[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

[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