i'm avoiding my actual work

A few days ago, whilst reading poisontaster's meta, Why Is There Not More Shunning, I hit a comment that I'm still thinking about. And not even due to Care Bear trauma for distraction.

vee_fic wrote here (partial quote):

On the other hand, I tend to agree with cryptoxin describing the JournalFen cluster of comms as the "rogue judiciary" -- especially now that UnfunnyBusiness is up. You show up on F_W, it's because you acted wanky; you may know what is silly behavior by what shows up on F_W. You show up on UFB, it's because you acted in a way that makes rage; you may know the borders of fandom's anger by reading that comm. The existence of the two places -- and the distinction between them -- are educations in the (changing) parameters of acceptable behavior within fandom.

One, I'd like to find the post that cryptoxin discusses this in, because wow, that is kind of the nutshell of what I haven't been able to articulate.

I kinda agree. I know Unfunny Business isn't one of the direct wank offspring as stated: more the unacknowledged bastard hate child of OTF by way of Deep Thoughts during a drunken one night stand, but it *does* have the same feeling. In retrospect, I'm also surprised it didn't pop up a lot sooner; the borderlands between snark at pretentious and anger at stupidity can be narrow and crossed easily most of the time, and I think a lot of people go both ways when we get hit with something and we'd like to indulge both. Miss Scribe (bad_penny comm) was funny as hell, but it was also, for those intimately involved, hideously painful either in present or in the past.

Examples: OSBP was enraging and also hilarious by turns depending on what time of day it was, because you couldn't help staring at the arguments and wondering if some of them really were aware what they were saying*. The SPN stealth-comm takeover arrangements leading back to a history of comm-coups in SPN. SVA Vs JKR in all it's weird glory.

Usually, I can get the general tenor how fandom is thinking if I hit Fandom Wank, UFB, Wank Report, and MetaFandom by turns and not just on the fandom-eating issues. Sure, every once in a while, like OSBP, something hits us out of nowhere, but also, I'm not really sure it does. I'd bet money if you traced metafandom over six months, you could work out a fairly good predictive model for blow up probability. Whether it goes all-fandom wide or not is trickier**.

It becomes trickier when I think of dogpile versus shun and why we wince when we see it or do it, and I'm not entirely sure it's Cult of the Nice or Geek Fallacy or even World of Women that's the base theory behind it. I think it's the same reason Miss Scribe lasted so long, why some fanpeople can get away with a *lot* of shitty behavior, and why most of us won't and don't even consider doing a reveal of someone we know who screwed us over outside filter and likely do it only over AIM to loyal parties only. Sometimes, I think no one wants to start a war and find it turned on them. It's a lot safer to wait for critical mass to get hit and have a comm pick it up.

Pretty sure I had a point here. When you find it, that is totally what this entry was about. Not rambling at all.


* - for the rest of my life, I will never understand how the OP could talk about the shy, insecure women who tentatively asked for breast-enpowerment through groping and not realize how fucking creepy that was. I don't think any phrase ever skeeved me as badly as that one in how it was both worded and that it existed at all. And there is no way that could have been worded by anyone that it wouldn't have set off every alarm I have installed, both pre-installed and society-created models.

** - I've often wondered if the explosion in OSBP is related to the Mary Jane debacle that some of us walked out of feeling vaguely shell-shocked and nauseated by turns. At least for me, seeing the same reworded statement in defense of the former that were posted in the latter under anonymous (and those charming flames, fun) was enlightening. I don't often go from zero to DIAF that fast.

Comments

[seperis.livejournal.com]

In a tangential and not primary way, though, I think it does. Most of us don't go zero to death in five seconds. There's usually (not always, but usually) a reason that a *lot* of people explode at once, especially in the diversity of Fandom itself. If the person has been biting their tongue against a, b, c, for like, a year, and d occurs and someone else remarks negatively, it's a *lot* easier to run *with* them to yell no than feel like you are doing it on your own.

I mean, that's one of the reasons I like the fannish dogpile, even though I twitch; it acts as an object lesson as well as a release for fen.

[ladycat777.livejournal.com]

In a tangential and not primary way, though, I think it does

Okay. I can see that. But since it is tangential, I'm not sure the two concepts can be so intimitely linked. It's the problem I had with PT's post where she linked shunning with dogpiling. Yes, I completely understand why she did -- they were both brought up in the post she'd originally read -- but the very fact that they are linked in a more-than-tangential way is something that doesn't sit well with me.

These issues all overlap, but I'm not sure I like the way they do. Shunning is brought up to replace dogpiling, which flat out baffles me since they're contradictory, not related, and the former is thoroughly ineffective in the online world while the latter is effective.

Then there's also the point of who blames who? One of the reasons I loathe when dogpiling is brought up by those who are "watching" what's going on is because it's almost always used as a cut against the original person who stood up and said something. While I can conceive of a situation where someone might post to create dogpiling intentionally -- and undeservedly -- I am not sure I've ever seen one where it wasn't called on almost immediately. And yes, I suspect there are some that weren't, which sucks.

But it's the minority. Whether I disagree or agree with the person who is standing up, there is a reason they are, a reason other people are standing with or against them, and I find the tacit blame associated with people who "call out" dogpiling to be passive-aggressive and childish. There is a reason. I hope it's a good one, it's not like the system isn't rife for corruption because like any vaguely punishment-like institution, of course it is.

Aaaand I'm losing my point. Dammit, this is why I don't debate!

[seperis.livejournal.com]

These issues all overlap, but I'm not sure I like the way they do. Shunning is brought up to replace dogpiling, which flat out baffles me since they're contradictory, not related, and the former is thoroughly ineffective in the online world while the latter is effective.

Yes, except--and this is for the sake of argument only--shunning may not look as spectacular from the outside, but having twenty people unfriend you can be fairly traumatizing as well. It's true that you can always find an adherent adn some people will stay no matter what, but I can see an argument that fannish withdrawal and rejection can be pretty painful. It's just not at all easy to measure.

[ladycat777.livejournal.com]

but I can see an argument that fannish withdrawal and rejection can be pretty painful. It's just not at all easy to measure.


True, but that's also a little subjective because in what situation will that happene? Is it the SVMaria situations -- which I consider to be FW material -- or is it the Kristillnacht (Unfunnybusiness) situation? I think in the former, it'll have more effect maybe more than the latter.

I think also that my problem with the association is that when I think of shunning, I think of full-on Amish version, where someone is absolutely cut off. Having 20 people unfriend you is painful, absolutely, but I don't really view it shunning. It's people reevaluating who they want in their lives and why. That... isn't shunning. Shunning is punishment with no other redeeming value, and often it's just as painful to those *doing* the shunning.

Why is everything I talk about devolve back into semantics? I don't even like semantics!

And I have no idea if this is making any sense, sorry.

[trobadora]

but having twenty people unfriend you can be fairly traumatizing as well.

Sure, but you'd have to have them friended first, and really, how often is that the case? Shunning only works within your own social circle, and the kinds of protests we're talking about here usually aren't. So calling for one as the replacement of the other really doesn't make any sort of sense to me.

[ladycat777.livejournal.com]

*breathes* Thank you for being logical. I normally lack that gene, but I am incredibly deficient today and I'm just not saying everything I keep wanting to say.

[trobadora]

*hugs*

[amireal.livejournal.com]

Also, the person at the center of a storm like we're talking about, usually won't care about losing 20 people, especially if they're not all mutually friended. HOWEVER, what will probably happen is the shunning will spill over to the person who spoke out and they will probably be the type TO care about it.

[trobadora]

Maybe. But I think the what matters really is the simple fact that I can speak out against everyone, but I can only shun those I have contact with. So to me, suggesting shunning instead of "dogpiling" is actually suggesting we all look away and pretend it's not happening.

[seperis.livejournal.com]

I'm not arguing replacement at all. I *don't* think shunning works. But I can see the arguments made for it, because if you want to poke a really sensitive fannish spot, being abandoned by your flist? Totally a place that is an ultratwitch.

[trobadora]

Ok, now that I've read ladycat777's comment below, I think I understand what you mean. There's been so much conflation of different issues in recent posts!

[seperis.livejournal.com]

God, I know. It's--I can totally see how they feel. I don't agree, but that humiliation squick thing *does* make me sympathetic to how people see it who suddenly see themselves in teh same position and get freaked out.

[trobadora]

Well. I have a HUGE humiliation squick, but I find using that kind of thing to justify the stifling of criticism incredibly problematic.

[seperis.livejournal.com]

Of course it is and no, it's not justified. It's not based on logic. It's--*thinks*--knee-jerk. So to speak.

[ladycat777.livejournal.com]

Ah ha! Okay, I think I see the problem here, because I'm not actively trying to argue with you, or be a dick :)

Since I read the post PT referenced, I'm looking at this very much as two separate things. There's the issue of dog-piling as one of the things a poster thinks of -- that they might be, for saying something -- before actually making a post, and then there's the other issue of people on the outside looking at someone, maybe even a stranger, being dogpiled and being unhappy with it.

I'm speaking mostly to the latter. It's about someone else's post that's already up and the collective reaction to it.

Because yes, when looked at from the point of view of the one making the post, it's absolutely something to consider. Not everyone is going to automatically stand up and proclaim you queen of the internets for a week, because something was articulated, and a lot of those people who disagree may be your friends. Then shunning does work, and very effectively.

But I can't shun, say because she's still on my mind, libbymarie. I can only despair of ever having come across her.

[seperis.livejournal.com]

...god her name is in my lj now!

And yes, I agree. I think we were basically agreeing but talking abaout two separate issues in it. *g* I should have noticed faster.

[ladycat777.livejournal.com]

Sorry? God, even writing it felt awful :(

And nah, I didn't get it until I read your reply to 'dora, so I think we're good.

I mentioned in PT's journal that there're problems with the term wank vs discussion because a lot of it is where you stand in what's going on. It's wank when you think the whole thing is ridiculous, when you know you're right and everybody else is wrong, wrong, wrong. It's discussion when you care about the answers, when you're actively trying to learn, even if it's a bumpy process.

It's the same with this. Dog-piling when it's you sucks, because either you didn't mean it, or you didn't realize, whatever. Dog-piling when it's someone else is a useful tool for teaching (hopefully).

It's all just... messy. And that's one of the reasons I disliked the original OP's post about dog-piling. It was trying to make something either/or when it's really complicated. There's way too much grey to separate out the black.

[seperis.livejournal.com]

God yes. Wan and discussion are unfortunately used indiscriminately and it's frustrating.

And yeah, there's too much grey. That's why I tend twoard fannish group movement when something goes sour. I just dont' see another way.

[trobadora]

Thank you - now it's starting to make sense to me. *g*

[ladycat777.livejournal.com]

:)

It's all just very confusing, this social mores thing. I would like to put it on notice *hunts for Colbert; darn it, he's never around when you need him*