When you're in someone else's home... [kalpurna]

Hey: commenting unenthusiastically on squee posts, or combatively on meta posts. What's the deal with that? Why does it annoy me SO VERY MUCH? Don't I encourage free and open public debate on my LJ?

No, actually. If you're going to come into my journal, my semi-private space, and leave a comment, I would very much prefer that you tread carefully. I am extremely unlikely to bite anyone's head off no matter how rude she is, because that's not how I roll, and I am generally welcoming and interested in meeting new people. Comment on my post! I will almost certainly be thrilled to meet you! But to me, a personal LJ is not the same thing as a public debate forum. Me personally, whenever I'm interacting directly with someone I don't know very well, either online or in real life, I try my best to go into that conversation with the best attitude possible. And for that reason, whenever I am planning to leave a comment on a post by someone whom I don't know, I do the following:

Make some sort of 10-minute attempt to figure out who she is and what she believes, and what she loves. Just read her userinfo and her most recent three posts! Most people aren't concealing this stuff! And then don't disagree with her about those things in her journal until I know her a hell of a lot better.

Assume that she is both smart and well-intentioned, until overwhelming evidence suggests otherwise. Get prepared to cite said evidence, if necessary. ASSUME GOOD FAITH. Even if personally suspicious that she is raging loony whoreface, make all possible efforts to conceal said opinion, up to the last reasonable moment. Just reading one post is pretty much never enough to dismiss a person's entire fannish presence, as I have learned more than once.

Don't harsh her squee. Frankly, I don't think I know anyone who makes a thrilled, euphoric post of utter joy and is pleased to see people disagreeing with her, unless she (a) expresses her own reservations or (b) explicitly invites debate. I have seen the argument advanced that not everyone assumes debate is verboten, and so we should all be explicit about not wanting our squee harshed; I would argue that this is based on flawed assumptions about human interactions. There is pretty much no social situation, online or not, where a SQUEE reaction (not just a pleased reaction, but unqualified flailing JOY) from someone who is not a close friend ought to be countered with flat disagreement. If you must disagree out loud, either surround it with things like "everything else about this ep was GRATE though omg RODNEY YAYS," or ask first. If you don't know she's OK with it, assume she isn't.

I do realize that these aren't rules everyone operates under (obviously), and I also realize that I am hardly in any kind of position to autocratically dictate how others should behave, and that's not what I want to do. Also, I fail to live up to these ideals myself plenty often. But my belief in their general validity is why I'm so sympathetic to poor

keepaofthecheez and the comments she seems to get to her I Love Everything Jared Does posts that say things like "I like Jensen better!" That is so USELESS. That contributes NOTHING, except bringing her down a tiny bit from the love high she's riding. And hey, you know what? You don't have to leave a comment! Seriously, it's cool if you don't! Keep on scrollin' down that flist, if you don't have plenty of reason to believe that a negative comment will be an enjoyable thing for her to recieve. Also: the rhetorical question. Know it. Love it. "HOW HOT IS JARED OMG SEXPANTS" is not. an actual. question. And people thinking it is can genuinely ruin someone's day. I promise this is true, strange though it may seem to a non-squee-er.

*breathes heavily*

I don't know. Aghh, I'm already subsiding from my High Horse of Moral Indignation, because hell, I know that some people just don't really get social cues, or don't have the same ones I do, and that's not their fault. But it might still be worth saying what I think about this issue, because hey, if they don't automatically see the same cues I do, then I might as well tell them about those cues explicitly; better to antagonize someone on purpose than by accident, that's what I always say.

Hey, and one last thing: this problem mainly seems to arise, in my experience, from the friendsfriendslist and from newsletter links. So all I'm suggesting is that anyone who gets to a post in that way, who doesn't have a relationship with the person who posted, might have an obligation to try and adapt herself to the venue she finds herself in, because of what

cereta says here about venue and appropriateness. Tread carefully, please, O Fandom! It only takes an extra moment to be courteous!

April

Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
				1	2	3
4	5	6	7	8	9	10
11	12	13	14	15	16	17
18	19	20	21	22	23	24
25	26	27	28	29	30 1

Sun

Mon

Tue

Wed

Thu

Fri

Sat

hee! word!

poor keepaofthecheez and the comments she seems to get to her I Love Everything Jared Does posts that say things like "I like Jensen better!"

i think the most bzuh?O__o? part of that mess is how ... uhm, lazy? those people are.. i mean, she was very clear about what NOT to do in her userinfo; she expressly asked people not to diss the jared/sam love in her LJ. reading those simple requests before friending her would've been the most basic thing, one would think. but apparently there are those who just fail at basic decency.. :(

if they don't automatically see the same cues I do, then I might as well tell them about those cues explicitly;
♥!

[link] [reply]

*g* Thanks!

DUDE, I KNOW. She isn't SUBTLE. Seriously, being a BNF must kind of suck at least half the time – sometimes it seems like a good third of the comments they get are either mindless, or combative, or both. *clings to her mid-size flist*

\o/

[link] [parent] [reply]

Theonly thing I would have to say to the hw hot is jared thing?

If he is who I think he is, a lot. And if it's the other one? Still hot.

Shush, yes I've been reading estrella's j2 fic. Yes I read SPN fic. Who is WHO?

As to the rest you say, it makes me think. I tend to react to most LJ-ers as, well, you know those cousins you see often enough to know their name and maybe that they don't eat your mum's sweet potato pie at Thanksgiving, but they are family so you can't tell them that and you have to be nice? Or your mum will hit you in the head with a spatuala? (Yes, the metal ones hurt and the plastic ones get stuck in your hair, wtf). That's what I do on LJ on non-friend journals.

On the other hand, if it's an anonamouse? I tend to react like its the creepy uncle if it's anywhere remotely wanky just for sheer "why don't you get a name, it take seconds"

omg. SO HOT. Both of them! I can't believe people actually fight over which they like better, because come on, both of them: so. hot.

Hmm, yeah, that makes sense – it's not just that they're strangers, so you have to be polite; they're strangers with a community connection to you. So you REALLY have to be polite.

God, yes. Just - yes. I mean, I don't see anything wrong with actual discussion on a meta post - but that's assuming that the author intends it as a meta post. A lot of times, I see people just, you know, wondering aloud, and then other people come along and make it a THING - and, you know, no. Not chill.

Then, too - you can debate and be dorky and thinky and awesome and whatever you like without being mean, which appears to be something people forget.

And there's no excuse for squee-harshing. Even if you don't like it! Just - scroll on by, friends. GRR ARGH. *monsterface*

Really, I think what it comes down to is this: you respond to the post in the same way it was made. So if it's a post of "hmmm I wonder", meta (politely) back! and if it's a post of squee, squee!

...basically, I agree with you x a million.

No, that's totally true, and I really think that the cues in peoples' posts tend to be pretty obvious. Still, some people seem to have trouble getting that?

I really don't understand why you would EVER leave a hostile comment in a meta post. Either they're dumb, and you can use your back button, or they're smart, and they deserve more of a thoughtful response.

See, why is this so hard! Match the tone and venue you're in! I think maybe some fangirls are just not very good at picking up on the expectations of certain social situations, even online.

Excellent points. Their squee may not be my squee, but squee makes the world go around!

It certainly does! :D

You know, I was reading some related posts off

metafandom, and I'm all what's the word. Pensive? Because people clearly feel strongly about this rule, and I don't know if I've been following it or will follow it in future. I mean, it sounds like the whole thing is based on some pretty egregious incident, but still. It's like, I never intend to insult anybody, but my nature is a lot less squeeful than others. Where I come from, you criticize everything, especially if you love it. And I've noticed people holding up examples of what strike me as harmless, neutral remarks (e.g. on picspam, "Hot. What is the deal with that shirt though?") as hurtful.

I think this is something specific to fan culture, because we're not here primarily as a media analysis group, we're here above all to express our INSANE LOVE for something. So there's this whole rule of Don't Harsh My Squee that doesn't have much parallel in RL that I can recognize. (I saw sports fans used as an example, but my background doesn't have that, so.) Which seems legitimate, but it's kind of a new thought, and I'm going to have to kick it around some more, I guess.

I think maybe one of the things people haven't pointed out explicitly about squee-harshers is that they don't really tend to be people that do the "squee thing" themselves – which is of course fine, and everyone has different ways of enjoying things, and stuff. I don't know, I have no data to back up that statement, it just seems to me like many of the well-meaning and bemused responses to this are from people who just don't often make posts saying, essentially, "ELEVENTYONE!!1!" And so don't understand the kind of attitude that entails (an uncritical one), or the responses that are appropriate. It's a different mode of discourse?

But you know, I have never seen you violate this rule at all. When people make squealing idiotic posts, you never respond just to say "I DON'T LIKE THAT ACTUALLY." So I'd say that probably, you follow those textual cues to be context-appropriate without even thinking about it, just like most people. I would think the comment you quoted is harmless, too (especially if it's between people who know each other). It's the more extreme examples that get to me.

I guess the problem with fannish LJ discourse might sometimes be that there's all these different kinds of conversations going on: infatuated vs. intellectual, and public/published vs. private/conversational. And those lines are blurred way, WAY more than they are in any other writing I know of – especially with newsletter links added into the equation. Most posts are actually to some degree all four of those things at once, and it's all about how they balance them.

Maybe a non-sports analogy for squee is an acquaintance with a new boyfriend, in the first throes of love. Do you tell her he's got sticky-out ears and treats his momma bad? If she's a friend and you want to keep her that way, you either a) say it VERY diplomatically and vaguely or b) keep your mouth shut; and if you don't even know her, you definitely stay the hell out of it.

Where I come from, you criticize everything, especially if you love it.
Word! I don't know where this originated from, but I love it when people come to my journal as total strangers and start disagreeing with me and debating! It's such fun! But on LJ people don't dare to do it. I put it into my user info that I always welcome criticism and disagreement (as long as people are polite of course), but even so people are always very appologetic and shy about it. It does irk me ^^

Anyway if I squee and someone disagree, so what? It doesn't stop me from squeeing! Nothing could prevent from squeeing about, say, a new book of A Song of Ice and Fire being released!

even so people are always very appologetic and shy about it

[...]

Anyway if I squee and someone disagree, so what? It doesn't stop me from squeeing!

Yes! Yes! I don't get it. Even when I'm not being critical about things I love, I still don't mind other people doing so. I had a post squeeing about SGA and how awesome it is and someone commented to say they didn't like it so much (and it wasn't just randomly, they had a reason to do, I just don't remember now what) and they started off with apologising. For telling me they didn't like it much. I was like...bzuh!? It's okay if people don't like the same things as me. It's even okay if they tell me they don't like them when I'm talking about how much I do like them. It doesn't make me like my favorite things any less. John and Ronon's awesomeness cannot get any less awesome.

But I risk being traumatized by the idea that my tastes aren't universal! The thoughts of a world were not everyone likes the same thing will break my mind! Woe! Oh, wait, no I won't.

Hey, I think that's pretty unfair. No one is claiming that everyone has to like the same thing, or that they don't want to think their tastes aren't universal. They're just saying that if you don't like something they posted about on their personal journal, leaving a comment saying so is totally fucking unnecessary, makes them feel kind of bad, and they'd like to opt out, thanks. Why is that something to mock?

Point taken, I appologize, that last comment was out of line.

No problem, and thank you for apologizing. :)

Well, that's fantastic for you, but it's not the way everybody works, you know? I personally know more than one person who has stopped posting about a particular topic because they're so tired of dealing with random, unsolicited negativity. A lot of people feel this way, and it doesn't make them stupid or closed-minded, it just means they're different from you. Not everyone's squee is an impregnable fortress. And that's why I think that unless you know for a fact that the poster is someone who welcomes negative comments on squee-type posts, you should just, you know, tread carefully. It's not that hard to just scroll on by if it's not your thing.

I'm not sure where I called anyone stupid or closed-minded, but whatever.

No, you didn't, and I'm sorry about implying that you did. I think I was conflating your comment with this, because you were in the same thread:

But I risk being traumatized by the idea that my tastes aren't universal! The thoughts of a world were not everyone likes the same thing will break my mind! Woe! Oh, wait, no I won't.

but that's not fair. Just because other people (both here and elsewhere) have implied that preferring positive comments on squee posts is somehow weak or shameful, that doesn't mean you feel that way - your comment just expressed puzzlement. Seriously, I'm sorry, and possibly I shouldn't be answering comments after 1 AM...

No problem.

Yeah, okay, but I also think you need to recognize that you're in a minority – that most people, while they may encourage and enjoy debate on certain issues, will also post things they aren't really looking for a second opinion on, things which are usually clearly marked by unqualified squealing joy.

And I think it's REALLY important to recognize that your reaction to someone disagreeing with your squee is not the reaction of a lot of people, which was the main point I was trying to make with this post. I personally know more than one person who has stopped posting about certain topics because it was so unpleasant for them to deal with the off-topic, hostile, unsolicited disagreement of certain commenters. Whether or not it bothers you, it's absolutely the case that it bothers many people. And that doesn't make them wrong, or stupid, or fragile – it's just the way they operate. So unless you know that the poster would enjoy a negative comment on a squeeful post, I happen to think it's more considerate not to leave one.

Okay, I really think this is unfair. So basically, I'm out of the minority (which is hardly proven but let's assume it), so I should just suck it up? I need to recognize that my point of view doesn't matter?

I mean, if you don't want people to mess with your ~~groove~~ squee, there's always these things callled "flocked post", using the option where only friended people can comments, or putting a tag line at the end of the post saying "~~no furbashing~~ only positive/squee answers, please!"

I mean, there's plenty of ways to get the result that you're wanting without making it the universal, mandatory rule that everyone, including people who're not bothered with it, must obey to?

I do think that the most important thing in fandom/Lj is to make sure that everyone can play in the same playground, that everyone's needs and likes can be followed regardles of whether or not they're the majority.

Hey, I have got no problem with what you do on your journal and in the journals of people you know. But I hardly think it's unreasonable to say that if an action you take – one that is completely optional for you – is likely to make someone feel bad, then it's pretty rude for you to continue with that action without any regard for other people's preferences.

You certainly have a right to make negative comments on public squee posts, and no one is arguing that you don't – and I specifically said that I'm not trying to dictate a universal mandatory rule. All I'm doing is pointing out some principles that can, in my experience, help people not make other people unhappy without meaning to do so. You always have a right to say what you want, but when you know doing so is likely to make someone feel bad, and do it anyway, doesn't that make you kind of a jerk?

Playing in the same playground means you respect the rules that are most likely to make everyone happy, not the rules that each individual person thinks are best. Among your own group of friends, you obviously don't need to observe rules you think are silly – but when you aren't talking to those people, I don't think it's unfair to say you should tread carefully until you figure out what your venue is like, and what is appropriate.

Is it seriously that hard to not leave a comment? We're not talking about deep thinky meta, here, we're talking about "JARED IS SEXPANTS." Why does your opinion on that topic so desperately need to be aired out in someone else's journal (UNLESS you know them and know they're ok with that)?

You say you don't make it the universal, but you DO! :
(UNLESS you know them and know they're ok with that)
So you mean to say it should be the default rule!

I'm not insisting for the right to saying pissy things to people who are going to be hurt by it! (regardless of what you think, I don't particulary enjoy hurting people)
I'm insisting for the right to comment and have my journal be commented, including between total stranger, without having to wonder for every single comment "oh wait! Am I going to hurt their feeling with this?... nah, better not bother."
You see each LJ as a very private place, I challenge this point of view. Unless LJ is friendlocked, I consider it public. I want it to be considered public. I don't kow what "my own group of friend" think of it, they probably all have their opinion, and the majority of them probably do not care all that much any way.

I'm not arguing against the idea that if you don't want negative squee you shouldn't be getting them. I'm arguing against the idea that this should be the basic assumption of everyone when commenting on LJ.

Yeah, you know what, I do think it should be the default that if something has any significant chance of hurting someone that you don't do it unless you know it's ok. I'm not trying to pass a law here, but yeah, that's what I think.

so for exemple, nobody should ever write a non con story because it's potentially (and very legitimaly) harmful to some readers?

Nah, that's why we have warnings for non con. So that the people who do like it can read it, and the people who don't can avoid it. That's the kind of rule that allows people to play together whatever their taste are. That's the kind of default rule I'd rather see in this case.

Commenting on an uncomplicated, joyful squee post to say the opposite strikes me as being a lot like posting an unwarned non-con fic, in that it exposes people who were minding their own business and doing nothing wrong to something that may really upset them. Warnings make the assumption that people have a right to decline unpleasant experiences with fic; being careful about disagreeing with a squee post does the same thing for journal entries. And both things also assume that the responsibility for warnings lies with the person writing the potentially offensive material, rather than the person unwillingly exposed to it. There's a reason unsolicited non-con fic doesn't get posted in comments on someone's personal journal.

Look, I don't think this argument is going anywhere. If you really want to continue it, let's do it in the morning; I'm going to bed. It's pretty late.

You've ignored all my arguments as to how the people who might be harmed by these kinds of comments could be protected other than by making it a universal rule, so yes, I don't think I'll keep discussing this.

By the way, when we had the discussion it was morning for me.

Yes, yes and YES! That is all. *G*

\o/ Thanks!

I disagree! :P

(Not really. I was just being a jerk. You rule)

ahahahaha GO DIE BITCH. ;D

(hee, thank you!)

I Love Everything Jared Does

My initial response to anyone on my flist saying that would be 'Who?'

Which I do, every now and again.

Ahhhh, but see, that is an AWESOME thing to say in a squee post! Because then the poster gets to explain, in loving, sensual detail, exactly who (http://keepaofthecheez.livejournal.com/311083.html#cutid1) Jared (http://keepaofthecheez.livejournal.com/326652.html#cutid1) is (http://keepaofthecheez.livejournal.com/324419.html#cutid1). *g*

Even if personally suspicious that she is raging loony whoreface, make all possible efforts to conceal said opinion, up to the last reasonable moment.

bwah! well said.

*grins* Thanks!

Hmm . . . I would say that the reason people might be combative on meta-type-posts is that when a post has been linked from a comm (or whatever) it seems more like "public" lj-space than "private" lj-space, if that makes sense. Although I agree, it's irritating when people are like, "Um sorry I disagree" and you're all "I was just being happy . . . Why do you feel the need to make me defend my opinion . . ."

Yeah, there's a whole "semi-public spaces" thing that... argh, I can't remember who exactly, but someone on my flist is writing serious meta about that. A lot of people bring up the responsibility of the link-maker in cases like that, to contextualize the post, and I think that's definitely valid – but the truth is, I really think it's ultimately the responsibility of the link-follower, the commenter, to figure out context and tone, and not to be combative unless you're sure it's deserved.

Exactly! I guess you could just not answer the comment, but then you might seem like a bitch, and just, I don't know. Meta is different, obviously, but squee is not generally an invitation for criticism.

Except that if it was linked in the first place it was in a public post -- I don't know a single newsletter or collection which links flocked posts because that's essentially a pointless exercise. And with that linking it goes from being a "semi-public" space to a public space, with -- I would argue -- the implication that it was always a public space because it was accessible to all of the public to begin with.

If you don't want it to be a public post then don't release it publically. If you don't like what a person is saying, ban_set. Relying on the other person to understand your context and your social cues is really counterproductive -- and what about people who mix between serious discussion and squee. How is checking out the userinfo and the latest three posts going to help that?

I try not to be actively combative when I walk into a discussion, any discussion, anywhere. That includes right here and right now. But I know some people who would view this very comment as being actively combatant and some people who would view it as being too nice. And overall, I can't account for those people, only myself.

More than that, what I'd love to see in a post like this that takes a single idea and extends to a generalization of how behavior should be organized is an example which isn't so blatantly flat and one-sided as to be obvious. I really doubt that there's a huge amount of debate on posts where someone puts up a shiny picture and goes "shiny!" It's the not so obvious examples that are the real issue here, not the "OMG, isn't this picture of Jared Padalecki the hottest ever?," but rather the examples of "OMG, I totally think Jared Padalecki is hotter than Jensen Ackles, don't you? Look at these pictures!"

Well, no, I don't. And there's room there for me to say "Well, I think you picked out bad pictures of JA. Look how hot he is in this or this or this one!" And those sort of situations aren't covered in the examples given.

- Andrea.

I think a lot of this has to do with the problem of subjectivity.

People who are "thick-skinned" don't "get" why people with "thin-skin" are offended.

People with "thin-skin" don't "get" why people with "thick-skin" are so mean.

And when the meta starts rolling, generalizations are going to occur and both sides start crawling up eachother's asses.

Generally, I think its important that people in fandom be respectful of one another. Why? Because as someone so eloquently pointed out in a list post, fandom is about reciprocity, and fandom has a *very* long memory. If you shit on someone, they're never going to forget it, and they're going to have a negative opinion of you for the rest of their known fandom-lives.

The larger problem, I think, is that when these meta-generalizations are listed, no one knows what the hell you [general you] are talking about. And thus the arms race begins. For instance, everyone would obviously agree that when someone posts a picspam about how hot someone is, and someone replies that OMG THAT'S THE UGLIEST THING I'VE EVER SEEN, well. That's just fucking rude.

But if I make a squee-induced post about an episode that I've just seen (giving my instant reaction to it), that doesn't necessarily mean that I don't want critical meta in the comments. And I think most of my lj-friends feel the same way.

The issue isn't "the line," but where its drawn in the larger context of communication. And when catch-phrases are tossed out like, "don't piss in my cheerios" and "don't be such a raging asshat," they're conflated and applied to an individual's subjective experience.

What qualifies as "acceptable" and "unacceptable" is the real issue. And what is "acceptable" for YOU, might not be "acceptable" for ME. So when we're talking about general fandom "rules" of communication, the problem is much bigger than what someone's individual personal preferences are.

Anyhoo. Interesting discussion.

Thank you for posting this! I read cereta's post, and I completely agree with it. I'm glad that you brought this issue up to the forefront.
Overall, I think it's good to follow the Golden Rule- do unto others as you would have them do unto you. And also it's good to think about karma- if you are courteous, people will be courteous to you.