[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.

*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.

[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

[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.