[ahhh, gotta love stating the obvious]

[reenka]

You may have (or uh, may not have) noticed that I don't really... write serious meta anymore. I sort of ramble in my deluded little way, but I don't sit there for 3 hours-- sometimes over several days-- and make up theses and ideas and arguments based on current fandom events. Hey, it's fine, I just thought I was lazy and burnt out-- I know I am. Reading this exchange on dkwilliams' recent fannish-manners post, it occurred to me really why: there is no point.
    I mean, okay, I've read these sorts of posts dozens of times over the last few years, and do you know how often I've seen people change each other's minds? More specifically, how often I've seen the original poster modify their position after commenters' input? With the exception of myself, there's only sistermagpie that comes to mind in terms of someone who does that consistently-- I mean, my friends listen to me, but that's generally because they already know me/respect my opinion/etc [I assume]. That is-- people who don't know each other don't tend to do that. They don't change their minds; they don't really listen to each other, and if they do, it's only long enough to reiterate their point yet again.

This whole eternal politeness 'debate' is such a great example of this phenomenon, because as witchqueen said so well in the comments, basically we can't agree on what 'politeness' (or ANY given ethical/literary/etc construct) means from person to person, situation to situation. Why can't we agree? And what about when we -do- agree, Reena [you may ask].
    Well, it's true that sometimes people have a shared context-- often because of an equivalent educational background. Meaning, if you both finished an American university within the last 25 years, you probably have the skills to mediate whatever disagreements are left after the, y'know, brainwashing :D That said, I'm not at all an innate subjectivist; meaning, I don't believe people's behavior is right, I just observe it :P

Mostly, [in their semi-mythical 'natural' state] people think differently; they have different assumptions, different contexts they use as jumping off points-- and most of the time they don't pause to compare-and-contrast before they muddle in and get offended. Unless you -do- have people who're willing to listen and pay attention to each other's context (generally friends or trained academics), what you have is basically Babel fandom, as is-- sort of an in-between trade-off where no one's ever completely happy if they're using some specific ideal 'standard' to measure it by besides 'is this hot?' and 'will my friends like it?' On the plus side, lots & lots of people use that non-standard. 'Cause, y'know, here for fun. Don't care about little details.

You know, I really think 98% of so-called recurrent 'fandom debates' could be 'resolved' thusly:
    Q: Why do you think this way/do this? Don't you realize it's non-canon/non-good/non-ethical and just plain ol' NOT NICE? [*sniffle* or *grrrrr* = optional]
    A: Because I am like this/that's what I like/believe/want for myself. ['Now take that and shove it' = optional]
    Q: Why are you like that/why do you like that? Don't you REALIZE how WRONG and SAD it is?
    A: BECAUSE. Uh, because I said so. ['BECAUSE FILTHY DUUURTY PR0N IS MY CONSTITUTIONAL HERITAGE AS AN AMERICAN!!1 ...AND SO IS TELLING YOU TO FUCK YOURSELF, HAR HAR!' = optional]
    Q: You're really an ignorant mongrel, aren't you?
    A: No, YOU ARE (but what am I?).
    Q: Don't you want to get better & CHANGE? ['Here, let me help you and write this delightfully helpful 'tutorial' post on how NOT TO SUCK DONKEY EGGS' = optional]
    A: No. Let's agree to disagree.*

*Note: I hate that phrase :> And neither do I think most people actually -mean- it in the sense that they'll henceforth personally accept the validity of other people's dissenting opinions (which they really disagree with)-- they'll just stop arguing with -them- about it. When the next sucker starts trying to discuss it, of course it'll start over. This is made even more insane by the obvious fact that not all opinions -are- actually equally valid, so any rational person must eventually accept that they may very well be -right- but it doesn't matter. (In fandom, I mean... in terms of real social change, eventually things do change-- though decades pass-- and like, uh, some really annoying constants in terms of human behavior always remain anyway, like, oh I dunno, RUDENESS for instance.)
    In the end, I take the side of the rude people (not that they have an organized 'side', generally, which makes it difficult to rant against them, BUT ANYWAY I'm trying to be general here) just because I'm against arguing against constants because it's-- I dunno, less productive than rudeness. I sort of admire a person who knows exactly what they want to -achieve- by being an asshole, though this rarely actually happens. ^^; That said, there's a difference between 'arguing against' and ranting against/letting off steam; I rant against lots of things I know very well will never change, just 'cause I'd go [more] insane if I didn't :/

PS: I actually wanted to write a meta post about Richard Matheson's '7 Steps to Midnight' (which is an awesome book if not for the romance), plot, obsession, and seeing 'Stranger than Fiction' a few days ago, but. Somehow, my motivation's a little low :>

Comments

[worldserpent.livejournal.com]

Actually, I never thought "agree to disagree" meant that. I thought it just meant that "neither of us are going to change our minds" or "I'm tired of arguing, let's talk about something else." It's by nature only addressed to one person.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Well, no, I didn't ever think it meant that either, haha. Anyway, it's sort of a bullshit phrase -because- it doesn't mean that... is sort of what I meant. Like, no one really says it sincerely, if it -can- be said sincerely, and of course no one means it in a general meta sense, which is why I don't like it. :>

[worldserpent.livejournal.com]

No, what I meant is that it is meant as that. It just means they're tired of the argument, and is understood as such.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Er... yeah. ^^; I wasn't saying I disagreed with that accessment, just that this usually occurs in arguments where people are sticking rigidly to their guns, so the statement often winds up being a brush-off where one or the other person doesn't want to think anymore and has no more respect/interest in the other person's opinion but tries transparently to be 'polite'. I personally would rather they rudely stated their case or truly sincerely accepted a different opinion, but of course that's not generally what happens.

[worldserpent.livejournal.com]

Why are those the only options? Like, what's the point of stating your case rudely when stating it politely isn't going to get you anywhere?

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Heh, I wasn't meaning to imply there's a point, really... um, I think I'm just operating from the implicit premise (in general) that ideally, people are sincere-- I mean, that's kind of unrelated to what I was talking about in this post and everything, but yeah. I mean, I accept that it's more socially useful and also 'nicer' to be polite (and nice, whatever), but I myself would admire/accept rudeness in people if the alternative is facetious or fake politeness.

On the other hand, I wasn't saying people should keep going/arguing when it's pointless and meaningless-- hell, this whole post was about the pointlessness of 98% of the debates I see, or rather the way they tend to be conducted (and it's not a question of politeness but rather people's overall skill/patience/intelligence/etc). So it's not like I think there's a point in repeating something both blindly and rudely (not to mention that repeating things in general annoys me); I also wasn't implying those were the only options, just saying I'd rather a -sincere- approach, since both nice and rude in this context would be sincere.

[worldserpent.livejournal.com]

I don't see "let's agree to disagree" as insincere. It's saying "you and I don't agree. It's a waste of time going on about this." I don't think to be "nice" to someone you need to accept the validity of their views, and rude is not so much what you say, but how you say it.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

I think it's not so much the phrase itself as the situations where I've seen it used? Like, as a brush-off, a way of saying 'I'm right but obviously I'm not going to convince you and you're -definitely- not going to convince me'. I suppose it's like any pat phrase in that the meaning changes minutely with the context and the typical situation where you'd encountered or experienced it. On top of this, I think for most people 'sincerity' isn't quite the same concept as it is for me-- which is why the ingrained twitch reaction to phrase is just a personal aside, not an argument on my part, y'know? :> I remember I -did- write a post on 'why I hate that phrase' ages ago, in '03 or '04 maybe, but since then it's become one of the myriad things that irritate me for reasons which are probably no longer currently valid if I examined them too closely :>

You're definitely right about rudeness being in 'how you say it'! Which is why it's so very easy to overreact and see offense where none is meant, 'cause who really knows what someone means? :>

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

I always try to use it (try being the operative word) only when we're really talking about something that can't be discussed. Like, if I think I'm right about something that's objective and I can try to argue, I might well just keep arguing and trying to make the other person see my point. I won't say "let's agree to disagree" because in my head that's like giving the other argument too much credit.

Where I will use it is just where we're both starting from an initial assumption that you either have or you don't. Like, if it's something about life. If me and the other person clearly see something as being truth, but there's no way we can really prove it. Like let's say, if we're talking about what the author would want us to think or what the author meant by something--at a certain point I may just say look, we can't get any further than the initial premise we both have that's different that we can't prove.

Does that make sense? Basically, I think using "agree to disagree" admits that not only is the other person going to be able to convince me, but I can't convince them because I don't have the evidence to do it. If I think the person's just being stubborn or whatever I wouldn't say that because in my head I'd be thinking something different.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Hehe, I've never seen you use it, though maybe I've forgotten it & I've definitely not seen you talk to -that- many people-- but I know you've not said it to me, even when we have the 'different premises' thing-- I sekritly suspect when happens you just stop replying to that lj comment :)) I'm not sure if that's my paranoia or not :)) This is why it's helpful to talk to some people in rl-- you can -tell- for sure when they change a subject, when they think you've just said everything there is to say, when they're just distracted, etcetc :D

Um, but of course I wouldn't expect -your- usage of it to be one of those that irritates me, if anything because even if you're insincere, you're never... uh, INSINCERE in like, the bad way. That may make no sense, but IT DOES TO ME okay :)) Maybe 'cause I generally know what you 'really' mean? Dunno :> Even when you don't state things bluntly or directly, or I can tell you're witholding a more potentially offensive/critical/controversial response (...well, y'know, you -must- be, given some of the things I've seen in comments, where you'd only reply in the most positive possible light, ahaha)... anyway, it's still not insincere so much as politely avoidant, maybe?? And you know how I'm all over that myself, so :>

Anyway, I think whether I have 'twitch' problems with knowing that 'in [their] head [they'd] be thinking something different' depends on the person & the vibe I get off them (like, whether there's actual reasonableness behind the light social obfuscation). I mean, obviously we've now left all pretense at objectivity on my part, but then I was never trying this time :>

*via metafandom*

[commodorified.livejournal.com]

Let's agree to disagree.*

*Note: I hate that phrase

I love that phrase. And all its variants. I refuse to be rude to total strangers. I'm certainly not going to be rude to them or try to have the last word just as I'm disengaging from discussing something with them.

And neither do I think most people actually -mean- it in the sense that they'll henceforth personally accept the validity of other people's dissenting opinions (which they really disagree with)-- they'll just stop arguing with -them- about it.

I don't think anybody's ever remotely meant it in the first sense you name, except possibly with regards to very old and valued friends.

It can also mean: 1) As long as you're happy, dear, I really don't mind WHAT you think. 2) Look, this is all very well, but I've got to get supper on. 3) You and I appear to have no assumptions in common more sophisticated than gravity, and us trying to discuss this -- or anything -- is a waste of time. 4) You're acting like a wild squirrel brought indoors and there is not enough rightness in the world to make me hang out here and listen to you. 5) You're a complete nutter, but guess what? I've just remembered that you're not actually in charge here, and it doesn't really matter WHAT you think. 6) You are quite possibly a dangerous lunatic, but you're not my problem, thank God.

And yes, I suppose I could just come out and say these things, but with the exception of maybe 2), they're fairly potentially explosive, and I dislike leaving small explosions behind me. They can also be argued with, and generally are, and if I am LEAVING the argument... yeah.

And what I really really mean is nobody's business, really.

Sometimes I think the basic fannish division is between

a) People who can't understand why ANYONE wouldn't just say exactly what they think

(although, actually, 'I think it would be better if we agreed to disagree and dropped this right now" IS often what I think, and I get faintly irked at people who assume that I'm insincere because I don't present myself as a mass of seething opinionated rage, when in fact, I am not a seething mass of opinionated rage, and don't really wish to become one),

and

b) people who cannot for the life of them understand why their true feelings and thoughts are considered the business of the internet.

Re: *via metafandom*

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Hahah I really wonder why out of my rambly post, people have fixated on that one throwaway rather personal comment. I suppose it's more specific and definitely more arguable & flimsy than the other (more abstract and possibly inarguable) stuff I said. I forget to watch myself when it comes to just... saying vaguely inflammatory things, just assuming people could somehow tell what's a pointless aside and what I actually put some thought into, haha. But anyway, sorry-- that was an aside.

I certainly wasn't advocating being rude to strangers-- that's a bit of a jump, but then I think you -could- take that comment that way if you totally didn't know me. Heh. Well, it's really more complex than that, because -I'm- never rude to people (if I'm conscious of what I'm saying, which sometimes I'm not), but then what I do isn't something I need or expect others to also do. On the other hand, I have this whole thing where people can hurt my feelings but I wouldn't necessarily think they're 'rude' (even if they are objectively) 'cause I'd generally not use a social signifier but a personal emotional one, if that makes sense. I'd have an empathic response rather than a social judgment of their behavior (even if the response is 'oww' in some combination with an awareness of 'what's wrong with them/their mood').

Anyway, I'm just coming from a very personal/specific place here which I didn't explain-- it wasn't like I was advocating others' behavior, however. To each their own, y'know? Like, when you said 'what I really really mean is nobody's business'-- that, I have to tell you, is the complete and utter antithesis of everything I believe in in my touchy-feely sort of way :) But it's not like I think it's 'wrong' at all; it just a pretty good indicator that we're coming from pretty different places, here. But that gets more into personal emotional stuff & less into social stuff, so um. :>

I -know- no one's ever meant in that other sense-- but with my sort of obsessive fixation on sincerity, it's the only one that'd be sincere to my standards (in a theoretical sense). However, it's not like my standards are projective-- or I actually believe they 'fit' others, nor does it even mean -I'm- like that. I'm pretty avoidant/polite-out-of-a-wish-to-avoid-conflict. The phrase itself is just too transparent to me, so it irritates me; literally the only way I can explain my statement is to explain -myself- and say because I'm a sensitive/empathic person, people's perfectly understandable social machinations feel like sandpaper against my skin.

So like, I'm neither of these types of people you mentioned-- and besides, that's the fallacy of any division of people as the whole 'a) there are people who fit in binaries; b) there are people who don't' thing shows~:) I definitely can intellectually understand people even if they're pretty different from me, and besides, I don't necessarily always say what I think (and that wasn't what I was advocating-- just an irritation at -that particular phrase-); I definitely don't fit into b, though neither do I think my feelings are the 'business' of others or vice versa. If there's one thing I do resist understanding (though I can), it's people who just -can't- understand those different than they are :>

Er... in any case, I do understand where people are coming from with the whole pat-polite-phrase thing. I'm not being very practical or sensible, yes. Still, things rub me the wrong way though they shouldn't (or used to... I'm pretty apathetic now) :>

Re: *via metafandom*

[commodorified.livejournal.com]

I didn't find it at all inflammatory.

I need to think about this a bit more, possibly between bouts of sorting my freezer :), but actually, I picked up on the discussion of that phrase because it does illuminate the argument for me.

I didn't seriously mean that everyone fits neatly into binaries, but there's something relevant to fannish interaction there, I think: A LOT of tension in fandom seems to end up being between people who are, as you are, aggravated by transparent social fomulae and people who are aggravated by the lack of them.

To the point where I've come to suspect that it's that interactional tension, rather than the issues qua issues, that are most difficult to resolve...

I dunno, what do you think?

Re: *via metafandom*

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

I think you may definitely be on to something-- I hadn't thought of it that way, but I can see how that'd work as a way to explain things, yes. :D I dunno if what most people are aggravated by is the same thing I am-- don't people just have this straightforward 'free speech, bitches!!1' thing? At least, the three arguments I've seen are a) truth is more important; b) honesty is more important; c) the freedom to say what I want to say is most important. While I don't really disagree with those, they're not why -I- care as much-- like, I do think honesty/truth/etc are important, but I'm not confrontational-- it really is that I'm aggravated/bothered by any 'transparent social formulae', whereas most others are aware and not so much 'aggravated' or hurt as just choosing to reject in favor of other things, which is where the argument begins. Maybe that's too fine a distinction?

Like, I think we could more easily find a common ground if it was just the difference in temperaments-- which is what it sounds like. And I do think it's at the bottom of this (and many/most social conflicts)! I think some people like rules and behavioral frames and other people chafe against them-- but for different reasons, I think. Some chafe in a confrontational, full-frontal confidence sort of way & others just... don't fit the mold of prescribed interaction and don't like the way society forces them to pretend and say certain things just to get by without conflict ('cause they don't desire conflict but neither do they like having to pretend). That's more me, obviously :>

I definitely agree it's the interpersonal tension that's the issue rather than, er, the 'Issues', because as I said, the 'Issues' are a long-dead horse. And I say this as someone who used to get really wound up and impassioned on this particular subject-- I mean, the subject itself is exhausted from long repetition, but the conflict itself is probably perennial because people themselves don't change. Someone will always be there to beat their heads against a brick wall of 'BUT WHY ARE OTHERS DIFFERENT', in this and other scenarios. I -wish- there was a way to fix -that- :D

Re: *via metafandom*

[commodorified.livejournal.com]

don't people just have this straightforward 'free speech, bitches!!1' thing? At least, the three arguments I've seen are a) truth is more important; b) honesty is more important; c) the freedom to say what I want to say is most important.

Well, a lot of them. I'm not in agreement with them, but yeah.

it really is that I'm aggravated/bothered by any 'transparent social formulae',

Hmm. I'd like to understand that better, I think. I mean, to me, if they're transparent, then there's no real deception or insincerity there, it's just a way of putting your thoughts or feelings.

whereas most others are aware and not so much 'aggravated' or hurt as just choosing to reject in favor of other things, which is where the argument begins.

Yeah. Because if someone's telegraphing really clearly to me that they really don't consider themselves bound by any of that stuff... I'm not going to get into a serious conversation with them. You know, they've kindly notified me in advance that they don't have a lot of boundaries in what they'll say or do, I'm going to avoid them.

Maybe that's too fine a distinction?

No, I think it's a useful one.

I definitely agree it's the interpersonal tension that's the issue rather than, er, the 'Issues', because as I said, the 'Issues' are a long-dead horse.

Well, it's also a way of creating a group of people who will always defend your side. You may not convince anybody, but you can create a situation where you can do whatever it is you want to do and claim unquestionable legitimacy for it, or at least be pretty sure that nobody's going to be bothered arguing it out again, because they know it's going to start a kerfuffle.

This is where a lot of fannish pack behaviour comes in, I think.

Re: *via metafandom*

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

I do think 'those people' -are- bound by conventions/rules, they just aren't necessarily the ones -you're- following... like, I don't think they're chaotic. -Some- online interaction really is no-holds-barred, but honestly in comparison, I haven't seen a female-centric community go there, not even fandom_wank. Not even close to how males (esp. young males, especially if they're invested in not appearing or just aren't too sensitive or
intellectual') act around each other, y'know? So I guess that's why 'intelligence' and 'sense of humor' seem more determinant of whether a person can be spoken to normally in a fannish situation. Then again, I avoid -lots- of people, and for lesser reasons :> Mostly I just don't even talk to people unless I actively think they're really interesting or they talk to me first (which doesn't happen that often)... not claiming this is normal, of course :>

I think it depends (for me) on what's behind the 'transparency'; sometimes it's innocuous, but a lot of times it's not, and surface polite phrasings cover up hostility/hurt feelings/frustration. Y'know... people might not want to transmit their real feelings, but... umm, my problem is that I tend to pick up on them from really really subtle clues that people generally leave unless they're inhumanly careful (and that in itself would be disturbing to me). So it's like, in most cases, there's a 'double conversation' going on that I can see-- the one people are supposedly having and the one people are -really- having, whether or not they're aware of it themselves. It is because of this, at least in part, I'm so stuck on sincerity-- because I'd prefer to only observe/participate in -one- level of conversation, especially when the other, unspoken level is uncomfortable or tense. Out-in-the-open tension actually bothers me less than suppressed tension; so to me, 'transparency' just means I can see through it to what's beneath (and really, I'd stop it if I could 'cause ignorance tends to be bliss with most human beings, even ones I don't dislike). But y'know, once again that's a v. personal reaction on my part, which is why I feel it's not necessarily worth the attention my throwaway comment has gotten :>

Ahh, the group dynamics in either case really turn me off... thinking of that, I suppose I really only take the 'rude girls' side' because I -don't- think of it as an organized 'side', 'cause there are people who -think- they are but I discount them 'cause it's so catty/immature in practice a lot of times. I mean, it's not just one side that's like that, it's all the sides once they reach a certain density point of membership... like, whenever -any- pov gets too much support, people start getting self-righteous and stupid about it...

Re: *via metafandom*

[commodorified.livejournal.com]

I do think 'those people' -are- bound by conventions/rules, they just aren't necessarily the ones -you're- following... like, I don't think they're chaotic.

Oh,they're generally not. But if they're happily violating ones I consider really important, the impression they're throwing off is that it's going to require a lot of work -- and risk -- for me to get along with them and/or to figure out where they think the lines are. I'm generally not going to invest. They may be fine people, but that's one of the casualties of having a lot of worldviews in a small area.

I think it depends (for me) on what's behind the 'transparency'; sometimes it's innocuous, but a lot of times it's not, and surface polite phrasings cover up hostility/hurt feelings/frustration. Y'know... people might not want to transmit their real feelings, but... umm, my problem is that I tend to pick up on them from really really subtle clues that people generally leave unless they're inhumanly careful (and that in itself would be disturbing to me).

Ah. I getcha. I sumpathise. My husband does that. OTOH I'm slowly trying to train him to understand that if I'm not showing him a negative emotion, that means I have no plans to take it out on him and would prefer him not to poke at it trying to figure out what it is. Or I'm still thinking on it. Or whatever. Not that it's not discomfiting, but I'm a huge fan of taking people at their word, it makes life so much simpler.

Sometimes "That's fine" means "I am really amazingly pissed off at you at the moment, but there's a high chance that that's my blood sugar talking, so I'm leaving it alone" :)

But y'know, once again that's a v. personal reaction on my part, which is why I feel it's not necessarily worth the attention my throwaway comment has gotten :>

I run into it a lot, actually, in fandom and not. But that doesn't mean you're obligated to encourage me to go on about it.

I sort of find that ALL group dynamics turn me off, sooner or later. This humans in groups thing, it's hard.

Even harder if your group dynamic privileges sincerity and openness and like that, which fandom rather does. But many people are sincerely not very nice. I'm not terribly nice myself, and can pass in decent company only by a rigorous program of NOT saying what I think as soon as I think it.

And yeah, both -- all? -- sides do this a lot.

The extreme end of the nice' side tries to be nice themselves -- which means twisting or suppressing their not so nice sides in the name of conformity and having to deal with the fact that it leaks out anyway -- and then to force everyone else to be 'nice' -- because if THEY have to suffer, WE have to suffer.

The extreme end of the 'mean' side assumes that everyone is basically nasty and just yearning to show it, and therefore anyone who is temporarily not being nasty is insincere or passive aggressive or up to something.

Re: *via metafandom*

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Y'know, as much as I try to study & understand the self-proclaimed 'not-so-nice' people, I keep finding there's always more to learn :> Some things are just so unnatural to my way of thinking, I guess, like the idea that one -has- to 'control oneself' or nasty things just... leak out in self-damaging ways. Suffice it to say I've never had that problem :) I don't always say exactly what I think, sure, but I'm loath to decide most people are assholes & 'really' nasty, so I sincerely try to think positively of people & give them second chances & so on, and though I rant and get upset, it tends to be me being upset at the -ideas- the people have or their behaviors, not the actual individuals.

And the 'nice people suppress anger/hate' thing... while theoretically I know this happens & have observed it... it's still just plain -weird- to me. I hate being angry, but it's not like I pretend I'm not when I am-- that'd just be a lot more socially-conscious than I am. Like, just 'cause you're sensitive to others' feelings/povs (what 'nice' is at its base) doesn't make you a socially focused person. So I don't think it's 'level of extremity' but rather degree of socialness. I'm asocial bordering on antisocial (when it comes to groups I'm definitely antisocial but only asocial around individuals), but I just-- I try to understand people and why they do stupid/annoying things, just to feel better about it myself, to calm myself down. If I can empathize/understand, the anger doesn't stew & I don't -have- to suppress it :> So I try to deal with my negative emotions, but it's not that I don't have them, obviously; I suspect the more social/extraverted types feel they have 'appearances' to keep up; I loathe the idea of needing to keep an appearance-- like, if someone thinks I'm a loser & no longer wants to hang out with me, good riddance. My antisocial nature serves me well, you see, without making me 'nasty', I think :)

Anyway, I see how this'd be different if you acted out in ways that potentially hurt others rather than just being damaging to others' perceptions of you. Maybe I'm too self-centered for this to be a concern, I dunno :> In any case, since by default I don't say -anything- to most people, if I thought twice before saying things when & where I -do- say them, I personally would never say anything. Besides, if I have something negative on my mind, generally I feel I'm justified somehow, and also you can say negative things nicely if people just 'feel' that you're a harmless person :> I've always thought it was amazing the stuff I myself get away with saying through this feeling like everyone thinks I'm harmless/nice :D It's all in how you/the audience frames it, I guess-- even the 'you have to be passive-aggressive' people-- the ones who actually thought I was-- still thought I was nice, whereas I never thought this of myself. :>

I suppose I myself priviledge openness&sincerity in communication not because I assume people will be kind but because I'm willing/able to handle it if they're not-- a bit self-sacrificing of me on one level, but my perception of -all- people as basically 'good' (on a deeper level than 'nice'!) is v. sturdy. I mean, I'm not delusional, but it takes a -lot- for me to seriously think of a person as a 'total asshole' by my measures (I tend to like most people's ideas of 'asshole', though I don't excuse them). No extremity of style of speech/demeanor is enough for me; they'd have to be near-sociopathic-- actually, they'd pretty much have to be sociopathic. Otherwise I'd just think 'messed up' and want to help them/understand :>

This sort makes me sound like a bleeding heart, but then you remember I'm asocial, so it all works out being moot most of the time :> Still, I see how with more 'normal' people, this sort of patience & openness with either their own emotions or those of others may be counterproductive. I sort of... thrive on it? I do try to not read -too much- into things, though, for my own mental equilibrium :> Which is why this whole phrasing business only -really- bothers me when I'm feeling particularly jumpy/not-zen :>

Re: *via metafandom*

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

I think I found an example of what I mean by double-speak that bothers me, here (http://www.mangaupdates.com/series.html?id=2882). There's the usual moronic comment on this manga (which I haven't read but features a transsexual boy & another boy below, saying, well this is different among people i really dont like this because a CUTE guy that looks like a girl is there.. i just dont really go for that stuff.. not sayin i hate gays.. just not into it.. like i said different among people

....Like, all right, I don't care, really-- maybe this person really -doesn't- "hate gays"-- the thing I hate is really the phrasing, the way people will say this pat PC-type thing like, 'I don't hate gays' as if that's BETTER somehow, as if it's all right now because we have this token protest. So it's like, when people say things they obviously don't mean to defuse others, it feels like they're sort of insulting my intelligence or something, in a way-- like, okay, not only are they bullshitting me, but I'm supposed to buy this bullshit 'cause it's 'polite' or 'PC'. Ugh.

...So in the end, I don't rant against all that complicated background stuff and just say "I hate it when people say 'I don't hate gays'", y'know?

[dartmouthtongue.livejournal.com]

The thing is...I dunno...maybe I'm weird or something, or I hang out with the wrong people, but I see rudeness everywhere and seldom correlate rudeness with being honest. To me rudeness -not always- but mostly is just another way to use truth in a dishonest way. There are ways to be honest and say the truth that are direct and yet don't hurt anyone, because why do you have to build up the courage by being an asshole in order to say the truth? So yeah, we're fucked and polite is in the eye of the beholder, but why not make the effort to find your own version of polite and be that? I'm not saying fandom has to be a happy place that cherishes people and encourages them, but it doesn't have to be filled with sharks, and bitches, and those who show a weird type of insecure and ferocious 'bravery' through being cunts to people they don't even know. We can rant, we can let off steam, we can bitch and moan with the best of them, but since we know that this is not the best part of us, we can be "polite" and not let others burn with the acid of our tongues. Or some fucked up shit like that where people cry because of what I say. ;D

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

To me rudeness -not always- but mostly is just another way to use truth in a dishonest way.

Oh definitely-- I wasn't disagreeing with this (or, wasn't really addressing this, rather); I wasn't saying rude people (vague as that generality is) are more honest or somehow 'better', just that in actual fandom debates about rudeness, I'm somewhat more on their 'side'. But then, the -type- of 'rude' person who intelligibly posts on a fandom-manners discussion isn't your run-of-the-mill asshole, either. Usually they're a lot more well-spoken and idealistic and just jaded or somewhat insensitive but within limits (I mean, they -are- participating in a meta discussion, so there's a certain minimum of intelligence, too... generally that helps a lot).

Your typical rude person is just... eh, trying to make a 'macho' sort of stand or 'saying just to say it' in a similar way to the people who 'just say' "let's agree to disagree". Most people aren't too sophisticated about it, in which case I can't be bothered 'cause what they're -saying- tends to not be worth listening to in terms of content. However, when a person is making a rather more complex or intelligent statement only with an in-your-face or abrasive tone, I'm more liable to dismiss their 'style' as basically a personal thing. So they flout social convention-- so they're an asshole-- if they're an intelligent and especially an amusing asshole (like say, I dunno, a lot of stand-up comics & Harlan Ellison), and especially given I don't care about them personally, why would I be bothered or personally touched/offended?

There are definitely -usually- ways to be honest and direct yet inoffensive-- sometimes there aren't though, 'cause people get offended at the darndest things, honestly. You can't always predict your audience, especially if you don't know it that well. However, regardless, the point isn't whether there are ways but what can anyone do to -enforce- them or make people care about them if they don't-- and in a word, the answer is 'nearly nothing, if you don't already have real power over them'.

I don't get this whole 'why not make the effort' thing... I mean, okay, I get it, but I think it's a futile question like 'why doesn't God stop baby-killers'; anything questioning basic human nature is bound to be equally pointless and frustrating to me personally.

Why are people different/have different values/don't care about sensible things/are assholes? Because they're different; because they're not you; because they don't care; because they like to annoy you, etc. QED.

The point of my post was that the constant questioning/refusal to accept & understand our basic moral/ethical/social preference differences is partly what causes the whole conflict in the first place. It's like, I can ask, 'why not those black cab-drivers stop listening to that stupid hip-hop and listen to some REAL music, like COUNTRY', and... well, that would be [an offensive] waste of my breath, even though I really do hate hip-hop and it bothers me even to hear it briefly. You see what mean, right :>

[dartmouthtongue.livejournal.com]

I don't think it's about effort, though. I just don't like the dishonesty of being rude from a vantage point. Comedians, reviewers in fandom, they can be rude as fuck. Why? Because they're as out there as the writers they review and can be drawn and quartered along with the rest of them. Now, somebody like me? If I'm rude, I have the anonymity to ensure that repercussions for assholishness will be minimum. In fact, I can make a whole fandom career out of being an asshole and do nothing else, and actually get away with it. No skin off my ass. The point is, many people who aren't rude and will never be, actually defend it because they're afraid of hypersensitive bitches who will pretend to be offended in order to make them stfu, ya know? People don't have to be polite or listen to country, but if they are their own version of polite, like a certain reviewer I know who asks people not to link authors to their scathingly funny reviews, but if they respect each other's rights to listen to whatever songs they want to then that's cool, no? Unless you want to respect people's rights not to respect you, because that's cool, too. I can dig that.

Sometimes I feel like I'm having two separate conversations, and that people assume that I'm saying they have to be nice when giving a review, and that's not true at all. I'm talking about human interaction, not debates and differences of opinion concerning fics. I can think your story sucks a fuck, and say it, while being polite to you. Just wanted to throw that out there before anybody tries to munch on my ass for stuff I'm not saying.

[dartmouthtongue.livejournal.com]

but

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Yeah, haha, I definitely 'respect people's right not to respect me'... but then 'respect' is pretty much a weird social construct I've never quite made my own :> I sometimes -admire- people and sometimes they admire me, but 'respect' implies a sort of... deference I'd feel weird if directed towards me. I get my feelings hurt easily, so if a person's 'disrespectful' they'd probably hurt them, but then it's not like I go around expecting people not to hurt my feelings (seeing as how that'd be futile). I just learn to avoid people who rub me the wrong way :> I suppose I personally 'solve' the problem by being asocial & avoidant whereas other people have to struggle with it more and be like 'but how do I get people to behave in ways that don't make me wanna run away screaming'; hahahaha because like, I don't mind running away 'cause I'd likely do that even if the people were -nice- half the time ^^;;; heh So I'm not exactly Jane Average here to base anything on my reactions... which is why the whole thing was a personal aside I didn't expect people would focus on. Heh.

You're right... it kind of sucks that maybe I do overcompensate because I'm probably one of those people you were talking about who generally aren't rude but don't wanna be associated with the 'hypersensitive bitches' :D I'm okay, though; I can take it. I've made a hobby of tolerating & trying to understand a variety of people and behaviors... from afar, y'see. From afar :D

I like the idea of people being 'their own version of polite', too. *sigh* But what can I do about it? Ideally, that's what people would be, and people would be honest or sincere as much as they can bear and no more, but. Well, there'll always be that little voice in my head saying 'but I wish they were MORE honest and MORE sincere even if it makes them uncomfortable', knowing it's futile of me, because I just can't help wanting the world to be that way, to interact with people on a deep and meaningful level. I know I'll never achieve that and maybe I couldn't handle it if I did (probably not-- I actually shy away from others' intense sincerity even as I crave it), so mostly my stance of 'live and let live' is to convince myself to stand down 'cause I ain't changin' nothin' :>

Anyway, lots of people do think any criticism/negative comment is automatically 'not nice' & 'rude'; sure, they're the 'oversensitive bitches', but they're LOUD, man.

[dartmouthtongue.livejournal.com]

It's cool, it's cool. None of us wanna be the hypersensitive bitches, but neither should we wanna be the hyperinsensitive bitches either, and I don't see why we have to admire either one of 'em. It's totally true that it's futile to try to change things to how they are supposed to be, because suppose fuck, right? Things are how they are, and that's it, but I don't like to elevate how things are to "they are as they should be," because should fuck also. I agree with you, though, that it's really hard to talk about these things in general terms because it all depends. You see one person say one thing and they are so funny and you're not the one getting impaled, and you feel like 'Joke them if they can't take a fuck,' but then you see the exact same comment by a person whose intentions are to hurt and maim and step their turd-stained trainers all over somebody else's fic (almost wrote fuck, again, oops) and then suddenly the humor's lost in the exchange. So I agree with the person below (and I spoke about this in Dk's post) that it's all about intention, and like people's personal decency. I guess it's stupid to expect people to behave with their own sense of decency or their own versions of polity, specially in the internet, but I just find it wormy as hell to hide behind all these wires, and the screens and the keyboard or whatever, in order to be a total fuckface. Kinda funny, really that I'm advocating for "Let's not be rude, unless we're risking something" since I'm not exactly Ms. Manners, here, but there ya go. People should have real balls if they claim them, not just e-balls.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

You're right about how one shouldn't admire hyper-insensitive people either and the whole 'not elevating to should' thing... I tend to forget that sometimes 'cause I run into idealists whom I basically agree with except they apparently CANNOT either accept or even truly perceive reality. So there's more overcompensation on my part, heh. It's also difficult to -care- all the time; it's easier to say 'okay, this is how people are' rather than going around constantly wishing they were just that little bit more like they -could- be, forget -should- be. Also, a lot of people who do fixate on that become moralizing assholes... flipping from 'could' right on over to 'should', which seriously annoys me.

In other words, it would definitely be great -if- people online -and- offline weren't the way they are, and I'd definitely enjoy the discussion of this particular subject more if people tended to play with the possibilities/ideas in a hypothetical/theoretical & inquisitive rather than judgmental way. But these ethics-type discussions (in general, not this one) do constantly and quickly degenerate into finger-pointing and futile lamenting and self-martyrdom like 'oh, look how wonderful -I- am, why isn't everyone LIKE ME'. Heh.

I mean, obviously sometimes people are just-- off, just really offensive and hostile, but then I don't think the fannish debates are even -about- the cut-and-dried cases (assuming we could agree on which are cut-and-dried... which... not necessarily, it seems). Still, with that example you mentioned below-- I agree he'd be someone most people agree isn't being helpful or whatever, but then... so what? I'm not sure where people think that kind of discussion can go in practical terms if not to moralizing/prescribing behavior, which I could never get behind, personally.

[dartmouthtongue.livejournal.com]

I understand, and I'm not advocating for anybody policing anybody else. I do judge other people, I'm sorry to say, and I have my own norms about how I think people should be, but unless they are actively harming anyone I stfu about it 'cause I'm nobody's daddy -shudders- and don't want to be. I was thinking it could just be a sort of...policing yourself? I guess it's not practical, and I'm sure it's idealistic, but maybe there could be a little attitude adjustment.

I have to say, nobody has ever been a rude fuck to me... or at least, I haven't noticed. ;D

[cleverthylacine]

I think you could argue all day over whether any specific phrase or construction or wording is 'rude' or not.

Here's what I think. It's easy to misunderstand people on the internet, but it's not as easy to misunderstand people on the internet as people like to think. Generally, it's possible to tell whether someone cares how hurtful they're being, especially when dealing with people who are used to communicating online. Generally.

You can't avoid being misunderstood sometimes. Complex arguments get misunderstood all the time, particularly in fandoms where there are very aggressive groups demanding a party line. The thing that you can control is your intention. If your intention is to mock, to embarrass, to humiliate, to win, to chastise, to censure, or to shame, then you need to think twice before saying anything, no matter how carefully worded, because those are hostile intentions. There certainly is behaviour in the online world deserving of censure (for instance, identity theft, sexual predation and fraud) but most of it is not going on in fandom. If you're going to say something hostile to another fan, you first need to ask yourself whether it needs to be said, and you then need to expect people to react to the hostility and not be disingenuous about it or claim that it's harmless, even if you think it's funny. (People who make hostile jokes know perfectly well that they are not funny to the people at whom the hostility is aimed, and when they pretend that they don't they look stupid, as well as juvenile.)

I love the phrase you specifically object to. Yes, in most cases it does mean "I will never see it your way and I have realised that you will never see it mine." But that's a GOOD thing, in my opinion. There's no way in the world that anyone will ever make me believe that Albus Dumbledore is a good person, though I am perfectly willing to allow that Jo Rowling may think he's good. Having an argument about this is not going to change anyone's mind. I tend to use the dreaded 'agree to disagree' phrase when it becomes apparent to me that the conversation isn't going anywhere but down.

[dartmouthtongue.livejournal.com]

Ah, you're smart. There. What she said.

I'm thinking about a particular reviewer whose a total wanker, and pretends his intentions are to enlighten the poor straight women of this world with his supergay powers, and then claims their stories will be better because of his wankery. This is dishonest and catty, and no amount of rudeness will ever make up for it. ;D

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Hahah, I know who you mean :)) Speaking of personal intentions... I don't think that's a cut-and-dried case, btw. It's sort of a borderline case since I really don't -know- either way anyway because I don't know him personally, but it seems to me like he's just abrasive/thoughtless rather than intentionally hostile and trying to hurt people. He may be thoroughly insensitive, but it's still not the same thing, 'cause lots of people (...especially *cough* male people) just a) don't really care about consequences; b) more importantly, actually don't KNOW how they're being perceived and/or understand people's feelings. In other words, their emotional intelligence may be low, but that doesn't make them intentionally hostile, even though they may be intentionally rude as a side-effect of saying whatever they want in a brash manner. The cattiness also is there, but seems more like a personality thing, in which case I'd hesitate to say it should/could be 'corrected'.

In any case, what, exactly, is 'society' or any one person supposed to -do- about a person like that?? Just condemn them like pariahs or what?? That only feeds their ego, I think :> Also, like I was saying, constant rehashing of this issue with the insistence that 'this is WRONG, why are you LIKE THAT' is just... counterproductive, I guess.

[cleverthylacine]

Oh, I definitely think he's hostile; he's censorious. He wants only to read slash that respects his kinks and preferences (which he states as the preferences and kinks of "gay men" despite the fact that I know several gay men who don't share his feelings) and instead of going looking for the things he wants to read he castigates anyone who dares to write otherwise.

[dartmouthtongue.livejournal.com]

Yeah, but that in itself might be why L. here thinks that he's an emotional retard, unsophisticated about how what he's saying affects other people, the very people he claims to wanna help out. Anyone who narrows their point of view to their sexual orientation and who always starts from there, can't be too perceptive about themselves. Ya know what I mean?

[dartmouthtongue.livejournal.com]

I don't know why he's a cunt, I haven't analyzed it, but you're right, it might be a personality thing or carelessness or indifference or whatever. I don't think he should be nicer about things, I just think he should drop the "I'm just trying to make you write better" bullshit. The reason that I use him, is to show a clear example of how rudeness for rudeness sake means shit in the end. It takes no talent, no spine, just a keyboard and some spite.

It's true, that I mostly don't care about consequences, but that's only when they exist. In the internet? You've gotta make up your own consequences, or (within legal bounds) you can do pretty much anything you want. So aggressiveness here? Bravery here? Indifference here? All that nice and manly shit, is cheap as fuck, because it comes without repercussions. Politeness and decency are not required and they take more balls than being an Internet fuckface ever could. Why? Because it's scarce. Because you don't gotta.

[cleverthylacine]

In my dreams, my gay ex-husband and occasional co-writer takes him on. Because they definitely like different things, but you cannot say my ex is a girl and therefore does not know what gay men like. In reality, my ex has more important things to do with his time.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Like I told sistermagpie, there are definitely ways to use that phrase that are inoffensive and normal and mild-- I mean, I wasn't 'objecting' to it in a serious way, it was just a note, a personal aside. I wasn't really making an argument; just saying 'this is how I feel'. Obviously, my feelings aren't immobile-- generally if a person 'means well' by it, I accept it. However, a -lot- of times people say it just to shut you up, just 'cause they're sick of discourse and have this surface desire to -appear- polite whereas really they're saying you're not worth talking further with, and that annoys me. Certainly you can sincerely think an argument's not worth having, though then I'd question why you started it in the first place; generally when a whole subject isn't something you can be budged on, there's no point in discussing it with anyone in a 'debating' manner-- instead it's something you just chat about with people you know relatively well who you wouldn't offend and vice versa.

As for intentions-- I totally agree with you, intentions are what's important and they can -usually- be understood (especially by intelligent or halfway discerning or experienced people online). I'm not one of the people who think 'text is just text, you never know what someone means on the internets'-- not at ALL; the polar opposite-- that view actually annoys/frustrates me quite a lot. Any form of hostility is... unpleasant and naturally I wouldn't support it. But people have to be really careful about what they consider 'hostility' when accusing others of it, and they aren't. People have hot-buttons, irrational reactions and overreactions, emotional responses to perfectly rational/reasonable statements, all the time-- all the time. Sure, if they were reasonable and thought about it, they'd probably be able to see what the person meant, but I've learned that often when people get 'pinged' by something the wrong way, they stop paying attention the way they otherwise would, and things get out of control. So in a practical sense, I err on the side of people who -I- think had 'admissible intentions' vs. people who're just saying those people are 'rude', see what I mean? I don't need any particular phrasing, personally, that's just it-- a person can be as abrasive as they like and not bother me if I feel they're 'on the level' in terms of -their- idea of what's acceptable/polite/etc rather than mine or what -I'd- say or do. Most other people I've seen don't really operate like this, though.

Anyway, I wasn't really talking about real hostility, as that's outside the level of 'rudeness' implicitly discussed when people refer to things like overly straightforward reviews or something; people wouldn't really have an argument about whether it's okay to call someone names or whatever, I think. Mocking... I also wouldn't put -all- mockery right up there with 'humilation' and 'shaming', though it can get to that point; I'd say it's a case-by-case basis. 'Mean' mockery that has the intent to harass those weaker than you doesn't have much to do with the type of mockery that involves cute little jokes about bad TV shows, for instance-- it's almost a different issue entirely and would regardless involve different 'solutions'. One is a question of type of discourse and another is an issue of bullying and harassment (in which case I'd also want to be compassionate to the bully & encourage the victim to stand up for themselves and put a stop to it, but that's whole 'nother bucket of fish).

[cleverthylacine]

However, a -lot- of times people say it just to shut you up, just 'cause they're sick of discourse and have this surface desire to -appear- polite whereas really they're saying you're not worth talking further with, and that annoys me. Certainly you can sincerely think an argument's not worth having, though then I'd question why you started it in the first place; generally when a whole subject isn't something you can be budged on, there's no point in discussing it with anyone in a 'debating' manner-- instead it's something you just chat about with people you know relatively well who you wouldn't offend and vice versa.

I think you may be confusing willingness to discuss and explain one's position with being willing to debate it. This is a common problem in fandom. There are many things I can't be budged on that I am perfectly happy to discuss, explain, elucidate. If someone wants to know why I am a Wincest shipper I will be happy to tell them so. If I then find out that that person thinks we are having a debate and they are trying to talk me out of my position, you'd better believe I am going to shut that discussion down especially if it is in my journal and annoying me and my friendslist. This isn't because I don't think the other person is worthy of the time it takes to talk to them, it's because I never intended to start a debate.

Discussion doesn't have to have a winner. You can discuss the reasons why you feel something is so and listen to the reasons that the other person thinks otherwise and have a discussion about that for quite a while, and it can be very interesting and enlightening. The second that discussion becomes a debate, I'm no longer interested, because I really hate sharing my thoughts and feelings with people who are trying to score a win, change my mind, convert me.

In that case then "let's agree to disagree" is a great way to end the discussion. It doesn't mean I think the other person is unworthy of my time or that I don't feel my position stands up to debate. It means that debate is not what I want to do.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Oh yeah... hm, I wasn't considering the situation where two people aren't 'on the level' about whether they're just having a discussion or a debate; this hasn't happened to me much, anyway, 'cause when I have a debate it's -very- clear (and I like, -never- have them) so generally I have a discussion (where I'm not trying to convince anyone). However, I don't tend to trust people I don't know to debate things that I'm so passionate on I can't be budged-- but this is probably because there are few things I'm -that- certain about, so my default is 'discussion' because I'm just... um, easily able to see people's pov, I guess. I rarely think they're Wrong with a capital W, but if I did think so then I'd hesitate getting into an intense/involved discussion unless it was clear both to them and me what we're doing to start with... but then I get pretty wary because anything that smacks of potential interpersonal conflict generally makes me avoid all contact with it :>

Anyway, that's just me; talking about 'people in general', I'd say that they probably mix it up because they don't make a real distinction in the first place (implying an unfamiliarity with the 'rules' or nature of meta-discourse, that whole thing where people's backgrounds are different as I said in my post). It would definitely suck if one person was debating and another just discussing-- in my experience with 'most people' in fandom, though, the escalation is mutual and then one of them bails rather than one being the 'attacker' while the other was having a calm discussion. Well, clearly it depends on the situation :>

My distinction between 'mockery' and 'humiliation' comes about because 'mockery' is one of those terms (like 'rudeness') that not everyone can agree on, and more importantly that people have different tolerance levels for. I myself am pretty sensitive but have learned (through having sarcastic/blunt/acidic friends/relatives) to differentiate between just painful blunt/sarcasm in speech & something that's meant to make you specifically and directly feel bad/low/weak. The difference is really emotional and case-by-case and thusly difficult to use in any theory or definition, though.

[dartmouthtongue.livejournal.com]

Yeah, like a friend of mine always calls me when I'm...well, in a specific situation and I asked him whether he had an alarm set to my erections the "stupid fucking cockblocker" and I don't think he felt humiliated by it at all. Because like this person said in the beginning, it's all about intention.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Hahah, anyone who'd think -that- was humiliating has... problems. *___* Teasing/joking between friends != mockery ^^;;;;;

[cleverthylacine]

I also don't get your distinction between mockery and humiliation. If you are pointing and laughing at other fans you are trying to humiliate them. Either that or you are talking shit about them behind their back. In no way is that a non-hostile thing to do. Fandom Wank, for instance? That's definitely the armpit of online fandom.

[dartmouthtongue.livejournal.com]

Well, no. I mock my friends all the time, and they mock me and there's no instance or question of humiliation there. Sometimes humor can soften things up, both for the one mocking and the one being mocked.