[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

[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 :>