I don't know, it always seemed to me to be common courtesy to say `Spoilers inside' if you're giving away a plot. I don't care if you think everyone has or should have seen / read / heard it by now, it's polite.

Heck, I'm the guy who threw a tantrum over the Eurovision song contest winner being revealed on an FPP.

A good example is the next post in line `Anyone else seen the film Brick?'. Not having seen the film yet, I'm not going to read the thread. If the poster wrote `X was the murderer in Brick?!? Discussion thread!', I'd be pretty ticked off.

I think that sometimes, rational people can get very emotional when presented with seemingly-irrational requests. If a question starts, "what happens in the final scenes of this book? More inside," then anyone should know that the book will probably be spoiled inside, and a spoiler warning would just be treating people like idiots. However, like tomble, I'm not crazy about spoilers, so if the thread was, "X was Keyser Soze!! I'm shocked!" I think that's inappropriate.

In other words, I'm not the person you're addressing this to, and I should just shut up.

I'm generally in favor of spoiler warnings personally, but on MF we don't have a set policy about them which means that it's basically a "be considerate" policy. Accordingly, when people demand spoilers (I'm not saying anyone did in this case, I'm saying it's happened) other people say "Why should I change my behavior to suit your preferences?" which is a typical question we see on MF on many different types of topics. If the answer is "because it's polite" or "because it's disrepectful" you're basically claiming that there is a body of rules/norms/standards that their behavior is outside of. If you say "because you ruined my day" people reply "I don't care about your day"

In the case of spoilers, from an admin perspective, it's a little more difficult to change than nsfw and requires editing peoples posts which we try not to do. In short, it's the same basic conflict as the "please leave the seat down" conflict. People who don't naturally do it get a little annoyed that people claim they're being inconsiderate or not adhering to etiquette that they don't even subscribe to. In this case they're just trying to share something with the MF (in this case) community.

In smaller communities it's a lot easier to have shared norms and procedures, in larger ones it's really tough to enforce something like spoilers which means that every now and again something like this happens. It's a pretty rare occurrence and we're a little more vigilant about it during World Cup or Olympic times but people who get very very OMG SPOILERS as if MetaFilter is ruined for all time because someone posted the end to a 45 year old story, seem to be being somewhat dramatic and failing to see that in a large community sometimes you're going to see things you don't want to see. If there are no rules that specifically forbid spoilers, claiming that there should be because of your particular personality type seems a little "everyone should be like me" in nature. I'd love it if we could truly poll the MF community to see who cared about spoilers, inline images, nsfw images, newsfilter and a host of other things. In the absence of that ability, we have to make our best guesses and spoilers seems to fall into the same category of people who dislike swearing on the site -- it's disturbing and annoying to a small group of users who may have to make a choice about whether the laxity on that particular issue is going to be a dealbreaker for them.

What's the spoiler policy here?

Oh, is it really just adding the WORD "spoiler" that upsets people, because they see it as redundant? I don't care about the word. I just want some kind of warning so that I can choose not to look. The "more inside" approach works just as well as writing "spoiler".

As a spoiler hater, I would get equally exasperated with someone who clicked on a "more inside" link and got offended. They need to get some common sense.

muddgirl: The original askme post actually gave the spoiler in the question itself, before the [more inside].

grumblebee, I think you're being way too nice by taking this conversation to metachat. It deserves a fight, and the point of metatalk is to have such fights there.

jessamyn: I'd love it if we could truly poll the MF community to see who cared about spoilers, inline images, nsfw images, newsfilter and a host of other things. In the absence of that ability, we have to make our best guesses and spoilers seems to fall into the same category of people who dislike swearing on the site

Are you really saying that you have no idea whether more mefi users care about spoilers than about swearing? How often have there been meta arguments about spoilers, and how often about swearing? I realize that you haven't conducted a double-blind scientific study, but come on.

Jessamyn, I'm not in favor of any sort of policy change on MeFi. I would just hope people would be polite, especially when it doesn't cause them much hardship. I realize that some people just aren't polite, but I'd rather not answer my own questions by saying, "hey, some people are just assholes."

I think that's dangerous. There may be a rational reason that I haven't thought of. I'd rather try to see outside of my own mental box.

But if you're serious about this...

If you say "because you ruined my day" people reply "I don't care about your day"

...then I'm baffled. And I'm a pretty big misanthrope.

grumblebee, I think you're being way too nice by taking this conversation to metachat. It deserves a fight, and the point of metatalk is to have such fights there.

Bingo, in my experience, "a fight" won't work. Unless the goal is just to blow off steam. And I'm not interested in that. I'd LOVE to solve the problem via some sort of compromise. Having discussed this for years, I'm pretty sure that's not going to happen. So, in light of that, I'd like at least to understand where the other side is coming from.

I don't know about you, but I find that if I can get inside someone's head, it can help me feel better.

If the problem is that there is no anti-spoiler policy, and people don't want to be considerate otherwise, then I think there should be one. Not punishable by banning, only something to reinforce that it is a community norm not to spoil things for others unwittingly.

Another thing that keeps coming up in these discussions is how recently the movie/book has been published. Many people seem to feel that whereas it's reasonable to ask people to be careful about spoiling a movie that just came out, it's unreasonable to ask them to post a spoiler warning about "Citizen Kane", "Gone With the Wind", "Lord of the Rings," or "Hamlet."

I'm pretty baffled by this too, since publication date doesn't necessarily correlate to when someone first reads a book or sees a movie. Even if we say (and I don't know why we'd say this) that if a movie came out 20 years ago, people have had their chance to see it and be surprized, that doesn't make sense, because new people are being born all the time.

A 19-year-old who comes to Metafilter hasn't had enough time to catch up with the "culturally literate" folks. But he only has one change -- in his whole life -- to be surprised by the end of "Citizen Kane."

grumblebee, you may be unintentionally opening new vistas for creative anarchy, by indirectly encouraging people to post fictional pseudo-spoilers, instead of the genuine buzzkill articles, so that you can remain blissfully ignorant. Personally, I'm frequently pressed for time, and welcomed SOAP's producers frank concern for my situation, when they made the critical synopsis of their opus the title. If more forward thinking people like them courageously followed that example, I'd know about thousands of pieces of dreck that I could drop from any future consideration of choices, for the small price of your preferred state of ignorance.

It's even worse for people like me, if the pseudo-spoiler posters you may be inadvertently encouraging start posting things like "Why didn't Glenn Close just take an EPT pregnancy test in 'Fatal Attraction' instead of murdering a bunny?" Or "What could the One Armed Man in 'The Fugitive' have accomplished if he'd applied himself, in the 'wax on/wax off' style previously explored by Ralph Macchio in 'The Karate Kid'?" See where we're going with this? Once there are a few thousand people posting pseudo-spoilers indiscriminately, you can remain gladly underinformed until the cows come home, but I'm so screwed.

paulsc, I'm lost. Sorry. All I'm asking is for someone to post a warning -- and then after posting, they're free to spoil away.

How is that encouraging "pseudo spoilers"?

I'm not in favor of any sort of policy change on MeFi. I would just hope people would be polite

And they are mostly polite on this topic. Sometimes they are not. The question is whats the plan when they're not polite? The occasional flagging or MetaTalk thread seems to solve this pretty well.

How often have there been meta arguments about spoilers, and how often about swearing? I realize that you haven't conducted a double-blind scientific study, but come on.

I think it's runs about 5 to 1 spoilers, but the point is they're both things that some people care about. I'm not claiming equivalencies, they're just in the same category where having a blanket admin solution to the problem as stated is likely to have its own repercussions, it's not zero-sum. I'm just not sure if there are five people that hate threads without spoiler warnings or 500 or 5000.

paulsc: ..for my part, if someone posted a question about why Glenn Close's character had to kill the bunny, that would be a spoiler just as bad as the one in the askme thread we're talking about (and in fact, it is one even within this thread).

grumblebee: Bingo, in my experience, "a fight" won't work.

I guess you're right in essence, but the moderators do notice, and respond to, the amount of clamoring relative to particularly sensitive issues. Even here, jessamyn is talking as if this may be a tiny niche probem that few people even care about. Since I believe that to be way off base, I'd say that the "fight" could still result in a "victory."

...but I respect your willingness to get inside the other person's head.

jessamyn: To me, here is really the crux of the issue. Someone can swear and then say that they don't care whether other people are offended. This makes a sort of sense, because the issue of the decency or indecency of swearing itself, and the thing that they were trying to communicate when they did the swearing, are probably not even remotely related. However, when someone *initiates* a discussion about a certain work of fiction (which is the case in the askme thread in question), then that poster is implicitly saying that *they care* about that piece of fiction, that it's personally relevant to them, and that they are specifically asking for input from other people who feel the same way. To include a spoiler at the same time is (to me) to effectively say: "Oh, but for those of you who actually haven't had the joy of even beginning this particular book, why don't you go off to the corner and eat shit?" It's not just careless, it's mean, and it usually goes against the spirit of the poster's own question, whether they realize it or not.

I didn't read either the original or the meta thread (because, actually, I haven't read the book - and I don't want spoilers), so I don't know how upset people got, but a really important thing to factor in here is that people very much like to get mean and pissy in metatalk - about any old thing. So... it's possible that it's not so much sincere anti-spoiler warning sentiment, as just acting out in Meta.

"... How is that encouraging "pseudo spoilers"?"
posted by grumblebee 01 October | 11:03

See, pseudo spoilers don't actually reveal anything about the work in question, so they don't spoil anything for you, but likewise they don't reveal anything useful for me, so...

Oh, never mind.

Just level shiftin' here.

I agree with those who say this conversation really could have stayed in Metatalk, since that's where it begun. No one was getting out of control there, IMO (no personal attacks? no inline images? that's halfway to boring!)

I'm not against spoilers; I don't think people should run around willy-nilly spoiling the end of books/movies/TVshows/musicals (did you know that Bat Boy The Musical has a twist so shocking at the end that most people will not even discuss it on the internet, so as not to ruin it for others? I haven't seen the show, and I'm not totally certain of what happens!). It's the Metatalk threads begging for spoilers when the media is very old that's a little annoying. It's just one of the topics that has been hashed to death, it seems (see: RSS feeds for every AskMeta thread, and other begged for ponies). And it's always for the threads where there's no one who feels the item was "ruined" for them personally; threads that start with, "I am personally upset that someone ruined the end of X book I am currently reading" might draw more sympathy (although, since it's Meta, probably not).

Metafilter is full of people who:
a) are fairly smart
b) have lots of time on their hands and so
c) like to spend a lot of time showing everyone how smart they are

This results in a large group of people who seem all to happy to debate things that don't really matter to them. Add in to this mix how offended people get to be called out in metatalk, plus the seemingly constant need to be more outraged than everyone else and the result is what you see there.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Except that this isn't a Metafilter-only phenomenon. I love stories, hate having them spoiled, and so have been arguing this all my life -- on and offline.

Sometimes it gets eerie. More than once, I've been talking with a good friend about this, and all of the sudden, this usually kind and understanding person will sport a wicked grin and start rattling off as many spoilers as he can come up with, usually starting with a famous one about a sled. I've rarely come across other topics that can turn well-meaning people into sadists.

Sometimes I think it's becaue my pleas against spoilers reveal how highly I value stories. Which is true, I do. Next to the important people in my life, there is nothing as important to me as stories. Perhaps that comes across as judgemental to others: "Oh, you care SO much about 'Hamlet'! You appreciate it in a deeper and more meaningful way than a boring, average-Joe like me. I guess if I was an artEEST like you, I'd care about spoilers."

I certainly don't indend this meaning, and I also may be totally off-the-mark in supposing that people think this. But I'm still groping around in the dark, trying to understand why this is such a contentious issue.

ThePinkSuperhero, I didn't think that the MetaTalk thread was becoming problematic. I brought this here because I'm a worthless judge of what is "chatfilter," but I worried that this might seem like chatfilter to other people. And I didn't want the conversation to get closed.

Hmph. Sounds like flame-bait to me.

Grumblebee, I'd venture the answer to your question is that some people just like being jerks and seek out opportunities to act that way. I doubt very much anybody is going to offer a reasoned critique of the postive aspects of jerkiness.

It's one of those frontal lobe versus medula/amygdala things and the lizard-brain always wins (at least behaviorly.)

I fear that you're right, warbaby, but I refuse to give in to that fear. If we just say, "some people are assholes," we lose the possibility, no matter how slim, of connecting to another mind. Which is surely the highest goal to have when living in a society.

Why do people get upset?

1. Because they really want to talk about the work and feel that posting a warning slows down their instant access to information.
2. Because you asking for a spoiler warning means they omitted it, which on the internet is tantamount to calling them an idiot (because really, who forgets spoiler warnings, except for those so hyped they fall into #1). It's the old nerd conversation where: "Did you bring the flashlights?" translates to "I don't think you're smart enough to have remembered the flashlights."
3. Heightened levels of arousal are easily misattributed and misappopriated. People who are really excited about something don't get moderately angry at a perceived slight, they get really angry. The arousal level is the same, but the underlying emotion has changed. Combine 1 with 2 and you get snippiness.

And dammit, my answer in the AskMe thread hasn't been marked best yet. I want to punch walls and throw things. I was really excited about that answer!

(What good is being a psychologist if you can't poke fun at yourself using SCIENCE!?)

Thanks, Eideteker. Good theories (unless you're one of the people who actually gets upset by people like me, in which case, thanks for your honesty).

Well... maybe it is kind of something about you, grumblebee. I hate spoilers so much I won't even read the stuff on the the back of paperbacks until I'm finished with the book, and if someone wants to start discussing the setting or give me a short synopsis of the plot, I just say, "No, no! Don't tell me anything!

And then they don't.

So, yeah - maybe you're just explaining way too much about how it's so important to you, instead of just saying "Don't tell me", and this prompts their - what did we call it? imp of the perverse? - to come out.

Taz is correct (I knew there was a reason I adored her!) in that there's an innate reflex in us that wants to automatically contradict any factual statement (right now, you're saying "no there isn't!"). The stronger the person argues or avers their point, the stronger the reaction. And this is completely aside from any emotional reaction to a perceived attack. It works in emotionally opposite situations, too; just watch someone receiving a compliment.

All my notes are in storage, so I can't remember if it's called Contradiction Bias or Counterargumentation bias or what the hell. You'll just have to take my word.

Interesting, and it's funny -- I do all the same things as taz: I don't read the backs of books, etc.

I tend to have extreme reactions to things. If you're right, Eideteker, it means I'm doomed (unless I can curb my nature) to a life of meaningless arguments. I enduce a knee-jerk reaction which makes people contradict me, even if they don't really have a problem with the content of what I'm saying.

Joy.

Eideteker, can you fess up as to whether or not you're one of the people who gets angered by my opinions?

If not, then as interesting (and possibly on-the-mark) as your theories are, they're little more than interesting theories.

It's still possible (maybe not terribly likely, but possible), that someone will show up here and say, "I have a problem with posting spoiler warnings because..."

I completely agree with everything grumblebee has said about this. I have no idea why some people get so upset about requests for spoiler warnings. Frankly, I think it is straight-up misanthropy.

Eideteker, can you fess up as to whether or not you're one of the people who gets angered by my opinions?

You seem to be placing people who disagree with you in the "angry" category, as though there are only two ways to think about this topic. I don't think anybody gets angry at the *idea* of posting spoiler tags; it's that they get angry every time someone posts a whiny Metatalk thread begging for spoiler tags on an item that's 45 years old.

grumblebee, stories which can truly be spoiled usually rely on some literary device whose concealment creates the plot, or the story. You may like certain genre more than others in which this is a common mechanism, but for many of us who don't swim in those waters routinely, the very idea that we're "spoiling" something is so foreign, it never crosses our minds.

Just because I know how Huckleberry Finn turns out, doesn't diminish the pleasure of reading the story, or its freshness, when I do. If you can only "fully" enjoy a work the first time you see or hear it, I'm sorry for you. Maybe working to develop your suspension of disbelief would help, as letting an author or director "take you" somewhere is something of a learned skill.

Furthermore, I find that in a world that is filled with more books, movies, and other media than I can possibly sample, people's revelations about the best of it are pretty valuable to me, in determining what to see and read. If a work depends, like "The Crying Game" did, on the mechanical grinding of some deus ex machina, I consider finding that out without spending time or money on it, a valuable service. It lets me consign "The Crying Game" or "The Sixth Sense" or most Danielle Steele novels to the category "Only if it's 3:00 a.m. and I can't sleep, and it doesn't cost anything." right away.

Framing everything in "spoiler alerts" for those of you who seem to have inordinate trouble fully suspending disbelief when the time comes seems tiresome to me, and unrealistic for you. But good luck convincing the broader world of your views.

No really, good luck with that. Sincerely. I'm not mad at you. But I might be, at some point, if you keep whining.

for crying out loud, would you all like some more cheese with your whine? The book is 45 years old. You are not entitled to dictating how everyone behaves on the front page. The poster was not trying to ruin everything for you, they merely wanted to talk about the book.

Those people complaining about their being a lack of a spoiler really need to come off their mountain top and realize that not everyone works the way they do. Put the spoiler in context. The book is 45 years old. The poster wanted to discuss it with people who had read it. They were not trying to ruin the ending for you. Welcome to the real world - please think beyond yourselves.

(and this is where the "anger" comes out - it has to do with people's false sense of entitlement and has nothing to do with spoilers; the same anger appears on pony requests, self policing threads, whatever.)

Eideteker is right on.

Other reasons:

Often, it seems that the person requesting the spoiler warning does so in a confrontational way and from a position of entitlement, which gets others' dander up. Some of this is no doubt just because people think they're being implicitly called an idiot.

Second, people in that thread aren't really complaining about putting a spoiler warning into that FPP and shoving the spoiler into the thread, I don't think. I think they're really reacting to all of the other instances in which someone has complained about a spoiler in the thread itself.
And getting annoyed at that sort of complaint is pretty reasonable, because it boils down to "You shouldn't be allowed to have interesting discussions of the plot points of any piece of creative content ever created, because somebody who can hear or see you might not know about them already."

You seem to be placing people who disagree with you in the "angry" category

Only because I'm not expressing myself well. I don't think people who disagree with me are necessarily angry. And I take your point that you're sick of repeated MetaTalk posts that go nowhere (that's totally understandable).

I was just trying to figure out where Eideteker was coming from. Is he (she?) psychoanalyzing other people or himself? If he's theorizing about other people, that's one thing (an interesting thing, but not what I'm looking for), but I'm hoping he's talking about his own feelings, because I wanted to hear from someone in the "opposing camp."

If you can only "fully" enjoy a work the first time you see or hear it, I'm sorry for you.

Paulsc, I have tried (and failed) here and elsewhere to be clear that I don't only enjoy works the first time or even (necessarily) enjoy them best the first time. But the first time is a unique experience -- simply because it's the first time. Surely that's not debatable. Whether or not one values that experience is a different matter. Some people don't. I do. I greatly value it. That doesn't mean that I devalue subsequent experiences. Nor does it mean a work is ruined for me if I never get that first experience. But it DOES mean that the surprise aspect of the first-experience is ruined for me. And that's ALL it means. But to me, that means a lot.

I acutally have a huge problem with the word "spoiler," becuase it DOES sound like a work of art is ruined. It's not. It's just the surprise aspect of the first-time encounter that is ruined. Which (again) I greatly value.

I have no argument as to why I greatly value it, other than how strongly it makes me feel. And since I only read/watch stories for sensual reasons (I'm not interested in stories for their intellectual content), I greatly value ANY aspect of them that makes me feel.

You are not entitled to dictating how everyone behaves on the front page.

I'm not sure who you're addressing, but if it's me, you should know that I agree with you. I'm NOT entitled to dictate anything to anyone. As much as I involve myself in Metafilter policy, I would advocate AGAINST a policy banning spoilers (as I told Jess at the top of this thread). I am STRONGLY in favor of free speech and am against any form of censorship.

Feel free to post spoilers. I'll feel free to argue against them. But let's not have policy.

The poster wanted to discuss it with people who had read it. They were not trying to ruin the ending for you. Welcome to the real world - please think beyond yourselves.

Here's what I don't understand: if the poster writes "spoiler," then he gets what he wants, which is to discuss the story, and I get what I want, which is a warning.

I'm NOT thinking only of myself. If I was, I would advocate for no movie/books discussions on Metafilter. Frankly, that would serve my purposes best. But that would be extraordinarily selfish! I couldn't live with myself if I advocated that sort of thing. Instead, I'm advocating a world in which we try to respect EACH OTHER'S wishes. I MUST tolerate other-people's desire to discuss movies/books. Hopefully, they will respect my desire (which is not just mine) to not have plots spoiled.

If this caused them any major hardship, I would advocate for the opposite side. People shouldn't have to post spoiler warnings if it's hard to do so. But it's EASY.

Also, I realize that people are human and sometimes forget. In my book, ANYONE who chastises someone because they forgot to post "spoiler" is an ASSHOLE! All I want is to live in a world in which people ATTEMPT to show respect for other people's wishes when it's not too hard to do so.

ROU, for the record, I am strongly opposed to requesting a spoiler in "a confrontational way," and would disassociate myself with anyone who did so. And the minute guy A class guy B an idiot (or passive-aggressively implies it), guy A loses all of my respect.

And I absolutely think plot discussions should take place INSIDE threads -- just not on the front page. Clicking on a link is a choice. If I choose to click on a link that's clearly leading to a spoiler, I'm a self-righteous moron if I complain.

I just want a spoiler warning on the front page.

One of the things I find frustrating -- and no, I am also not "angry" about it, thanks -- is that the definition of a spoiler appears to be fluid, and that those people who want a high sensitivity paid to spoilers also tend to have a very broad definition of what a spoiler is.

To me (and to many others) the definition of a spoiler is restricted to a significant plot twist or unexpected ending, such as [CRYING GAME SPOILER] when Dil's gender is revealed at the end of the movie or [SOPRANOS SEASON 5 SPOILER] when Adrianna was killed. (The latter, incidentally, was spoiled for me by a Slate headline -- I hadn't seen the episode yet, but there it was, splashed right across the front page of Slate the very next morning. And yeah, it sucked to be spoiled, but I survived.) That's my gut reaction to what constitutes a spoiler, and where my instinct to be careful and considerate will kick in. It's also the category I would guess most people can agree on, even in the case of The Crying Game, which came out nearly 15 years ago.

However, some spoiler-sensitive folks evidently consider basic plot points or casting decisions of any movie or book to be a spoiler -- a position I do not share, and which I suspect many others don't share, either. See, for example, the MeTa discussion awhile back in which it was alleged that even mentioning that [ORIGINAL MANCHURIAN CANDIATE SPOILER-TO-SOME] Angela Lansbury is the villain in the original Manchurian Candidate is a spoiler. (Or in the case of The Crying Game, it's putting Stephen Rea being cast as an IRA member -- which is in the first scene -- in the same category as Dil's gender.) But I don't consider it a spoiler and, if not for the MeTa discussion, would never in a million years think to flag it as such -- not because I'm a misanthrope but because it's a plot point that spoils nothing. It's not a secret that she's in the movie the way a certain slasher film in the '90s that shall remain unnamed kept a certain actor's name out of the opening credits in order to keep his presence a surprise. It's also not something that's not immediately evident in the movie itself. Calling that a spoiler is nearly like saying it's a spoiler to mention that Hamlet is the prince of Denmark, and that he's a little moody over his father's death.

The second fluid category of what-constitutes-a-spoiler are spoiler elements that have entered the popular culture vernacular -- such as [CITIZEN KANE SPOILER, EVIDENTLY] Rosebud being the sled or [STAR WARS SPOILER, EVIDENTLY] Darth being Luke's father. (Some would argue that the Crying Game twist is in this category.) How and why are the thousands of participants at MeFi supposed to be held to a higher standard of secret-keeping than the entire culture at large? "Rosebud" is so widely known and understood that it's essentially become a metaphor. And yet I'm supposed to seriously entertain that it's equal to mentioning who got voted off on Survivor last week? And if I don't, then I'm just an angry, misanthropic asshole?

on preview:
People shouldn't have to post spoiler warnings if it's hard to do so. But it's EASY.

I agree, but ONLY in regards to the more restrictive definition of spoilers that I use in my second paragraph. It is NOT easy to post spoiler warnings regarding every single plot point or casting decision that someone, somewhere might not be aware of, nor to put spoiler warnings around every single pop cultural reference that might be constituted a spoiler. Expecting thousands of people who post on Metafilter to be held to a higher standard than any magazine or newspaper in the country is simply unreasonable.

And I absolutely think plot discussions should take place INSIDE threads -- just not on the front page. Clicking on a link is a choice. [...] I just want a spoiler warning on the front page.

Fair enough, if the post or question is specifically about a particular book or movie. But what about when a mention of a basic plot point arises in a broader discussion? Say there's a post about women in film in general, which wouldn't necessearily trigger anyone's spoiler radar. Does that mean ALL DISCUSSION of any specific plot point in any particular movie must therefore be off-limits in the thread, in case the one person who doesn't know about the leg-crossing scene in Basic Instinct? See, that's not asking for an easily granted consideration. That's asking an entire community to hamstring its conversation.

I'd like to thank stynxno, ROU, and ThePinkSuperhero (who I hope I don't mislabel by placing, at least in one way or another, as on the opposite side of the issue from me). I've learned a lot from you guys, and I'm grateful for your candor.

I may be trying to broker a compromise when I ask for spoiler warnings, but I need to understand that people come to the table with baggage (I, of course, come with my own baggage), and I can't assume they'll interpret what I say in a vacuum.

TPS has taught me that many "discussers" (which, for lack of a better word, is what I'll call the people who want to discuss plots without worrying posting spoiler warnings) may feel like they've been repeated battered with the same "post spoilers" hammer over and over and over. How annoying! Even if I'm speaking for myself alone, to them I'm just one more annoying bonk on the head.

From ROU I've learned that people often request spoiler-warnings "in a confrontational way." And sometimes go so far as to complain about spoilers INSIDE a thread -- even though they could have avoided the spoiler by not going inside the thread. I'm embarrassed to be lumped with such people.

From stynxno I've learned that people who complain about spoilers come across as having "a false sense of entitlement," believing that they should be able to dictate what people discuss.

I will try to keep all these things in mind during future discussions. I can't express how grateful I am to all of you for your eloquence. I've been discussing this stuff for 30 years, but usually people get angry as-soon-as I say anything and won't explain why. So I'm left either mystified or playing armchair psychoanalysis games -- which I hate playing, because I think they are condescending and error-prone.

I am not on the "opposite side of the issue" as you- this is not an us vs. you issue. I am all for spoiler warnings on the front page; most people aren't against them. It's, as scody goes into above, the fact that every single plot point is considered by someone to be a spoiler, and then there's a Metatalk thread, and whining, etc. etc.

scody, people like me who hate spoilers HAVE to understand that in discussion, people don't think about the ramifications of everything they say. Which is to basically say that I agree with everything you posted.

I still feel like there's a middle ground here, and I wish people weren't so polarized. I don't blame you if you "slip up" and inadvertently "spoil" something. I respect the fact that you're a human, not a robot, and I grow up enough to realize that my needs don't trump everyone else's. Meanwhile, you respect my way of interactive with stories just enough to TRY not to spoil them. That's all I want and all I feel I have the right to ask for (not demand -- ask for).

[As for the rest of your post, in which you make interesting points about what constitutes a spoiler, it's a fascinating question. I'm not going to get into it here, because I feel it will cause a derail. But I do have some strong feelings about it -- some of which don't entirely agree with yours. And I'd be happy to discuss this with you via email or elsewhere.

But as a point of policy or polite behavior, I AM in agreement with you. If I'm upset because me mention that so-and-so is cast in a movie, that's MY problem. (Nevertheless, I might get upset about it. Hopefully, I'd have the maturity to keep my feelings to myself.)]

Sorry, TPS, I don't feel like we're on opposing sides. I keep screwing up by trying to simplify things in my posts. I think we're just talking at cross purposes.

I actually sort of feel like I'm on no one's side -- that I'm standing on an island by myself.

There are people (you?) who are sick of the conversation. Clearly I'm not on their side; there are people who think anyone who posts any sort of spoiler are evil or rude. I'm not on their side; there are people who think anti-spoiler people are holier-than-thou; I'm not on their side.

I'm on the side of compromise.

But I fear it's too much of a hot-button issue for that to happen. Which means I should probably shut up. And I'm toying with the idea of doing just that. Except ... I started the thread. Still, if no one shares my agenda, I'm pissing in the wind.

I'm on the side of compromise

But there is one. The general rule seems to be that I don't post the winner of Project Runway without a warning and in return, I get to discuss the fact that both Romeo and Juliet die at the end without getting castigated.

But the argument against there being a time limit on spoilers kind of ruins that compromise. As scody (and others) have pointed out, at some point things get absorbed into the popular culture. They become part of the shorthand we use to communicate with one another. I shouldn't have to worry that if I refer to a teenage tragedy as "Romeo and Juliet" that I'm just ruining the Bard for someone for life.

jrossi4r, how about you just TRY not to spoil ANY story -- including R&J. And I cut you some slack if you forget, especially if you forget to do it with some canonized work of literature.

I realize that it might be impossible to talk about certain subjects without bringing up spoilers that have become "absorbed into the popular culture," but I doubt there are all that many of them. Can you come up with many Front Page Posts in which such references are necessary?

Instead of posting, "What did Mr. X mean at the end of Movie Y when he said Z?", why not post, "I have a question about one of the last lines of dialogue in Movie Y"?

Instead of posting, on the front page, a question that asks whether event N happens the same way in both "Romeo and Juliet" and "West Side Story," why not just post, "I know 'West Side Story' is an adaptation of 'Romeo and Juliet. I'm wondering about the similarities and differences in one specific scene [more inside]"?

By the way, if it was the first time I'd ever seen "West Side Story," I'd rather not know it's an adaptation of "R&J," so even my example is a kind of spoiler. I think this falls into the category scody brought up. If I posted something like this and someone called me, I would apologize. I know how bad it feels to have something spoiled for you, and I don't want to inflict that on anyone. Still, I would be unhappy if my post was removed. I think my spoiling falls under the amount one is likely to do in casual conversation, even when one is invested in rooting out spoilers.

In other words, IF we're trying to allow free conversation but stop spoilers, we'll never reach perfection. So it's best to fall back on respect and politeness. Everyone tries his best; and everyone cuts everyone else slack.

With respect, grumblebee, "do things my way and I promise not to get mad if you fall short" is not a compromise.

The general rule seems to be ...

Whose general rule? I agree with Jess that we need more data (though I'm against policy changes). Do MOST people feel like it's okay to "spoil" canonized works? Do a few very vocal people feel this way?

In this thread, I count about five people on the "spoiler side" and five people on the "anti spoiler side" (please don't take those labels literally). And a bunch of people who seem more neutral. And I don't in any way assume that measuring this thread is scientific or that the people here represent the MeFi body at large.

One way to go with all this is to say, "Hey, right or wrong, there's a culture at Metafilter and it does things such-and-such a way. If you don't like doing things that way, fair enough. No one is forcing you to participate." But I'm not convinced that we know what the culture is or that there's anything close to a cultural stance on this issue. Are you? If so, on what basis?

With respect, grumblebee, "do things my way and I promise not to get mad if you fall short" is not a compromise.

True, but remember that "my way" involves ZERO policy changes or chastising. I am 100% against either. My way -- at its harshest -- means that I write, "Fred, do you know you just posted a spoiler to the front page?" And then Fred responds, "Oops. Sorry, I'll try to avoid doing that in the future."

Do MOST people feel like it's okay to "spoil" canonized works?

Grumblebee, Romeo & Juliet and Hamlet are tragedies. How else is everyone going to end up other than dead? Surely not even a 13-year-old with even the dimmest notion of the meaning of the word "tragedy" thinks R&J is going to end with the happy kids dashing off for their honeymoon in Venice.

Also, my understanding of "compromise" is that both parties give something up. Under "my system," which really just advocates people keeping each other's needs and desires in mind, I don't just agree "not to get mad if you fall short."

Under my system, I also agree to accept a certain amount of spoilers as natural in casual conversation and to not try to police against them. If you understood how upsetting spoilers are to me (how hard I work to avoid them -- not reading reviews or watching "previews from our next show", etc.), you'd understand that this is no small thing to give up on my part.

The only think I'm asking for (ASKING -- not demanding) is that if you realize you're about to post a spoiler (especially on the front page), you give me a warning.

Isn't "my system" the basis the basis on pretty much all polite systems? I try my best to keep your needs in mind; I don't kill myself to meet them, but if it's relatively easy for me to meet them without greatly inconveniencing myself (e.g. writing the word "spoiler"), I do so. Meanwhile, you understand that I have many things on my mind and won't always remember to do so.

Scody, I'm not sure we want to go down this road, but I'd argue that tragedies need not end in death. As "exhibit one" I'd produce "Oedipus Rex." IF you read one of the versions of R&J with the word "Tragedy" in the title, then you would be dumb if you thought it was going to have a happy ending. But there are many many types of unhappy ending. In one popular adaptation of R&J, the character based on Juliet doesn't die.

Honestly...if someone stopped in the middle of a conversation about R&J and said they didn't want to "ruin the ending" for me, I'd take that as a profound insult. I'm pretty sure even some of the most proudly lowbrow people I know would find that condescending.

*deep breath*

Grumblebee, I think you're taking me a little literally. I know that not all tragedies end in death. My point was going back to what I said earlier about significant amounts of plot points of literature entering the popular vernacular. By saying "Do MOST people feel like it's okay to "spoil" canonized works?" you are A) using a broad definition of spoiler, and B) assuming we all agree on it, so that our only point of difference is whether or not it's "okay" to spoil. I, and others, disagree. Just sticking with Romeo and Juliet, there are countless -- countless -- references to them dying, to "star-crossed" lovers, etc. in movies, TV shows, cartoons, advertisements, jokes, metaphors, etc. I knew the basic story of Romeo & Juliet at the age of 6 or 7 -- not because I was some precocious Bard fan in first grade, and not because some mean person "spoiled" it for me. I knew because I had gleaned it from the culture at large.

In other words, you think it's "spoiling" Shakespeare's version of R & J to mention that they die; I think it's a simple acknowledgment of extremely common cultural knowledge. So when you ask if most of us think it's okay to "spoil" canonized works, as far as I'm concerned the question is the literarary equivalent of "when did you stop beating your wife?".

I don't get it, jrossi4r. Why would it be condescending if they knew you didn't know the ending?

When my theatre company performs Shakespeare plays, it's great fun when we have audiences who don't know the ending. They are the most engaged audiences. They gasp in surprise at all sorts of events.

Scody, I don't think it's spoiling R&J. It IS spoiling R&J (for someone who doesn't know what happens). But I think we're in agreement that it's wrong to chastise someone for doing so. And I even agree that it's wrong to blame someone for doing so because R&J is part of popular culture.

I'm not sure what else you want me to say. I admit, I WOULD feel bad if I found out I'd spoiled R&J for someone. I can't help that feeling. I know how horrible it feels to have a work spoiled for you. But I'm NOT advocating people stop talking about R&J.

Grumblebee, i wonder if you really understand scody's first post (that i feel was quite generously typed out and well said):
in general when people talk about spoilers, they mean the "narrower" version, and while that may extend to even twenty years past or more, when you start wanting people to censor themselves on what they see as widespread general knowledge that the rest of the most widespread media uses to express themselves, you are asking too much for people to even wonder where to start pruning.
If, for example, i say a quote, it's not just the words but the allusion to the work and possibly the setting in which it became quoteable, etc. and this has more of a chance of sparking someone's interest in searching out the quote and learning about Shakes the Clown (Shakespeare) that spoiling anything for them, or perhaps you. In that instance it could be that someone sees a certain play at some point and hears that heard line and gets a different kind of pleasure.
I don't think your stated concept of compromise is even what is best for you and follows more down the path of people not being able to discuss things because not everyone has.

Some things are spoiled for good in a way. they don't hold the test of time or they don't hold up or the ones they inspire surpass them to the point of them losing their relevancy, but people who want the level of "spoiler freeness" you do may just have to monitor themselves most as the only real precaution, because unless you mentally categories every stray phrase and turn you are not fully knowledgable of, things that go over your head or past you won't affect you in any spoiling way.

Now, i hate spoilers and i'm not one to see and do things as soon as they are able to be accessed, i also don't know how bad it's gotten at the mefi, but to cross the line that scody and jrossi and etc. have defined in the narrower field IS generally where the line of assholism starts.

Yes, people can try to be more considerate in their wording but they still have to try and attract the people who would be interested in bothering to discuss things, amongst other concerns. Do you see that?

Eidie and others have made valid points in how things come about and people should try to promote consideration, but besides people being young, inexperienced, ineloquent, what have you, it's not an easily demarcated line that goes across any board.

I could go on to pedantically go into many instances and examples, but i don't really want to right now, and if i had to every time such an instance came up, i'm more probably refrain from entering into any discussion at all.

Does that make sense?

If a conversation about Romeo and Juliet has already started, and you are at a dinner party with a bunch of college-educated adults (or even high school graduates who went to decent high schools), then of course everyone in the room knows how it ends.

That's a lot different than posting a question on an online bulletin board about a the ending of a science fiction novel that is popular, but substantially less popular than Romeo & Juliet, and which is also not required reading for most Americans by the time they finish high school, if not before.

Also, the sixth line of R&J is:

A pair of star-cross'd lovers take their life;

...so the audience isn't supposed to be in suspense. I doubt that 'Man In The High Castle' begins with a summary of the ending. If it does, this whole argument changes.

Clicking on a link is a choice. If I choose to click on a link that's clearly leading to a spoiler, I'm a self-righteous moron if I complain.

In the cases I'm thinking of, the FPP didn't clearly lead to a spoiler. There were just discussions of movies in which somebody innocently revealed facts about old movies.

Here, I think, the burden is on the listener. If you're so averse to spoilers that you really can't stand them, it behooves you to stay out of not just threads that have ---SPOILER--- in them, but any and all threads about films in general.

Talking about plots is part and parcel of talking about films. Polite people will go a little bit out of their way to avoid spoilers for current/recent films, and for films of any age where there's a serious twist. But beyond that, if being upset about an offhand relevation about casting in The Manchurian Candidate is going to make you upset, you should govern yourself accordingly and stay away from discussions of films. It's not reasonable to expect people to moderate their conversations to that extent.

Here, I think, the burden is on the listener.

I agree. Sort of.

I agree that with you that if you're participating in a discussion about film, you should expect spoilers or butt out.

But why does the burden have to be on anyone? Why isn't it on EVERYONE? Why can't all TRY to respect each other's wishes.

But I do agree that inside a thread, it the listened should share MORE of the burden.

Now excuse the typos of a that instead of a than or categories instead of categorize, but i have bothered to even type this in hopes of understanding you and in hopes of you understand what is, yes, a majority of people at large.
Mefi use to have want of a level knowingness in certain areas and i can't say how much has changed, but if someone slips from eagerness, emotion, eagerness, inexperiences, etc etc etc, it would be great if people didn't try their hand at oneupsmanship and approached things with largess, and as it use to be best set by example, that is perhaps still the best road to try and lead people down, not the straight line you propose.

Straight lines work in theory, not when they plow through or over topography.

I don't think anyone has disagreed with the concept of consideration.

ethylene, I DID undersrand scody's GOOD point. And I wish you didn't think, as it seems you do by the wording of your post, that I'm trying to censor anyone. I'm disgusted by all forms of censorship.

I don't believe spoilers should be censored.

I don't believe people in ANY sort of policy against spoilers.

I DO believe, that as a person you tries to be sympathetic to other people's feelings, I should understand that spoilers are hurtful to some. And I should do my best to WARN people before I write a spoiler.

I should not avoid talking about movies or books. I should not put up with chastisement if I inadvertently spoil something. I should not think about everything I say before it comes out of my mouth.

I should just realize that I'm living in a world in which some people are hurt by spoilers and I should give those people an odd thought now and then, when I can. And if I can figure out an easy way to save them some pain, I should do it.

I don't think anyone has disagreed with the concept of consideration.

I do. When there are a lot of posts that contain sentences that start with things like, "Why should I have to...?" then people are not being considerate.

Then maybe we are talking about a clarification of what is being an immature solipsistic asshole and your right to call them on that.

Scody, I apologize for taking you so literally. That's a great fault of mine, and I haven't yet figured out how to stop doing it. I'm working on it. I'm sure, from you're end, it's aggravating as hell.

ethylene, when did I say I had the right to call someone a "an immature solipsistic asshole." I would NEVER do that.

There you are inferring emotions upon me i do not have, and also trying too hard on behalf of others.
I think you intentions are good and for the general good but unrealistic in the fashion you propose.

I can try and try to convey myself in a way you deem neutral and understanding of you but i'm sorry if i can't feel the need to completely align myself to they way you choose to communicate at this very moment right now.
YOu should infer not ill will from me and as to anyone else, i think you are running into the line of exasperation of people trying to communicate with you.

The words i used were not literal or the most chaste but once again a hyperbolic example.

But frankly when people have crossed the line, i'm not saying you use those words, i'm saying you call them on itas you see fitting at the time.

Grumblebee, maybe this will help make it clearer to you. Let's use conversational volume as the metaphor for "spoiling."

In the case of the first category of spoilers I mentioned (say, not revealing who got voted off Survivor last week, or even the twist in The Crying Game), asking for people not to spoil is the equivalent of asking people not to yell in casual conversation. This is a reasonable and realistic expectation, because the vast majority of us can agree that it is preferable and considerate to speak and be spoken to at a moderate volume.

However, asking for people not to "spoil" any conceivable plot point, even if it's entered the popular vernacular isn't the same thing -- it's the eqiuvalent of asking people to whisper in casual conversastion because a small percentage of people are hyper-sensitive to what the rest of us consider normal noise levels. This is unreasonable and unrealistic.

Do you see the difference? Asking people not to shout (e.g, don't blurt out who got kicked off Survivor last night) is asking them to modulate their volume from an extreme level down to the normal level. However, asking people to whisper in casual conversation (i.e., don't mention R&J die) is asking them to modulate their volume down from the normal level to a new extreme level (albeit the one in the other direction).

In other words, most of us are perfectly happy to modulate our conversation to the normal level. It's when we are asked to modulate our conversation down below the normal level that we object.

Sorry, ethylene, you're losing me (or, more likely, I'm just being dense -- sorry). I don't think I'm "inferring emotions" upon you that you don't have, because I'm not inferring emotions on you at all. I have no idea what you feel.

I've proposed basic politeness and consideration of others. You feel that's unrealistic? You may be right. I hope not.

I'm not sure what you mean by "align myself to the way you choose to communicate", so I can't comment on that. I certainly don't expect you or anyone else to agree with me.

And I haven't called anyone on anything. I've ASKED people to refrain from doing something. I think there's a subtle but real difference. On Metafilter, a callout is a form of chastisement. I'm not into doing that.

oy, excuse the typos as i have forsaken today's ability to wash way my sins for the year, but people do recognize your good intentions, but not everyone feels the same and sme people are not expressing themselves considerately for reasons outside this parsing of right and wrong.

It can generally be agreed on what is inconsiderate and while not everyone will agree, more reasonable adults will, but also not everyone wants to write out an incredibly detailed, anal, needfully long explanation of every aspect of what and how something is said.
That's never been a part of mefi at large from what i knew.

You have asked. That is clear.
At this point it is they way you have asked that is becoming more of a problem and That is what ends up being a problem for people: the Way people bring things up.

What some of us are asking is if you understand where we are coming from.

asking for people not to "spoil" any conceivable plot point

Have I asked people not to do this? If so, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to.

Are we talking past each other? I agree with everything you just posted and always have. You're saying that there are various levels of spoiling -- some much more obvious than others (and likely to affect more people than others), right? And it's an unfair to expect someone to worry about really the possibility that anything they say about any story might affect some overly-sensitive person somewhere, right?

If that's what you're saying than I agree and I've always agreed.

Or are you saying something else that I'm still missing?

At this point it is they way you have asked that is becoming more of a problem

The way I asked what? I don't understand.

You DO know that I'm not the person who posted the callout to MeTa, right?

Yes, your point is seen, but your proposal is too extreme to be applied.
That is all.
I am not ascribing any emotional negativism to your words nor accusing you of anything.
All i am saying is the perameters you have stated will never fly to the group at large, especially in a place as large as mefi.

To put this practically, the best you can hope to promote, and others to do as well, is the "narrower" version of spoiler, and to have that agreed upon would be of an agreeable improvement to most.

asking for people not to "spoil" any conceivable plot point

Have I asked people not to do this? If so, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to.

Are we talking past each other?

Maybe we are -- I inferred from your posts (such as the one where you wrote "but there are many many types of unhappy ending. In one popular adaptation of R&J, the character based on Juliet doesn't die") that you do, in fact, wish people to avoid as many salient plot points as possible in the event that somebody might find it spoilerish. I also recall a previous MeTa thread (or maybe it was in an email to me during our back-and-forth at the time) in which you said that you did in fact feel revealing Rosebud-as-sled is a significant spoiler. So I am under the impression that you have a much broader definition of what a spoiler is -- and therefore a more "demanding" (for lack of a better word) level of what you think basic consideration is as far as spoilers are concerned.

Maybe I've misunderstood, as we do indeed seem to be in general agreement. (I can't contribute any more to the thread, though, as I'm letting myself fall behind on a big freelance deadline tomorrow!)

ethylene, just so we're clear, I don't feel under attack by you or anyone else here. Pretty much everyone here has taken pains to express their thoughts clearly and politely. I realize there's some exasperation (on both sides), but it's awesome that people have been able to keep civil in spite of that.

As to my "proposal," it's just that people be polite, right?

I'm not so naive to think that if I say, "be polite," everyone will magically start being polite. But I think that's true of all plans. No matter what anyone comes up with, they will never get everyone to follow it.

So, as I see it, there are three choices:

1) throw your hands up at the futility and shut up.
2) lobby for a policy change (rule by law)
3) keep patiently making your case, hoping that a few people, here and there, will come to agree with you.

Of those three, only the third is palatable to me (to be honest, the first is sometimes, too).

I would LIKE to live in a world in which everyone is polite. That's never going to happen. But it's not binary for me. It's not either a polite world or a rude world. If ONE more person acts politely today than yesterday, it's a BETTER world.

I have to ditto scody here on all counts as i've spent much longer in this thread then i should have and already should be attending to other things.
You have been understood and, yes, three is the suggestion because of that scody stated (and i'd just like to thank her for outlining things so well so i did have to bother.)

didn't

typos typos
tired tired

later

Good luck with the deadline, scody.

For the record, I understand (I think) the locus of the confusion:

I inferred from your posts ... that you do, in fact, wish people to avoid as many salient plot points as possible in the event that somebody might find it spoilerish ... that you did in fact feel revealing Rosebud ... is a significant spoiler.

I DO think Rosebud is a significant spoiler.
I do NOT think people should censor themselves about it.

I DO think some people are hurt when you spoil Rosebud.
I don't think you should change your behavior in ANY way other than to recognize that some people are hurt.

And, having recognized this, I think it would be nice if you were careful about what you said -- but ONLY if this wasn't a lot of trouble for you. If you're in the middle of a discussion about movies, then it IS a lot of trouble for you.

Just hold in your mind the idea that some people are hurt by spoilers of any kind. Just HAVE sympathy.

Which I'm sure you do.

Just be the kind of person who is open to the possibility of sympathy altering your behavior.

Which I'm sure you are.

What upsets me the most is the sort of knee-jerk reaction, discussed above, where MeFi becomes a school-yard and it's all about "I'm right and you're wrong."

If some people want to talk movies while others don't want spoilers, we should all go into problem-solving mode and see if we can find a way to make everyone happy -- not talk about fault and responsibility.

I'm going to join the others here, now, and turn to work. I'll check in tomorrow.

Way late to this thread, to the point where this may not make any difference, but:

It seems like there are maybe two issues here.

1. A MeFi-specific request that people not put spoilers on the front page.

2. A general request, online and off, that people not reveal major-ish plot points of works of art.

I don't think anyone here is particularly arguing against the first point, though it sounds like they may be doing so at MeTa (I avoided reading the thread). I think people might post spoilers in those circumstances when they forget, or just don't think about it, but I'm not sure that anyone's trying to argue they have some major right to post spoilers on the front page of AskMe, MeCha, or MeFi.

On the second point, there seems to be a larger range of opinions. I would agree 100% with everything scody has said on that point.

But grumblebee, I feel like you've been flipping back and forth between arguing #1 and arguing #2, which may be why there's some confusion here.

As to my "proposal," it's just that people be polite, right?

I don't think it's fair to say that people who want to discuss things without having to run around and put spoiler tags on everything are "rude". MeFi/MeCha are discussion sites; we discuss a variety of topics, including art/media like TV, movies, books. And overall, I think people are sensitive to include spoiler tags on things they feel might "ruin" it for others, but if your definition of "polite" includes not spoiling Romeo & Juliet(?), I think you'll always be disappointed.

I would also add: I always liked TWoP's spoiler policy, which was that any info about a TV show that had not yet aired in all time zones in the US was considered a spoiler. After that point, when it was be reasonable to assume that those who really wanted to see the show would have done so, it was the responsibility of those who had not yet seen it to avoid reading about it, if doing so would bother them.

It obviously gets a bit harder with movies and books, since they're out longer and there's not a set time at which most people will see them, but I think, overall, accepting that most people do talk about the plot of films, books, and tv shows, and so if it bothers you it's your responsibility to avoid those conversations rather than everyone else's responsibility to avoid having them, is a good general rule.

I mean, there have been times in my life when various subjects have really upset me -- talk about hospitals, for instance. There was a time, due to family circumstances, when hearing anyone talk about hospitals or healthcare was really emotionally painful for me. And I would assume, given the number of people dealing with sick relatives, that this might be true for a lot of people. But I can't really expect that no one ever in any place I ever am will ever talk about hospitals, simply because someone in the room might find it upsetting. Or that, if the subject does come up, everyone will preface it with "HEALTH CARE CONVERSATION ALERT!" Health woes and health care are rather a normal topic of conversation.

Now, I would hope that if I were in the midst of a conversation that suddenly became about hospitals, that once I said, "Hey, I'd rather not talk about this," my friends would change the subject. Or if it happens online, I have to be prepared to close the browser window. But since *I* am the one outside the mainstream line of thought, *I* am the one responsible for keeping myself out of those conversations, and somehow deciding that everyone else is rude or inconsiderate for failing to anticipate that my reactions will fall outside the mainstream on this issue would seem weird to me.

This is like playing Jeopardy, with its silly "Answers in the form of a question." bit. It's a constant source of irritation for many, and an essential feature of a mentally challenging excercise for others. Every so often, they sort themselves out in the "real" world, when I ask a minor trivia type question, and somebody comes back with an answer in the middle of an awkwardly phrased question, and a momementarily expectant expression, like they might have won something.

I smile then, like I'm smiling now, watching this dog pile. But I don't get the impression anyone is winning anything here, either.