[ahhh, gotta love stating the obvious]
Nov. 21st, 2006 10:50 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
reenkaYou 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 ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
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 onlysistermagpie 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 aswitchqueen 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 basicallyBabel 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 :>
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
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 :>
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: *via metafandom*
Date: 2006-11-26 04:14 am (UTC)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*
Date: 2006-11-28 07:38 am (UTC)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*
Date: 2006-11-28 09:00 am (UTC)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*
Date: 2006-11-28 09:23 am (UTC)....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?