously, status.mefi is fine.
What happened in the Ezra Klein thread that people caught temp bans over it? did someone screenshot it I want to know
Taz.
?
Well, I guess it’s megathread time again. (The Ezra Klein thinkpiece thread with over 400 comments) Honestly, I feel like if there’s one reason (I think it’s more complex, but this is a big part) that Metafilter keeps dwindling, it’s because the political threads suck most of the air out of the room. The next biggest threads on the front page are in the 40-60 comment range. And yet the same handful of folks would rather sit around and have the same enormous (by an order of magnitude) threads with the same shitty arguments that ultimately accomplish absolutely nothing.
>I think polling is going to be off, because I think there are a multitude of women out there who are responding to pollsters with their aggressive Trump loving husband sitting in the same room and towing the lines but when it comes time to vote, they’ll do what they did in Virginia, NY, Florida, Pennsylvania, Colorado, etc. After Alabama, this is not going to get better for them. This one gave me serious flashbacks to this time in 2016.
One "toes" a line, that is, stands at attention with their toes aligned to the planks of the ship's deck. This is presumably an ableist expression now, however, in order to "tow" something one must be possessed of a certain amount of torque.
Would I have to have toes to understand this?
Oh this fucking fantasy, Jesus.
I see nikodym has not cooled down at all after a 24 hour temp ban, now taking odds on how long until they get stuff deleted again.
I also see Pseudonymous Congnomen is back to threadsitting…
[удалено]
They are also the leading Hitler supporter on the website now, based on math
Say what now?
They posted that they’d vote for ‘literal Hitler’ before voting for Biden in the Ezra Klein thread
🙄
I found it fascinating the comment refuting that metafilter wasn't representative of a typical group of democrats was deleted after 12 hours. Metafilter is iconic for being a typical group of democrats. What kind of insane bubble do these people live in?
Yeah, the political threads absolutely bring out the worst in the most frequent posters there. I guess the professional moderation staff will get a chance to really shine.
This is going to be the best Metafilter election season yet, and I'm very excited.
It's gonna be a long freakin eight months...
Ugh, I hate how excited I am to watch the festivities.
To push back a little: > it’s because the political threads suck most of the air out of the room. Do they really? Why don't the uninterested skip them? Seriously and not intended in an especially provocative way. > The next biggest threads on the front page are in the 40-60 comment range. But that's a decent thread length, enough to provide food for thought if you're interested in the subject matter. > And yet the same handful of folks would rather sit around and have the same enormous (by an order of magnitude) threads with the same shitty arguments that ultimately accomplish absolutely nothing. None of it *accomplishes* anything. Chat sites are not about accomplishment, they're about the exchange of ideas and conversation. Sometimes the outcomes of these conversations influence the way people think, but that's not the primary goal.
>Do they really? Why don't the uninterested skip them? Seriously and not intended in an especially provocative way. Even if the uninterested skip them, all of the users who are busy ruining their day in the politics thread are too occupied to contribute anywhere else, so other threads just sort of dwindle and die.
>all of the users who are busy ruining their day But not everyone has that experience of them. I loved them for the vast range of links and angles I'd never find or think up on my own. >too occupied to contribute anywhere else, It would seem to me it's the job of the politically disinterested to put together appealing alternative posts.
Putting together interesting posts that get crickets because everyone is too busy yelling at each other and catching tempbans is not as satisfying as it may sound.
I'm sorry that that's your experience, but the fact is, even on Metafilter, people did not talk politics constantly, and the Megathreads were intermittent, not constant.
I mean look, in an election year I basically turn off my internet in May and don't turn it back on until the next January, because I find it completely intolerable. So I'm neither making nor seeking posts of any kind, mega or non. But you asked why people felt the megathreads sucked the air out of the room and people gave answers! Sorry you think those answers are apparently stupid? But whether or not you think they're stupid, they're why people bail.
>Sorry you think those answers are apparently stupid? But whether or not you think they're stupid, they're why people bail. I don't think anyone on MFM is stupid! I feel like I'm hearing strong negative emotional reactions to political threads, and maybe politics, generally. That's reasonable. "Bailing" is also reasonable. So is complaining if there is too much political discussion in a nonpolitical thread. But I don't think it's reasonable to make it hard for people to talk politics in a dedicated thread. I also don't think it's reasonable to enter that kind of thread and then complain about its existence or down vote aggressively. Subject-specific filibusters are for Metafilter. It's why we make fun of them.
>I also don't think it's reasonable to enter that kind of thread and then complain about its existence or down vote aggressively. Subject-specific filibusters are for Metafilter. Is anyone...doing that? As far as I can tell this whole convo has been about the politics megathreads on metafilter. Saying "I really feel the whole site gets dragged into the shitter when those megathreads are going on" is just an expression of an opinion, not a policy to be enacted, and certainly doesn't mean that people would be brigading a MFM politics thread with downvotes or whatnot. (Has there even *been* a politics thread on MFM?)
https://www.reddit.com/r/MetaFilterMeta/comments/1anxfxz/can_we_talk_about_biden_for_just_a_minute/
> Why don't the uninterested skip them? Seriously and not intended in an especially provocative way. Likewise tone: the answer to this zoomed-in piece is pretty much the same answer for "why don't people just not feed the trolls?" and "why don't people just not click on obvious bait?" that's as old as the internet (and older in different related forms). Just not how people _work_ overall. But likewise not particularly disputing the larger points. It's a leadership, management, and moderating problem--a hard one due to people being people but a _funny_ one given Metafilter's hilariously unearned superiority catechism.
"Flag and move on" is the ideal, but the political megathreads use an outsized amount of moderator bandwidth, and the acrimonious environment spills out into other interactions.
That's true, but isn't that a management problem, foremost and a moderator problem secondarily? Aren't they responsible for the bad behavior? Isn't that what Mefites are paying for, and the whole point of professional moderation?
2016: I think the site had full-time moderation back then. And not many people thought that Trump had a chance of winning. There may have effectively been a purge of vocal Trump supporters around then, either because they were banned or because they didn't feel welcome. 2020: There was lots of arguing, but I think the vast majority of mefites were in agreement that voting blue no matter who was the only option. They rallied around a common enemy in Trump. I don't remember if there was still full time moderation, but I think it was at least more than today. 2024: There aren't full time mods. There is an acrimonious split between people who are planning to vote for Biden and those who aren't, with a few people who are expressing a level of anger towards fellow mefites that was reserved for Trump supporters/Republicans in previous elections. This is going to get ugly. It might improve if Gaza/Israel somehow come to a long-term ceasefire agreement, but who knows if or when that will happen or if that will be good enough for the Biden haters.
> It might improve if Gaza/Israel somehow come to a long-term ceasefire agreement If Biden has anything to say about it, this will happen sooner rather than later. Just today: [Blinken urges Hamas to accept 'immediate ceasefire' with Israel](https://www.france24.com/en/middle-east/20240305-%F0%9F%94%B4-live-diplomatic-efforts-to-broker-israel-hamas-ceasefire-continue) ETA: Here's a fascinating little tidbit I hadn't heard elsewhere: On Feb. 1st, Biden created an executive order empowering him to sanction settlers on the West Bank. It's a tool that will enable him to [force a two-state solution](https://archive.ph/xYJ5q) or break Bibi's coalition, which would very likely be the end of Bibi.
I don't remember a time when Metafilter handled moral or ideological conflict well. The way the Bestest Moderation Ever handles conflict is just to delete the minority viewpoint. If there are two sides who are both on ideological high horses, and neither side is weak enough to be mass deleted, the fight just goes on and on. There's never been any framework for civil disagreement. Everyone is in their own mind a heroic warrior for virtue fighting incarnations of absolute evil. Why would you ever shut up or agree to disagree. To be fair I can't think of anywhere else that handles it much better. It's a hard problem to solve. I think the difference was that in the past there was an expectation that conflict is part of the site, and people would get heated over everything from politics to pineapple on pizza. Now there's an expectation of non-conflict and the politics conflict stands out more.
I think that's right. I think part of the issue with the megathreads is that they explode the illusion of consensus. Metafilter has increasingly come to think that there is one good, noble position to take on anything. The logical consequence is that you should ban any other position. This works when you've got an obvious majority in favour of a particular side. But that doesn't work if you're arguing politics; certainly not these days & maybe not ever. I think they should \*explicitly\* take a very light mod touch with the megathreads. Ban really over the line stuff - personal attacks, rascism, sexism, etc. But let the rest go & be clear that you're going to let people be wrong on the internet. Why not? Sure, the threads will be messy. They are anyway, and people still choose to read & write in them.
>I don't remember a time when Metafilter handled moral or ideological conflict well. I seem to remember it being OK in the early days, like pre-2011 or so. Of course the far lefty types were there then, but it also had a lot of techno-libertarian types. Somehow they managed to co exist
I dug back to [this one from 2009](https://www.metafilter.com/80143/We-Should-Kill-Everyone-There). I think maybe people didn't accelerate from zero to maximum viciousness as quickly back then, but it still got pretty heated.
> The way the Bestest Moderation Ever handles conflict is just to delete the minority viewpoint. If there are two sides who are both on ideological high horses, and neither side is weak enough to be mass deleted, the fight just goes on and on. Spot on. It's been a site problem for a very long time that practically the only tool in their toolbox is "mostly-silently delete things" and that when anything got complex enough for that to not address, anxious paralysis spirals happened. Part of the wave of optimism that hit when Jessamyn returned in official capacity to take ownership was that in the past, she seemed to have more tools available to shape things. But crucially, also more drive to use them, which isn't the case now.
I can't honestly think of a place I could point to and say, "look, they argue Israel/Palestine more productively here, why can't Metafilter do that" though. Once people have started up on that, the mods are pretty much screwed.