[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]

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 ^^;;;;;