Disturbing Search Requests
September 27, 2001 12:59 PM Subscribe
Disturbing Search Requests is redirecting all traffic from search engine results to this page as a statement about America's response to the terrorist attacks. (To see how this works, click the first result in this search.) Is this really the right message to put in the minds of newbies looking for Britney naked?
what is up with the hysterical reaction to the news that the US is going to defend itself by searching out the terrorists that attacked the wtc? I challenge anyone on the left to produce evidence that bush or any member of his cabinet has claimed that the US would be bombing indiscriminately, whether in Afghanistan, Iraq or wherever?
I understand that a lot of people are biased to believe that this is the case, but where's the evidence?
posted by nobody_knose at 1:12 PM on September 27, 2001
I understand that a lot of people are biased to believe that this is the case, but where's the evidence?
posted by nobody_knose at 1:12 PM on September 27, 2001
*what*?
posted by rebeccablood at 1:13 PM on September 27, 2001
posted by rebeccablood at 1:13 PM on September 27, 2001
It's not a very accurate statement, for one. McVeigh was from upstate New York, not Michigan. Two, McVeigh was tried, convicted and executed for his crimes, just as this "Enduring Freedom" campaign is supposedly to bring about (well, if it succeeds, we'd probably have to try bin Laden post-mortem, but anyway).
It's a neat catch-phrase, but it doesn't hold up to critical thought. And many of the porn-seekers that will get this message won't give it any such consideration. They'll just get mad, or else misinterpret it to be an anti-US sentiment, which doesn't solve anything.
If you're going to send a message, be sure it'll be understood by the intended audience.
posted by me3dia at 1:19 PM on September 27, 2001
It's a neat catch-phrase, but it doesn't hold up to critical thought. And many of the porn-seekers that will get this message won't give it any such consideration. They'll just get mad, or else misinterpret it to be an anti-US sentiment, which doesn't solve anything.
If you're going to send a message, be sure it'll be understood by the intended audience.
posted by me3dia at 1:19 PM on September 27, 2001
Not to mention the fact that Disturbing Search Results is not really a political/news site. Its to humor its audience. Validity of the statement aside, all I could think of when I saw that was, "Where the hell did that come from?"
posted by eyeballkid at 1:27 PM on September 27, 2001
posted by eyeballkid at 1:27 PM on September 27, 2001
Its sole purpose is to humor its audience is what I meant.
posted by eyeballkid at 1:32 PM on September 27, 2001
posted by eyeballkid at 1:32 PM on September 27, 2001
If I were looking for porn, this would be an instantaneous back-button click. I doubt I'd be pondering the moral issue of bombing Afghanistan whilst looking for HOT STEAMY XXX barely legal pr0n. I don't think this message is being analyzed or considered by anyone other than we MeFites at this current time.
posted by Hankins at 1:34 PM on September 27, 2001
posted by Hankins at 1:34 PM on September 27, 2001
nobody_knose, I dunno -- we're not "the left". We're just people on Metafilter. If you engage us as individuals you might have more success, but this bombast is as likely to be ignored as it is to provoke a straw-man flamewar.
As for indications that have people concerned, they include Paul Wolfowitz saying the goal should be "ending states" that support terrorism, which raised hackles thorughout the Muslim world, and Donald Rumsfeld refusing to rule out the use of nuclear weapons, and the movement of bombers to Diego Garcia, and the joint chiefs guy -- I forget his name -- saying that Afghanistan presented a dearth of hard targets. Maybe that's where people got those crazy "bombing" ideas from.
And you don't have to be a peacenik on the far left to be concerned when moderate Arab-Muslim states get alarmed, and our closest allies come out begging us in the official voices of their governments to be reasonable+. Even someone like myself, who believes that bin Laden may only respect direct military action, has grave concerns about how this action might be prosecuted and the blowback effects among our Arab allies.
posted by dhartung at 1:42 PM on September 27, 2001
As for indications that have people concerned, they include Paul Wolfowitz saying the goal should be "ending states" that support terrorism, which raised hackles thorughout the Muslim world, and Donald Rumsfeld refusing to rule out the use of nuclear weapons, and the movement of bombers to Diego Garcia, and the joint chiefs guy -- I forget his name -- saying that Afghanistan presented a dearth of hard targets. Maybe that's where people got those crazy "bombing" ideas from.
And you don't have to be a peacenik on the far left to be concerned when moderate Arab-Muslim states get alarmed, and our closest allies come out begging us in the official voices of their governments to be reasonable+. Even someone like myself, who believes that bin Laden may only respect direct military action, has grave concerns about how this action might be prosecuted and the blowback effects among our Arab allies.
posted by dhartung at 1:42 PM on September 27, 2001
nobody_knose, some people don't want to go to war with innocent farmers because their government is run by corrupt madmen. So, regardless of what the current administration says it will do, we want our opinion to be known to the decision makers of this country.
me3dia, you don't seem to get it, man. We didn't go to war with Michigan because a criminal lived there. We shouldn't go to war with Afghanistan because a criminal lives there. In dealing with an American terrorist, we used our highly tauted system of law to bring him to justice, just as we should in this case.
posted by Doug at 1:42 PM on September 27, 2001
me3dia, you don't seem to get it, man. We didn't go to war with Michigan because a criminal lived there. We shouldn't go to war with Afghanistan because a criminal lives there. In dealing with an American terrorist, we used our highly tauted system of law to bring him to justice, just as we should in this case.
posted by Doug at 1:42 PM on September 27, 2001
Actually, they're debating it at DSR, too. Members are not pleased.
posted by me3dia at 1:43 PM on September 27, 2001
posted by me3dia at 1:43 PM on September 27, 2001
I get it completely, Doug. I agree with you in principle, that we shouldn't go to war with Afghanistan because bin Laden is there. For all we know, he's no longer there. I want bin Laden tried for his crimes, just like McVeigh and Milosovic and the Apartheid government of South Africa. Crimes against humanity deserve nothing less. An eye for an eye will not end the battle in this case.
My point is, you and I do understand what's implicated, but I don't think Joe Six-pack lookin' for nudies would understand it at all. It'll be interpreted as anti-American and raise the ire of people who are already riled up enough. Now is the time for levelheaded talk from both sides of the debate, not trite slogans designed to jab but not inform.
posted by me3dia at 1:53 PM on September 27, 2001
My point is, you and I do understand what's implicated, but I don't think Joe Six-pack lookin' for nudies would understand it at all. It'll be interpreted as anti-American and raise the ire of people who are already riled up enough. Now is the time for levelheaded talk from both sides of the debate, not trite slogans designed to jab but not inform.
posted by me3dia at 1:53 PM on September 27, 2001
hmm... the only disturbing search request i ever get on my site is 'norm macdonald's penis'.
posted by jcterminal at 2:39 PM on September 27, 2001
posted by jcterminal at 2:39 PM on September 27, 2001
Did I miss something?? I didn't realize that the intention of the post was to discuss terrorism. I thought it was about the ethics of redirecting someone looking for one thing toward some other message -- particularly a political one.
posted by eas98 at 2:42 PM on September 27, 2001
posted by eas98 at 2:42 PM on September 27, 2001
...this would be an instantaneous back-button click...
...if the redirection didn't effectively disable the back button, at least in my version of IE. That technique is obnoxious even when it isn't used to promote hysteria.
posted by harmful at 2:52 PM on September 27, 2001
...if the redirection didn't effectively disable the back button, at least in my version of IE. That technique is obnoxious even when it isn't used to promote hysteria.
posted by harmful at 2:52 PM on September 27, 2001
Jeez. Why is everyone always picking on Michigan? What did we ever do to anyone? Bombing Michigan is not the answer! What would the world do without the musical stylings of Ted Nugent, Madonna, Bob Seger, Kid Rock, or Eminem? I guess you can just kiss Pop-Tarts and Lay-Z-Boys goodbye! And would you bomb the whole State, or would you spare da yoopers?
All this talk of bombing Michigan has got me hoppin' mad! I'm off to enlist in the Michigan Militia!
posted by pardonyou? at 3:26 PM on September 27, 2001
All this talk of bombing Michigan has got me hoppin' mad! I'm off to enlist in the Michigan Militia!
posted by pardonyou? at 3:26 PM on September 27, 2001
Maybe I'm just being dumb here. but I'm totally confused. I understand the idea of listing weird search requests found in logfiles. What the zark does Timothy McVeigh have to do with it? And what redirection is going on here? I didn't get redirected anywhere when I clicked on that link..
posted by salmacis at 3:26 PM on September 27, 2001
posted by salmacis at 3:26 PM on September 27, 2001
tip: about the back button being disabled. it's not being disabled, it's just a quick redirect that your back button is too slow to beat. use alt + <-- (right arrow) [on IE for PC]. you may need to hold it down and it might whip you past the last coupla sites, but it's better than having to close and reopen the browser window. or just use the little arrow to the right of the back button if you're more mouse inclined.
posted by eyeballkid at 4:36 PM on September 27, 2001
posted by eyeballkid at 4:36 PM on September 27, 2001
Just a reminder: the last time we brought a bad, bad man to justice (Noriega), somewhere between 2,000 and 5,000 people paid the price - the vast majority of them civilians.
Yes, that's right, folks - innocent Panamanians were killed, Panama's army was demolished, and their formerly-CIA-funded leader was arrested on trumped up drug charges. This conveniently left Panama with a puppet president (who's fond of using the secret police to "talk" with labor leaders and other dissidents) and unable to defend the canal, which means the canal falls back into our hands.
Few people look beyond the "putting the bad, bad man in jail" aspect of it to the actual human costs. Just because courts are involved does *not* mean that innocent people will not die.
posted by Coda at 5:32 PM on September 27, 2001
Yes, that's right, folks - innocent Panamanians were killed, Panama's army was demolished, and their formerly-CIA-funded leader was arrested on trumped up drug charges. This conveniently left Panama with a puppet president (who's fond of using the secret police to "talk" with labor leaders and other dissidents) and unable to defend the canal, which means the canal falls back into our hands.
Few people look beyond the "putting the bad, bad man in jail" aspect of it to the actual human costs. Just because courts are involved does *not* mean that innocent people will not die.
posted by Coda at 5:32 PM on September 27, 2001
I want to know who is searching for "how to be a drawer"
posted by adampsyche at 5:56 PM on September 27, 2001
posted by adampsyche at 5:56 PM on September 27, 2001
Bombing Michigan is not the answer! What would the world do without the musical stylings of Ted Nugent, Madonna, Bob Seger, Kid Rock, or Eminem?
wait a second... isn't ICP from Michigan also?
ick..
posted by lotsofno at 9:55 PM on September 27, 2001
wait a second... isn't ICP from Michigan also?
ick..
posted by lotsofno at 9:55 PM on September 27, 2001
hey, i am one of the admins and the founder of dsr. some remarks:
- how do you all know what the purpose of our site is?
- dsr works on two levels. it's entertainmant and fun for those who enter through the front door. for those (5000+ each day) who come from searchengines it is confusing and most of the time completely worthless. our script only affects this searchengine traffic.
- the current page doesn't claim that the us government has the intention to bomb kabul, but we all know that this is or was the opinion of the majority of the men on the street. we assume that they are also the majority of people who end up on dsr via searchengines. the intention is to make them think.
- we have a discussion on dsr asking the members for their suggestions since the current solution is temporary.
posted by arf at 12:41 AM on September 28, 2001
- how do you all know what the purpose of our site is?
- dsr works on two levels. it's entertainmant and fun for those who enter through the front door. for those (5000+ each day) who come from searchengines it is confusing and most of the time completely worthless. our script only affects this searchengine traffic.
- the current page doesn't claim that the us government has the intention to bomb kabul, but we all know that this is or was the opinion of the majority of the men on the street. we assume that they are also the majority of people who end up on dsr via searchengines. the intention is to make them think.
- we have a discussion on dsr asking the members for their suggestions since the current solution is temporary.
posted by arf at 12:41 AM on September 28, 2001
It's cheesy to hijack your site's normal traffic for a political statement, especially since you botch the visitor's Back button in the process. It's like self-important celebrities using their Academy Awards acceptance speech to drone on about a pet cause ("send love and truth and a kind of sanity to Deng Xiaoping" -- Richard Gere).
posted by rcade at 5:47 AM on September 28, 2001
posted by rcade at 5:47 AM on September 28, 2001
I'm confused as to why two posters have already referred to this as an example of 'hysteria'.
posted by Hildago at 9:13 AM on September 28, 2001
posted by Hildago at 9:13 AM on September 28, 2001
« Older I'll show you mine... | The Few, The Proud, the Geeky Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Sapphireblue at 1:10 PM on September 27, 2001