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.

TPS, I think of it this way: I'm an atheist. If I'm in a room with 20 people, and seven of them get upset every time I say, "God doesn't exist," what do I do?

First of all, if ANYONE yells at me, and says, "Fuck you and your atheism," then I'm the injured party.

And I don't believe I should silence myself. I have a right to my atheism and I shouldn't have to live in the closet.

But what kind of person would I be if I showed absolutely no compassion for those people who I upset -- especially if they didn't yell at me or try to censor me, but just made it clear that I was making them unhappy.

I'm not saying I would quit discussing my beliefs. But at the very least, I would express my sympathy.

I am troubled that this isn't the attitude at Metafilter, but I'm a realist and don't expect it to be. But I DO expect more people -- than just me -- to try to sympathize with everyone. Maybe I'm misunderstanding everyone and I'm not as alone as it seems to me. But though I'm one of the people hurt by spoilers, I have NOT proposed a policy change (as others have). I have continually proposed compassion.

My sadness is that I haven't heard ANYONE say, "I can't really enjoy Metafilter unless I'm free to discuss X, Y, and Z, but I'm sorry that my candor hurts other people. That sucks. If someone can come up with a way that I could exercise my right to free speech without causing anyone pain, I'll all ears. In the meantime, I'm not going to clam up, and I apologize to anyone I offend."

Instead, there's debate about what constitutes a spoiler and who has the right to be upset... Even if we settled all that -- even if we somehow proved that Fred has no right to be upset about a R&J spoiler, that doesn't change the fact that he IS upset. But I guess the fact that we've decided that he doesn't have the right to be upset means, to some people, that they can quit thinking about Fred. THAT upsets me.

occhiblu, sorry if I was waffling. I think it's reasonable to ask people to post a spoiler warning in the front page, but I'm against mandating it. (I think some people are confused by me saying I'm pro something but against mandating it -- or maybe they just think, "if you're against mandating it, why bring it up.")

Like scody, I think there are is a "volume knob" to spoiler discussions. The more subtle the spoiler, the more I can understand someone not placing a warning. But that doesn't stop a spoiler being a spoiler.

That's all I ever INTENDED to say.

I don't think anyone's specifically trying to hurt anyone else, or would be somehow glad to know they had. I think what many of us are saying is, when you're in a general conversation with lots of people who don't know you personally, you can't really expect them to do something out of the ordinary (not fully discuss pop culture) simply because it hurts your feelings, given that your feelings are not considered mainstream. (I mean, there's an entire industry devoted to talking about movies and celebrites, for instance. That's considered a very normal thing.)

If five or six of us were sitting around in person and we said something that bothered you, then I would certainly apologize for having done so, even if what you were asking was outside the norm. It would be hideously rude not to.

But MeFi is not a discussion among just a couple people. So you kind of have to go with "What's considered appropriate in the culture at large?", and again, discussing plots is certainly well within the norm on that count.

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.

I completely agree. But if you TOLD people that topic X upsets you and they showed zero sympathy, that is rude. No?

Sympathy does NOT (necessarily) mean they should stop talking.

when you're in a general conversation with lots of people who don't know you personally, you can't really expect them to do something out of the ordinary (not fully discuss pop culture) simply because it hurts your feelings...

Agreed. Until you make your feelings clear. They they can, at the very least, express sympathy.

(By the way, I am not convinced that MeFi follows the rituals of (American?) culture at large, but that's probably a topic better saved for another conversation.)

I think my previous comment addresses this (I assume we're out of synch here). In a group of friends, yes, that is rude. On an impersonal discussion board with thousands of members, no, it's not rude in my mind. I can't dictate the actions of that many people who have no emotional tie to me, and it would seem presumptuous to me to assume I could.

I could call up a friend, for instance, and ask for a favor and generally expect him to say yes, and that would be normal, because we have an emotional give-and-take relationship. But I wouldn't randomly email someone on AskMe and ask them to pick me up some soup, because that would be presumptuous. I don't have that same "Let's take care of each other's emotional needs" relationship with people on that site.

Which.... thank god, cuz I doubt most of them would do a very good job of it! :-)

you can't really expect them to do something out of the ordinary (not fully discuss pop culture)

My frustration in this thread is that I feel like I keep saying I'm NOT trying to get people to censor themselves, but I keep being positioned as doing so.

I haven't gone back and read-through everything I wrote, way back -- hours ago -- when this thread started. But at least for the last couple of ours, I THINK I've been pretty adamant that I'm NOT advocating any sort of censorship. I FEEL like this is what I've been saying all along, but if it turns out that I've changed my time, then it's due to people here swaying me.

Anyway, let me definitively go on the record as being AGAINST censorship -- even, in general, self-censorship. I am pro compassion. When people have enough data to be compassionate, I think they should be compassionate. To me, "having compassion" means weighing in data about other people's feelings, not necessarily letting that date rule everything you do. One compassionate gesture MIGHT be to self-censor (in the form of a spoiler warning before saying whatever you want to say). But that's a personal decision.

(I wrote this before reading your last comment, but I think it addresses what you're saying, so I'm posting.)

I mean, yes, it's hideously crazy-making when you see people being rude/inconsiderate/bigoted in some way and you just want them to at least *see* the effects of their actions -- I get into those arguments about the whole boy-zone / feminism thing on MeFi really often. And half the time the only thing I really want is someone to say, "You know, I never thought of it that way" (rather than "You're wrong, you're an idiot, you're obviously on the rag"). And the best I've been able to do is just figure that someone's reading my comments and maybe thinking about it differently, because it's a cold day in hell when I get anyone who's in the midst of an argument on MeFi to admit they may have overstated their case, or that they never thought of it in another way (it's happened, but it's rare).

So I can understand your frustration on that count. But I would say that if all you're looking for is a "Sorry, didn't mean to, I'll try to be more careful" among that particular group of people, it's unlikely to happen. Especially if you're looking for it in MeTa, where people generally pride themselves on acting like pricks.

I just want to get really clear, occhiblu (and I'm not trying to "trap you in logic" or anything). What is it that you don't think is rude?

My claim is that if you KNOW something hurts someone (online or off), you own them a moment of compassion.

You disagree?

I'm not talking about forecasting or reading minds. I'm talking about an instance in which someone has made it clear that X hurts them.

I would say that if all you're looking for is a "Sorry, didn't mean to, I'll try to be more careful" among that particular group of people, it's unlikely to happen.

Not necessarily, "Sorry, didn't mean to..." More like. "Sorry if it hurts you, but I need to talk this way in order to enjoy this site. It would be great if we could figure out some sort of way to make everyone happy. But assuming that doesn't happen, I'm sorry if you're hurt by something I say or do."

Do I expect lots of people to act this way. Not really. Honestly, I am a little surprised that I'm the ONLY person here who seems primarily concerned with compassion (I know others are concerned -- just no primarily, or so it seems to me).

In any case, it really doesn't matter whether or not it's likely or unlikely. If you want to live in a civil world in which people show each other compassion, what can you do? Kill yourself because it ain't never going to happen. Or try to make your case as best you can?

My claim is that if you KNOW something hurts someone (online or off), you own them a moment of compassion. You disagree?

No, not in theory, I'm just unclear as to what you want. If just an "I'm sorry," see my comment above, but I also think that the way you've been pursuing this issue (here, at least, like I said I didn't read the other thread) makes it seem like you want more than that. Which may be why you're getting what you think is a disproportionate amount of resistance.

"Look, I realize that I'm out of the mainstream on this issue, or that I'm overly sensitive about it, and I don't think anyone really needs to change their behavior because I realize that I'm the one outside the majority here, but I just want you to know that it does bother some of us, and so if you could at least think about that a little bit and maybe do what you can to help, when it's possible (like not posting the ends of movies directly on the front page), that would be nice."

That seems to be what you're saying? (If I'm wrong, I apologize.) If that's it, then that statement should be it, and you shouldn't get pulled into big large debates about what a spoiler is, where they can go, etc. etc. Just stick with a "It would just be nice if you could think about it a bit, and do what you can, it would be awesome."

Everything else comes across as total defensiveness, or as a way of trying to convince everyone else that your view of spoilers is right. Since most of us disagree about that, you probably won't win. But most of us probably would think that "Do what you can, cuz it's nice" is reasonable, and would be happy to do it.

ASSUMING that doing so would mean that you (editorial you) stop complaining. If all you want is a bit of consideration, then you also have to assume that people hear you and are doing what they can, and so you kind of lose any right for further complaining.

Shit, I can't believe I'm still here. I HAVE to work. I'm leaving ... now. Wait, I just want to make one more point...

NO!

I'm leaving. See you all tomorrow!

(By the way, if you search through the archives, you'll find that I once posted a MAJOR spoiler to "Dog Day Afternoon", and I did it on the front page. I was called out for it, and still feel bad that I did it. It was pure thoughtlessness.)

Fuck, I can't resist. (I'm in major work avoidance.)

Everything else comes across as total defensiveness, or as a way of trying to convince everyone else that your view of spoilers is right. Since most of us disagree about that, you probably won't win. But most of us probably would think that "Do what you can, cuz it's nice" is reasonable, and would be happy to do it.


What view about spoilers?

My view is that some people are hurt by them. Can anyone really contest that? There's been a lot of discussion about whether or not it's fair to worry about how old a movie is and whether we should call divulging plot points of, say, "Gone With The Wind" a "spoiler" or not.

But I don't care what we call it.

I just know -- and I assume we all know -- that revealing plot information hurts some non-mainstream people.

I keep getting into conversations (and I understand that you're saying I'm muddying my case by doing so) in which people are talking about whether these people have the right to complain or whose responsibility it is to worry about spoilers. My INTENDED message (which maybe I've mangled) is "I don't care."

I don't care because I'm NOT advocating any sort of policy.

This statement...

"Look, I realize that I'm out of the mainstream on this issue, or that I'm overly sensitive about it, and I don't think anyone really needs to change their behavior because I realize that I'm the one outside the majority here, but I just want you to know that it does bother some of us, and so if you could at least think about that a little bit and maybe do what you can to help, when it's possible (like not posting the ends of movies directly on the front page), that would be nice."

... is sort of what I'm saying, and I keep saying because, despite what you're saying, no one is responding to it (except you). I don't get the sense that I should stop making my case because it's reasonable and everyone agrees with it.

Maybe I should quit making it because no one agrees with it (and I would, if this wasn't a thread started by me). But I guess I'm egotistical enough to think what I'm saying is vitally important. I don't mean spoilers are vitally important. I mean compassion is.

I really just came back on to say that I just went to the video store, and the guy in front of me was renting Citizen Kane, and it made me giggle.

But I don't care what we call it.
That's unfairly avoiding a bit of the argument. If I say, "Don't be rude! It's not nice, and it hurts my feelings!" then it's not fair to assume that everyone else will classify as "rude" the same set of behaviors than I do, especially after it's been firmly established that what some people call "rude" other people consider completely normal behavior.

grumblebee, I think part of the issue is that, either due to actual conviction or simply the fact that you keep arguing, it's coming across as if the level of compassion you expect is much higher than the majority of people would seem to think this issue indicates.

If I am dating you, and I blow off your birthday dinner because work ran late and I forgot, then I owe you a huge apology. Not only do I need to show compassion for your anger, but we're starting to deal with inexcusable rudeness if I don't apologize and try to make it up to you.

If I know you only through MeCha, and someone posts a "Happy birthday, grumblebee!" thread, and I don't get around to commenting because work's really busy that day, then I might feel a moment of compassion for you because you got fewer birthday wishes than you deserved, but it's not ever really worth apologizing for, because given our relationship, it's not really that big a deal.

I feel like you're putting spoilers closer to the first category than the second, while the rest of us more or less see them closer to the second category. So these impassioned pleas for compassion and understanding come across as a bit over the top. Which often ends up making people hostile to the matter at hand.

And if it really is THAT BIG a deal to you, then you really are THAT FAR out of the normal realm of human behavior, which means you have even less right to expect anyone to feel THAT BAD about inadvertantly offending you, and you should expect THAT LITTLE of an apology when you tell them they have. If I step on your foot in line, and give you an apologetic smile, I'm going to consider the matter closed; if you keep arguing that what I did was rude and where is my compassion and your toe really hurts, then I'm going to start rolling my eyes, because your reaction seems really far outside the normal reaction for this event.

occhuiblu, I suspect that when the fog clears, we'll find that we're largely in agreement except about matters of degree (how over-the-top I am). But I do want to respond to one thing you've said (I think) several times. (If you feel I'm unfairly ignoring other things that are important to you, let me know, and I'll address them).

I don't except people to apologize for INADVERTENTLY offending me -- or anyone else. I expect (too strong a word... "would like" is better) people to apologize for deciding to engage in behavior that they KNOW will hurt me because I've told them it would.

To me, that's basic human courtesy in all spheres -- online or off, amongst friends or acquaintances. Naturally, you may disagree, but if so, I don't think there's much more room for discussion. We'll just have to leave it there. Or at least, I'm not sure there's anything more I can say.

There's something that seems remarkably perverse about the following exchange, even if it's between two strangers:

A: I get upset every time someone says "Frog."

B: Really? Frog! Frog! Frog!


That's a bit unfair, since B is obviously trying to taunt A, and I don't think the "spoilers" are an attempt to taunt people. But I also find this perverse:


A: I get upset every time someone says "Frog."

WAITER: What would you like for dinner, sir?

B [having heard what A just said]: Frogs legs.



I also find THIS perverse:

A: I get upset every time someone says "Frog."

WAITER: What would you like for dinner, sir?

B (thinks: damn, I really wanted Frogs legs): um... Pizza, I guess. *sigh*


Here's a good version:

A: I get upset every time someone says "Frog."

WAITER: What would you like for dinner, sir?

B: Sorry about this, A ... Frogs legs.


To me, this seems like a tiny bit of courtesy that isn't difficult to do, yet it makes the world a better place.

I agree, and I do want to say that I'm not in any way upset; I don't really care all that much about spoilers either way. I think I may have come across more aggressive than I meant in my last post.

But I think what you're asking is more like saying, "It really bothers me when people say 'red'" and then expecting everyone to not only apologize when they say it but remember to apologize when they say it. And then if they forget, to be subjected to a long harangue about why they're being rude. It's just not a huge deal to many of us, to the point where it just doesn't occur to us to even think about it. And now someone we don't really know is saying that we should not only think about it, but feel bad for hurting this person we don't know when we forget to think about it. It just feels a little... removed, you know?

(I'm ignoring peole who deliberately bait you, because I agree that they are being assholes.)

What seems to be happening is that it's a small issue that bothers a few people a small amount, so it's just an uphill battle trying to make lots of people care about it, especially when the cost is so low (your suddenly knowing the end of The Crying Game is almost guaranteed not to harm your life in any real way; it's not the same as denying you housing or accidentally killing a relative or something).

So it's not difficult to do, but it's difficult to remember to do, or to satisfy all possible permutations of what people might consider a spoiler. So it does become a large imposition for a small reward.

And then if they forget, to be subjected to a long harangue about why they're being rude.

I agree with pretty much everything you said, but I'd like to point out that I'm largely against callouts and aren't in the habit of chastising people (even when I think they're wrong). I'd have to forgive your for thinking otherwise, given the way I've gone on and on in this thread. But I started this thread specifically to talk about this issue. It's not typical for me. I've spent decades allowing most spoilers to go by without commenting, largely for reasons that you've mentioned (I realize that I'm standing on the outskirts of cultural norms, and I don't want to spoil the party by imposing my eccentricities on everyone else).

I'm not defending chastisements, but if someone called me out on something that I'd been told caused offense, I'd say I was sorry. It's a few short words, and it might end the harangue.

That's not a sneaky threat (apologize or I'll make your life miserable). It's just an observation that civility can cut through a lot of flame wars.

And finally (I hope), I'd like to point out that this thread seems to have turned into Grumblebee the weirdo against all the normal people. In fact, it's Grumblebee, Fred, Bill, Alice, Max, Jane and Frank -- the weirdOS -- against the normal people. By which I mean that there's a sizeable number of people upset by spoilers (or the spoiler-warning convention would never have gained any ground). We're clearly a minority, but we're not a minuscule one. I think we're worth giving at least a moment's thought to.

Interesting data point (not specifically relevant to anything except for the general subject at hand): Amazon.com forbids spoilers in their reviews (presumably because it hurts sales). Here are their rules. Spoilers is #1. I wonder if this is because they've had complaints:

* Spoilers! Please don't reveal crucial plot elements.
* Time-sensitive material (i.e., promotional tours, seminars, lectures, etc.).
* Commenting on other reviews visible on the page. Other reviews and their position on the page are subject to change without notice.
* Profanity, obscenities, or spiteful remarks.
* Single-word reviews. We want to know why you liked or disliked the item.
* Phone numbers, mail addresses, URLs.
* Availability, price, or alternative ordering/shipping information.
* Solicitations for helpful votes.

Why i'm bothering to write this i don't even know but:

If you don't like spoilers, spoiler warnings are great. They help you avoid spoilers.
If you do like spoilers, spoiler warnings are great. They help you find spoilers.
but
Fred asked me where he could get his hands on Planet of the Apes, and i said, Get your hands off, you goddamn dirty ape, and we all laughed, even Bill, who had never seen Planet of the Apes, but thought it was funny.
Very soon after, Bill saw Planet of the Apes, and laughed at the unexpected toy surprise that happened to be a goddam dirty ape.

I do sincerely apologize if this has somehow possibly harmed anyone's appreciation of Planet of the Apes.

Yeah, but that's in reviews of the works in question. That's a different context. If I'm specifically looking to buy something, then no, I probably don't want to know the ending. If I'm on a general discussion board, then I'm going to assume that people behave in similar manner to the way they behave in general life, which is that they'll discuss plotlines.

And yeah, I know you're not the only one who's so thoroughly anti-spoiler in the world. But you're one out of ten (say) here, and y'all are five out of five-thousand there? There's still a sizable difference.

And civility is wonderful, and sadly in short supply. I certainly don't disagree on either of those counts!

I own a copy of Man in the High Castle - a first edition, in fact - and I've never understood the ending; what gets spoiled is "you're not going to understand the ending of this book," which is a pretty dubious spoiler at best.

My first Internet discussion experience took place on Usenet in 1990; there, control-L was used to mark spoilers and all the newsreading software had easy ways to bail out of a thread before you passed the control-L and read something you didn't want to. Not putting a spoiler alert would have been like using strong language or discussing something inflammatory like abortion - it wasn't done except in carefully marked zones.

People still interested in that ideal of community in 2006 - civil, pleasant, guided by good manners - have left the open-access Internet behind, grumblebee. The people who are left enjoy bathing in the social equivalent of septic-tank effluent, for whatever reason.

Late to this thread, but:

I've watched both The Empire Strikes Back and the Frankenheimer version of The Manchurian Candidate in the company of people who didn't know the ending--in both cases, they were viewing the film for the first time, while I was viewing the film for the nth time. It was nice to have the vicarious experience of viewing the movie for the first time (again), and I think it's true that the first viewing of a film is qualitatively different from all subsequent viewings, and is uniquely valuable as a result.

For the record, I read the essays I linked to in the AskMe thread before reading TMitHC, and I feel like it enhanced the experience for me. Otherwise, I would have been left scratching my head, like the querent.

I doubt many people think works are always better the first time. If I like a movie or book, I re-watch/read it. The two experiences are wildly different -- both interesting.

I recently saw "The Illusionist" twice. It has some big twists, and I'm so glad I saw it once without knowing and once knowing.

As a director, first readings are vital. I recently staged "Much Ado About Nothing," and by the 100th rehearsal, I'm totally disconnected with the mindset of an audience member seeing for the first time. I find the notes that I take after my first reading to be invaluable, and I return to them constantly.

I also think the BIG TWIST movies ("Citizen Kane," etc.) are a bit misleading to use as examples. I defintely don't want to know what Rosebud is before I see the movie, but that makes it sound like I'm only concerned about huge twists. I find all the tiny nuanced moments just as loaded on the first viewing. When Fred (made up character in made up movie) tells Jenny he loves her -- even if I know she loves him back -- I want to be surprised by the exact nature of the smile on her face. Is it full out joyfull, tainted by nervousness, a little wistful...?

By the same token, though, talking about all those tiny nuanced moments is what makes viewing art great. One of my favorite things is talking about how actors, directors, writers, camerapeople, and all the rest make those moments happen, whether they actually work, how they can be improved, what the symbolic implications are, etc etc (yes, I was an English major).

So statements that sound like blanket "No spoilers, ever!" make me feel like you're trying to discourage people from even having those conversations, which would suck big time. I know you keep saying that you're not saying that, but the general "Why is the world so awful as to want to tell someone the end of R&J?" comments you've been making could very easily lead someone to believe otherwise, and therefore to dismiss your argument out of hand, and with anger.

I think I am trying to answer your original "meta critique" question, of "Why are people getting hostile when asked to do this rather reasonable thing?" and I think the reason is that the "NO SPOILERS!" people aren't actually nuancing their arguments particularly well. Saying that people should avoid putting plot endings on MeFi's front pages is a completely different argument from saying that people should avoid talking about any plots at all, anywhere, ever. The no-spoiler argument always seems to start at the second point and try to work its way back to the first, and by that point, you've lost your argument, because you sound like you're asking people to stop discussing art.

Given your various (great) posts on the subject of continued learning for adults, I'd think you could understand why anyone who thought you were making that request would react angrily.

Further (because why use 200 words when you can use 2,000): If I'm discussing Ulysses, for example, and I'm not understanding something, I would fully expect that someone would be able to come in and say, "Well, that's an allusion to The Odyssey when X, Y, and Z happened" or "That's the biblical story in which A did B" without having to stop their explanation / discussion to post big "SPOILER" warnings. Because that is how art is often discussed, by teasing out allusions and borrowings and working through what those things mean in this new context. I mean, that form of understanding or criticizing is considered so mainstream that it's taught to elementary school kids, who have to figure out the classical allusions in poems and such.

So when you start dragging in the idea that giving away any plot points is spoiling, or that talking about classical much-alluded-to works as if they were secrets and their only power or context was their original one, it makes it seem like you don't have any sympathy for people who actually like art and like talking about art. (Again, I know this is not the case, I'm speaking again to your meta-question of why people might treat you hostiley.)

That's a different conversation than whether someone should post spoiler alerts for a TV show yet to be aired, or a movie still considered a current release. In those cases, it seems common sense not to give away the ending or any major plot twists.

But again, even current movie or book reviews might talk about how an actor really nails a particular scene, or is unbelievable in another, or how a writer got one relationship pitch-perfect and really flubbed another. Those are considered normal OK topics of conversation when discussing films or books.

When you try to conflate all all these things into one category, and call it all "spoilers," and claim it's all bad behavior, then most people are going to think you're overstating your case and going so far against current cultural norms that your anger/conviction/logic is misplaced. Which is why, I think, to even get close to finding a middle ground in this argument, you need to stop talking about logic and switch to a more conciliatory tone (again, not in the MeCha thread but in further actual discussions rather than meta-critiques), because given the scope of your argument, you are actually asking people to do something that is illogical, namely going against any current ideas of what's normal when talking about art. And you're asking them to do so because it makes you feel better, which is again not a logical argument.

It's not necessarily a morally bad argument. But appealing to logic in order to make an emotional argument is probably not going to get you what you want.

When you try to conflate all all these things into one category, and call it all "spoilers," and claim it's all bad behavior, then most people are going to think you're overstating your case and going so far against current cultural norms that your anger/conviction/logic is misplaced.

Bingo.

My deep thanks to occhiblu, ThePinkSuperhero and others who have kept emphasizing this point:

The "NO SPOILERS!" people aren't actually nuancing their arguments particularly well.


THIS is the sort of help I wanted when I started the thread, and it makes total sense to me. To make this a little less one-sided, I think we have a dynamic here in which the SP and NSP (spoiler people & non-spoiler people -- terms used just for convenience, not because I think spoiler people are actually trying to spoil anything) are both letting fears/passions over-rule their ability to communicate with each other.

NSP: You're ruining my ability to watch movies the way I want to watch them!

SP: You're ruining my ability to talk about movies the way I want to talk about them!

My guess is that both sides should stand back and temper what they say a little (though I'm not sure I should get my hopes up about this happening at MeFi).

It's a horrible feeling to feel that someone is trying to silence you, so I can understand why the SPs tend to lash out.

Yes. Except that, since you're the one requesting the change in behavior, you'll probably have to make more concessions on that front than you might like -- basically go out of your way to convince other people that you're not throwing down a total blanket critique -- if you want people to listen and change.

Which may not be fair, but so goes human communication. :-)

I would fully expect that someone would be able to come in and say, "Well, that's an allusion to The Odyssey when X, Y, and Z happened"

I think it's worth mentioning that the Odyssey was not written to keep the reader in suspense about the ending. Does Odysseus get home? Of course. You don't read it for suspense because it's an epic poem, not a novel.

But in most commercial films, the creation of suspense for the audience, i.e. the audience's hope and fear about what's going to happen next, is literally the mechanism that the entire structure rests upon.

Ya never know what someone is going to consider a spoiler. I recently started a shitstorm on a newsgroup by making a random comment about a preview after a TV show. I wasn't involved in the argument though. It wasn't even a spoiler IMO as it didn't give anything about the story away, but after I came back and found a hundred messages in the thread with people arguing about it, I apologized anyway. But only because I wasn't trying to troll.

OTOH, some of my favorite trolls both posted by me and by others have been spoiling things for people. Oh the good ol' days when there were actually enough people on usenet to make it worth trolling.

I recently staged "Much Ado About Nothing," and by the 100th rehearsal, I'm totally disconnected with the mindset of an audience member seeing for the first time. I find the notes that I take after my first reading to be invaluable, and I return to them constantly.

OK. But the opposite is also true. I would wager that I have seen the movie "It's a Wonderful Life" more times than almost any other person on the planet. I would at least fall into the 99th percentile where that's concerned. And I'd say that each time I view it - though there are no new plot elements, characters, or surprises - I find there are additional insights available. I have changed; therefore it's not necessary that the work of art has changed. Its stasis, its solid statement, is exactly the value that I return to repeatedly. Ther is a perennial nature to this work of art. The same is true of Shakespeare's work, of great poetry. It cannot be spoiled. I can't even spoil it for myself. Its richness lies half in what it is, half in what I bring to it. I don't grow further apart from it with repeated viewing; I grow closer to it, more intimate with it, readier to engage in a deep conversation with it. More curious. More aware.

We could now change the direction of this thread and have a really interesting discussion about ways of interacting with stories.

But before we leave spoilers, I want to say that Miko's post brings up something that troubles me.

We've covered ONE reason why people get upset when I complain about spoilers: they feel that I'm trying to censor them. If they think this, I can't blame them for being upset. Censorship is a great sin -- much worse, even in my mind, than spoiling a plot. So if this is where the anger is coming from, I sympathize with it and will try to temper my complaints in the future.

But whenever these discussions come up, I always make (or THINK I make) the following points clear:

1. My way of interacting with stories is not better or worse than anyone else's. This is both my opinion and (I'm brazen enough to claim) it's the truth.

I disagree strongly with bingo (even though he's "on my side") that people who are okay with spoilers aren't experiencing art "as it was intended." I don't care about the author's intent, but even if I did, I can't get inside his head, so I don't know what his intent is. This opens up a big philisophical can of beans ("The Intentional Fallacy"), and I don't mean to do this.

But I'm going to great pains -- as I have done upstream in this thread and in every similar conversation in the past -- to make it clear that I'm not claiming superiority for my way of viewing art. And, in fact, I think anyone who does so is being silly.

2. I DON'T think stories are (necessarily) better the first time you read or see them. In fact, I often enjoy movies and books more the second (third or hundredth) time I see them, after I already know what happens. The stories that ARE better the first time (in my experience) are usually trivial.

But I do VALUE the first time experience. And I value it very highly. And, by definition, it's an experience I can only have once (or not at all if someone spoils it for me).

In MetaTalk, I compared stories to my relationship with my wife. I highly value my memory of our first meeting. If you wiped that memory from my brain, I'd still have a very worthwhile relationship. And, of course, I value the relationship much more highly than my memory of when we first met. Still, I DO value that memory, and I'm grateful that it's NOT wiped from my brain.

3. As I've mentioned before, I HATE the word "spoiler." I think it creates all sorts of confusions.

People imply that I have a trivial relationship with art because I can only enjoy stories when I see them for the first time. Or they're skeptical that they spoiled such a rich work as "Citizen Kane" by revealing the meaning of Rosebud.

They DIDN'T spoil "Citizen Kane." They only spoiled the first-time surprise about the meaning of Rosebud. That's ALL they spoiled. But that is, nevertheless, important to me. (Even though it's not the MOST important aspect of "Citizen Kane" to me.)

People keep hitting me with "logic" like, "I saw 'Star Wars' after my friend told me the whole plot, and I still loved it." Or "I so glad Charlie explained '2001' to me before I saw it. I'm sure if he hadn't, I would have been confused."

Fine, but those people haven't had the experience of seeing 'Star Wars' or '2001' unspoiled. That doesn't negate their experience, but they're answering "oranges" to my "apples." It's as if I'm saying, "I like pepperoni on my pizza" and they're saying, "But I once ate pizza without pepperoni, and I LIKED it." Fine, but ... so what?

"... The stories that ARE better the first time (in my experience) are usually trivial.

But I do VALUE the first time experience. And I value it very highly. And, by definition, it's an experience I can only have once (or not at all if someone spoils it for me). ..."
posted by grumblebee 03 October

OK, I think I begin to see your point: You value something trivial, to an inordinate degree, which is likely to be routinely spoiled by others in the real, complex world. If that is accurate, I feel for you, as I did for Don Quixote de la Mancha, the second or third time I read Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra's story, and I wish you courage and strength as you fight for the right, without question or pause.

So many windmills, so little time.

Premise: People who inadvertently post spoilers lack evolved souls, and are thus modern day Persons Sitting in Darkness, to whom we owe our best efforts at missionary redemption, though it cost them thirteen times any value it could possibly bring them, and whom we fail to love fully if we allow them to persist in pernicious behaviors.

Discuss in long sermon form.

I disagree strongly with bingo (even though he's "on my side") that people who are okay with spoilers aren't experiencing art "as it was intended."

grumblebee, you're such a nice guy that it pains me. And yet, in nearly every discussion that we both participate in, I start to think we're on the same page...and then you make an assertion to the effect of "I want to make this very clear: I'm saying A, but I am ABSOLUTELY not saying B," in which B is the thing that I absolutely AM saying, and which, to me, is in itself so important that A pales in comparison.

So here's my own version: grumblebee, I'm saying that you are completely wrong, but I am absolutely not saying that I don't respect you, your compassion for humanity as a whole, or your ongoing efforts to avoid sounding like an elitist at all costs. I would also like to gently point out that the kind of condescending pats on the head like the one just given you by paulsc are the most likely outcome of your equivocating way of asserting something only as timidly as you possibly can.

Alright, then:

I don't care about the author's intent, but even if I did, I can't get inside his head, so I don't know what his intent is. This opens up a big philisophical can of beans ("The Intentional Fallacy"), and I don't mean to do this.

Well, I do, because to me it's the essence of the issue. And I care a lot about the author's intent.

It's true that you can't truly 'get inside' the head of anyone, and it's also true that, for a great many authors, the work that they've produced is all you have to work with. This is especially true for someone like Homer, who is so removed from us in so many ways that we can't even be that sure of what his life was like in general terms.

However, when you're talking about modern works of fiction, it's a different story (so to speak). This is especially true of American movies, which 99% of the time are deliberately constructed with a view to manipulate the audience's hopes and fears at every moment.

I'm going to just address this in terms of movies for now, because it's a subject close to my heart, but much of what I'm going to say below applies to novels too.

Going to film school was a lot like what I've heard going to law school is like: it doesn't just deepen your understanding of the subject; it opens your eyes to its workings in ways that can be downright disturbing. Movies that you thought were magical works spun from thread that could only have come into existence in some independent, foreign outfit entrenched in its ideals, turn out to follow, to a tee, the same axioms of character and structure, plot and suspense, that were followed by that Jerry Bruckheimer movie that you couldn't even bear to watch the trailer for because it was so far beneath your contempt. The indie director may have done a better job, he may use different terms, he may even insist that the whole thing was improvised and that he edited it with his eyes closed, but if you liked it, and it had a beginning, middle, and end, chances are better than you think that it was constructed out of eight sequences, that it has a deliberately placed inciting incident, a simple question that guides the second act, and a false resolution to set you up for the true resolution.

And in all that, the one thing that is absolutely consistent across the board is that every single element of the story is constructed to keep the audience in suspense about what is going to happen next.

Yes, you can find exceptions. I'm not talking about Koyannisqatsi here. But then, you'll never catch someone like me (or, I daresay, someone like grumblebee) complaining about a spoiler for a non-narrative film, or even a film like Romeo+Juliet which, true to the original, tells the audience at the beginning that both of the main characters are going to die.

But instead of coming up with exceptions, please consider that arguments over spoilers (I'll just stick with movies for now) are really about spoiling the narrative mechanism that makes the whole story worthwhile to begin with. Sure, if you watch a good movie a second time, you find yourself in suspense again, even though you know the ending...but that's just an indication of how well the movie was put together! Suspense is created on a moment-to-moment basis, and there is always some question on your mind about what's going to happen next, whether you know it or not (and whether you know the answer or not).

But the problem with the so-called intentional fallacy runs even deeper. In many cases of modern movies and books, we really do know what the author intended, because he or she tells us in interviews, forewards, DVD special features, etc. And, to take one frequently debated example, we do know for sure that Brian Singer doesn't want the audience to know who the villain really is until the end of The Usual Suspects. If you like to watch the movie for the pretty colors, that's your business, but you're just being a belligerent fool if you're arguing that it's unreasonable for someone else to be able to watch the movie the way that narrative movies in general are meant to be watched.

Note that I'm not saying that authors should have the chance to stand next to their work and defend it from criticism. A novel or a film is what it is. But there's a big difference between hanging a painting in a room without a matching sofa, and taking it off the wall and using it as a frisbee.

Premise: People who inadvertently post spoilers lack evolved souls

You said it, Paulsc, not me. I would never say that, and I don't even think it. In fact, I think the opposite. I don't believe one's relationship to art/stories tells us anything about his/her soul.

I can't prove that to you, and I'm willing to enterain the idea that whether or not I'm snobbish in real life, my writing comes across as snobbish. I'm not sure how to make my (non-snobbish) point without sounding snobbish to you.

Is it impossible to believe that I find something vitally deeply moving without expecting other people to find it so? Maybe, but I don't. I have many many good, smart (often better and smarter than me) friends who don't mind spoilers. And it's not even the case that I think they're smart -- but not smart about art. I know many amazing artists and art-lovers who don't care about spoilers. I don't know how to convince you that I'm sincere, so I guess I'll stop trying.

IF you believe that I'm sincere (or that it's POSSIBLE that I am), and you'd like to give me some constructive advice about how to get my point across (really get it across, not just shut up and accept the fact that no one will ever understand me) without sounding snobbing, I'd love to hear me. I hate the "snobbish" side-effect and would love to eliminate it.

Bingo, please note that I didn't mean you any disresect and still don't, but I'm not just "trying to be nice." I stand by everything I said, including (alas) the fact that I disagree with you re: intent.

This is something I've thought about, discussed and written about for over 20 years, and my guess is that you have too (maybe for longer). I would love to discuss it with you, but I feel pretty solid about my views. (Though I'm always open to be swayed.) But perhaps we should discuss the Intentional Fallacy elsewhere. Such a discussion here could seriously derail this thread.

(I'm always open to email discussions, or, since we're both NYCers, we could get coffee or a drink some time. Regardless of one's point of view, it's a fascinating topic.)

Also, I'm not trying to say you're a bad guy and I'm a good guy. I understand your points (or at least think I do), but I do think we have some substantial differences in aesthetics/philosophy. And I don't just mean that I'm trying to say the same thing that you're saying, but in a "nice" way.

Forgive me if I'm misinterpreting either of you, but it sounds like you and Paulsc both think the same thing about me, with slightly different spins. It sounds like you're both thinking, "Grumblebee looks down on people who don't care deeply about spoilers." To which you say, "Good for him, but he shouldn't be so nice about it." To which Paulsc says, "That snobbish asshole!"

I disagree with both of you about my mind-set (but not necessarily about how I come across here -- help!). Furthermore, it's not just a matter of "Grumblebee isn't snobbish because he's a nice guy." I feel VERY strongly that there isn't a right way to relate to art (or a wrong way). Whether I happen to be nice or not (I hope I am) is immatterial and a distraction from the point at hand. If I hate someone and I hate the way he talks about art, I STILL don't think he's "wrong." I don't the the concepts of right/wrong, good/bad, correct/incorrect have meaning when discussing people's relationships to art.

My guess is that you (and probably most people here, on any side of the spoiler argument) disagree with me, which is fair enough. I'm always available to discuss.

grumblebee, at this point the problem is simply the fact that you're continuing to try to convince us that your point of view about spoilers is correct.

Your point of view about spoilers is, for the most part, irrelevant.

Your point of view about what should be *done* about spoilers -- that is, how you want to find a compromise on the behavior, not the attitude -- is going to be a more fruitful discussion.

You are unlikely to change people's attitudes, especially as you're stating yours so forcefully as to seem unwilling to compromise. You can't expect to hold such a strong view on the effects of spoilers and not polarize everyone else. Every single book or article I've ever read about compromise or changing someone's opinion has started with the premise that you have to back away from stating absolute opinions and find those gray areas where there might be some agreement if you want to influence other people's decisions.

But luckily, it shouldn't matter. You don't need to convince people that spoilers are bad. You need to convince them that sharing spoilers is bad.

To that end, STOP ARGUING AGAINST THE VERY CONCEPT OF SPOILING. It's irrelevent, and you're polarizing your audience with it.

You want people to stop posting spoilers. To that end, it does not matter if they agree with you about whether spoilers are bad. It only matters that they care enough about you (and others) to want to willingly agree to indulge you in what seems to be an eccentricity (since, as we've already noted, most of what you're classifying as a spoiler flies in the face of conventional understanding).

So: You want people to go out of their way (against common standards) to do something (stop posting) that will achieve an emotional reward for a very few people (namely, you). YOU CAN'T ACHIEVE THAT WITH LOGIC OR ARGUMENT. You can achieve those sorts of concessions with being nice, with being conciliatory, with being self-deprecating.... with currying favor, basically.

And I really think that since most of your audience is expecting that type of behavior for someone making this sort of request, that your presentation as making a logical, moral, artistic argument is rubbing a lot of people the wrong way.

Again, I'm not upset with you, or the conversation, I just keep seeing you slip into a mode of discourse that is COMPLETELY alienating your audience, then getting confused about why. I'm trying to give you what I see as "the why."

In sum:

Really, no one outside a select group of people cares about whether you like spoilers, or why, or at least they certainly don't care enough to keep a 100-plus comment thread going on it without developing some feelings of ill will.

A much larger group of people would be willing to change their behavior to make you feel better, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY AGREED WITH YOU, if you were not only "nice" about asking but actually made some (possibly dishonest) feints toward realizing that you're asking for a favor, and not pronouncing what seems to be "grumblee's immortal rule of proper behavior."

(Again, I personally hold no ill will. I just keep seeing a disconnect between what you want and how you're asking for it, and I'm trying to address that.)

And to address some of what you wrote above, how outside this context people might see you as snobbish or whatever, I think again you might need to back away a bit. "I really don't like them, I think it changes the way I see a movie/play/book, and I really cherish that 'first read' feel. So I try to avoid them." The End. No more. That's your point, it's a valid point, there's no reason to pursue it any farther than that. Doing so, again, starts to make you sound evangelical, which I think is what people are reacting against.

"Doing X is bad for me" is an argument few will argue against.

"Doing X is bad for you" is an argument almost everyone will argue against.

I agree with everything occhiblu said above. Bravo, occhiblu. In your dream world, grumblebee, how would people act regarding spoilers? Just tell us HOW, not why.

"Doing X is bad for you" is an argument almost everyone will argue against.

I'm totally confused as to when I have EVER made that argument. My guess is that I have, but I don't see it. Can you help me. Bingo seems to be making that argument, and I FUNDAMENTALLY disagree with him.

I DON'T THINK NOT-CARING ABOUT (OR EVEN ENJOYING) SPOILERS IS BAD, IMMATURE, SILLY OR STRANGE.

Do you mean that my WORDS might literally be about me, but that be repeating myself it SOUNDS like I'm being dishonest, that I really care about how other people interact with stories?

I'm repeating myself because I feel like I'm not being heard. Maybe it's because people don't care about my points. Fair enough. But people aren't SAYING they don't care. The actually ARE responding to what I'm saying, but in a way that doesn't exactly answer what I bring up. I'm not saying this is wrong. I'm not lord of this thread or anything, and people should feel free to post whatever they like. But if I'm repeating myself, that's why.

And I'll repeat myself AGAIN and disagree with you about my intent (maybe not about how I'm coming across, but about how I'm TRYING to come across):

You say, "You want people to stop posting spoilers."

NO! At MOST I want people to post warnings BEFORE the spoilers, and I was never the person who argued against spoilers INSIDE a thread. And I take your point -- and several people's points -- that sometimes spoilers (even on the front page) are unavoidable if we're going to discuss art -- especially given my broad definition.

I AGREE THAT MY BROAD DEFINITION IS TOO ODD A STANDARD TO HOLD ANYONE TO.

My goal -- not Bingo's goal or the goal of whoever started the MetaTalk thread -- has actually never been to change anyone's behavior. If I've EVER given that impression, then I'm sorry. I don't remember doing so, but maybe someone can direct me to a post where I did it. If there is such a post, then I must have gotten caught up in the heat of the moment.

As I've said many times, I'M AGAINST ANY POLICY CHANGE ON METAFILTER. And by the way, there HAS been one. If you check the Metatalk thread, you'll see that Jess has changed the FAQ to ask people not to post spoilers. Maybe that's not "policy," but it is in writing which means that threads can now presumably be deleted if people post spoilers -- and the admins can point out what it says in the FAQ.

I'M AGAINST THAT!

I'm not advocating policy; I'm not asking a favor (though, you're right -- if people DID stop posting spoilers, that would be a granted favor). My only goal (which I've failed at miserably) is to try to get people to UNDERSTAND why I (and maybe some other people) hate spoilers so much.

That's it: to understand.

I remember thinking about that goal when I started this thread, and I'm VERY sorry if I every drifted away from it (we're discussing something I'm passionate about). But that remains my goal.

And I keep repeating myself, because it feels like people still DON'T understand. And maybe -- as you seem to be saying -- I'm hurting my own cause. But then how can I HELP my cause.

The angry response to the anti-spoiler people leads me to believe that most people don't underderstand them, and THAT'S what I'd like to change.

And I'm not hoping -- in some sly way -- that if people understand us, they'll stop posting spoilers. I AM hoping that if people understand us, these discussions can be more polite.

Oh, and I appreciate that you keep saying you're not mad at me, but you don't need to keep saying it. I know you're being helpful. I am passionate about this but not personally upset.

TPS, in my dream world, people would UNDERSTAND why non-spoiler people hate spoilers and how much spoilers hurt them. And they'd use this data-point as ONE factor when trying to decide whether to post a spoiler or how to act after posting one.

My guess is that this sounds dishonest. "Come one, in your DREAM world you want people to just stop posting spoilers!" No, because that conflicts with some other things in my dream world, such as my strong need to live in a world with freedom of expression (which is actually stronger than my -- strong -- desire not to read spoilers). I can't imagine, even in a dream, how people could be free to say whatever they want and yet also not free to post spoilers.

In my dream world, people care a little more about each other's feelings than the amount of caring I often encounter on Metafilter.

Incidentally, I'm sure many people are sick of my yammering, but I just emailed Bingo a long reply to his post about "intent" (explaining why I disagree with him that the author's intent is important). I'd rather not derail by posting it here, but if anyone is interested in taking that up, drop me a line and I'll cc you the email.

By the way, if the concensus here is that I'm annoying, then please ask me to shut up (I repond very well to requests). I may not shut up if only one or two people ask me to, but if I feel it's the general view, I definitely will.

Or, if you feel uncomfortable telling me that, feel free to move onto another thread.

Or, if you want to discuss spoilers without responding to my issues/obsessions, feel free to do that, too. ("Talk amongst yourself.")

Sorry, that sounds condescending. Obviously, you all know what your options are. I'm just not sure what people want ME to do in this thread. occhiblu and TPS, I'm not sure if you're trying to help me make my point or asking me to chill out for awhile (or some combination).

In my dream world, people care a little more about each other's feelings than the amount of caring I often encounter on Metafilter.

I think this is really the purpose of a lot of your arguments here, grumblebee, and why a lot of people "in opposition" to you are getting a bit turned about. Earlier, you gave the example of upsetting people by talking about your atheism, and how only rude people wouldn't apologize for upsetting someone by their conversation. However, the internet is a tricky place when it comes to social interaction - the people on Metafilter are less "friends" and more like "people standing in a very slow-moving line".

If a friend says, "stop! I haven't seen that movie yet!," then of course I'll stop talking about it. If some stranger standing next to me taps on me shoulder and says, "Your conversation about Citizen Kane is really spoiling it for me," I would quite probably give the stranger a blank look, turn away, and continue the conversation. Why? because I've created a private space here, and it's his job to tune it out if it offends him. Many would do something worse.

Perhaps you, grumblebee, would politely hold your conversation until away from him, but I don't honestly expect the majority of cosmopolitan Americans to treat strangers with any courtesy like this anymore. Hell, on the internet, it's almost too much to ask people to treat others like humans rather than complex Turing machines!

I hope my words aren't misconstrued, and that I haven't misconstrued your words. I'm just trying to explain to you some of the reactions that you're getting from some mefites - blank stares and perhaps even snarky comments. Why? because you're a stranger to them. Continuing to tap their shoulder and point out how rude they are only brings out their inner "Whatever, I'll do what I want."

On preview: I think everyone is just trying to understand your point of view.

Do you mean that my WORDS might literally be about me, but that be repeating myself it SOUNDS like I'm being dishonest, that I really care about how other people interact with stories?

Yes, exactly.

Your point is not particularly complicated. I really think we do all get it (we don't necessarily agree, but we do understand). Repeating your point over and over again therefore makes it sound like you think it's the only valid point, regardless of how many qualifications you put in about how you're open-minded about it.

Because when you KEEP arguing, you don't sound open-minded. You sound single-minded. Which is fine when you're actually trying to get people to admit that they're wrong -- I've been on the single-minded side of that many, many times -- but undermines your point if all you're really doing is trying to make people understand where you're coming from.

So basically, you're employing a discussion style (repeatedly stating your point almost ad nauseum) that's pretty much a hallmark of a bulldog "I'm not dropping this until everyone changes" argumentative style.

So regardless of what you're trying to present with content, your format is making you sound aggressively adamant about being right. (Which may be why I keep throwing in "Sorry" and "I'm not mad" comments; I'm engaging in the same style of argument, and I'm worried that you or others will read it as aggressive, so I'm trying to mitigate that, successfully or not.)

In terms of helping your cause: I think you need to better define what your "cause" is. If it's just having people understand your point, like I said, we got it. We got it ninety comments ago :-) So to that end, you can help by not continuing to present it over and over.

If your cause is, as you said in the original post, to understand where others are coming from, you can, once again, help by not posting your own opinion over and over again. If you want to hear what others have to say, you need to listen to what they're saying, not argue with them.

But truthfully, I think we've achieved both those goals, so I have no idea why, if those were actually your goals, you're still presenting long arugments. And I certainly don't think there's anything wrong with saying, "I'd like to see behavioral changes so that I can lead a happier life." To achieve that goal, which I know you're vigorously protesting against, I don't think there's anything wrong with saying, "Hey, can y'all do me a favor and modify your behavior a bit?"

PS - I just wanted to mention that I didn't learn about the end of Psycho until very very recently, which is a little surprising considering how much of a cultural reference it is.

I don't think there's anything wrong with saying, "Hey, can y'all do me a favor and modify your behavior a bit?"

As long as we all recognize that there's nothing wrong with responding, "Nope."

I should say, While I think we've achieved your stated goal of helping you understand where the "other side" is coming from, you very well may not think we've achieved that. But in that case, again, you might want to stop presenting your own arguments and start asking just simple questions about why others feel the way they do -- without making it an argument or presetnations of your own views, and without acting like you've already heard and rejected other opinions (which is how a lot of the "My friends say the same thing" comments tend to read), just a simple gathering of information in an effort to understand. Otherwise, people do tend to feel either attacked or argumentative, which is going to impede understanding.

On preview:
As long as we all recognize that there's nothing wrong with responding, "Nope."

Yes, of course, but I think grumblebee's been really good at understanding that's a valid response.

I wasn't really directing this to grumblebee, but to Netizens in general.

occhiblu and TPS, I'm not sure if you're trying to help me make my point or asking me to chill out for awhile (or some combination).

Heh. Both, I think. I'm totally happy continuing to talk here, just advising that in future discussions you may want to chill out a bit if you want to make your point. Or something. We've reached a level of meta-discourse in this particular thread that even I am getting confused!

I was just looking for a little clarification. This thread is interesting to me, if only because it gives me something to read during work :-) Carry on!

Points taken, O.

I really think I HAVE learned why (at least many of the reasons why) people get upset with my point of view, and I've tried to thank people here for pointing such things out to me. I also now know that there's irritation based on me (and maybe others, but mostly me) saying the same thing over and over.

I'm not totally convinced that others have learned why I have my views, but I think at this point, I'm either wrong -- they have learned; Or I'm right, but I'm going to have to accept that people may never understand on the level I'd like them to (perhaps because I don't have the skills to communicate what I want to communicate). So (everyone breath a sigh of relief) I'll stop trying.

If I have another question, I'll ask. And you all can go on talking or let the thread die. (But you knew that.)

One of the reasons I went on and on, despite the fact that (if you're right) everyone got what I was saying several thousand words ago, is that no one responded to me as if they got what I was saying (or they did, and I misinterpreted them).

I'm very literal-minded (in case you didn't guess), and (I hate to say this, because it's become a cliche) almost definitely "suffer" from a light (maybe not as light as I think) form of Aspergers. So I'm sorry if my thick skull got in the way of my understanding.

I also tend to have the same position in about a zillion arguments. As I still see things, there were guys like Bingo who were saying, "STOP THE SPOILERS" and the majority here who was saying, "STOP TELLING US TO STOP THE SPOILERS" (or some lighter form of that, like "stop telling us that every little thing is a spoiler."). I don't align myself with either camp.

My thick-skulled position tends to be, "Why can't everyone just get along?" I sometimes fail to see that people need to yell at each other a bit. And -- as you've pointed out -- my continual requests for politeness generally fail to make people polite (or maybe make things worse).

But I will NEVER accept living in an un-polite world. I just can't. And, though muddgirl cautions me otherwise, I can't accept that on the web either. Maybe I'm in for a life of pain. But I just can't imagine -- in my wildest dreams -- getting used to that or accepting it. But I AM smart enough to know that just because I don't like it, it's not going to change. So I usually deal with my feelings by just keeping quiet. This time I didn't.

Speaking of politeness, it is most impolite to condescend or act snobbish. That was never my intent, but (as I told Bingo), I don't care that much about intent. So I apoligize to anyone I offended.

I find it insanely fascinating to have these conversations with you, grumblebee, given how extremely metaphorically I tend to think. It's interesting to try to step back and try to analyze things in a way that I hope speaks to how you think, and I always think it's wonderful that you seem so concerned about doing the same for others.

In any event, I did enjoy the discussion.

(And I also did not learn about the end of Psycho until really recently, and managed to see The Sixth Sense many many years after its release without having any clue about the twist. I can also read mystery novels over and over without remembering the ending. I highly recommend apathy combined with a bad memory for detail!)

My thick-skulled position tends to be, "Why can't everyone just get along?" I sometimes fail to see that people need to yell at each other a bit. And -- as you've pointed out -- my continual requests for politeness generally fail to make people polite (or maybe make things worse).

But I will NEVER accept living in an un-polite world. I just can't. And, though muddgirl cautions me otherwise, I can't accept that on the web either.

That's interesting, gb, because I never really saw anything in this debate that was rude or offensive (I admit I didn't read the whole meta thread), and in fact I think Metafilter as a whole is much more polite than other communities - members may sometimes be dismissive of ideas, but they rarely do anything to intentionally annoy or target another member (although I have at times been tempted to make an annoying^ carat^ post^), and when it happens matthowie is usually pretty quick about shutting it down. But perhaps this is because I tend to give other people the benefit of the doubt, when trying to discern their intentions.

they are bleeding now like violence in their feet
oh come open now the solitary
spoilerspoilerspoilerspoilerspoilerspoiler

Occhiblu, I feel the same way. It's always great and fascinating to talk to you. I seems like -- as different as our ways of thinking are -- we share a love of getting inside someone else's shoes and bridging gaps.

muddgirl, you're right. This discussion has been polite. The Metachat one was less so (though not horrible). My harping on rudeness stems from a lifetime of discussing this issue and a continual confusion about why people (offline sometimes) get so mad. I've literally had people start screaming at me when I've just brought it up. This thread has helped me see how I contribute to the problem, which is one of the things I'd hoped it would do.

The one thing I find horrible on Metafilter (but even THIS I understand better now) is that EVERY time someone complains about spoilers on Metatalk, several people seem to enjoy posting tons of it. So the conversation goes:

A: Please don't post spoilers.
B: Oh, yeah. Stick THIS up your ass: Rosbud is XXX; Planet of the Apes is really YYY; ZZZ is Luke's father; etc.

To me, that's like someone saying, "I'm afraid of spiders" and having someone else then revel in dropping spiders all over them. I can't imagine every getting joy out of rubbing salt in someone's wound, so it's hard for me to deal with this. And it's also stunning to me (or was in the past) that few people point this out. I would (or would HAVE) expected someone to say, "Hey! EASY. I don't care about spoilers, either, but that was unneccessary."

I still find such behavior horrible, but I understand more now where some of the frustration was coming from.

I do agree that Metafilter is a better behaved place than ... say .. Slashdot (ugh!) but I don't find it a terribly kind or polite environment. There are plenty of pileons, etc.

But you know, I'm sort of old world and formal. I was a big "please" and "thank you" kid, and I have a hard time accepting a more confrontational world.

It's a weird thing. People sometimes say -- and I sometimes say to myself -- Hey, that's the way the world (or the web) is. Get over it! Easier said than done. The trouble is (a) flaming is against my nature; (b) I think I'm right that the world (and web) would be a better place without it. Which means that it's hard for me to stand by and let it happen without comment. Most of the time I do, but I can't always do it.

But perhaps we should discuss the Intentional Fallacy elsewhere. Such a discussion here could seriously derail this thread...we could get coffee or a drink some time.

grumblebee, I'm up for having a drink with you any time.

That said, what you think would be a derail of the thread is, to me, the whole argument. And to clarify: it doesn't matter what the author's intention actually was. What matters is that you (the reader/viewer) recognize that art is a form of communication. The artist was trying to say something to you, and that's why the piece of art exists. If you don't acknowledge that, then there's no need to treat art any differently than you treat anything else.

And I don't think that's what you're like. Because after all, if you're just reacting at a gut level to everything (such as novels that are just 'marks on a page'), then you might as well start doing some serious drugs. Heroin can directly stimulate the pleasure center in your brain, you know...what do you care what led to that reaction? Why must you have actually pleasurable experiences to earn your pleasure? And why communicate with other people at all when you don't absolutely have to...I mean, who cares what other people are actually trying to say to you, right?

But I know that you aren't that way. You don't do drugs, you spend a lot of time communicating with people because you like doing it, and you have a theatre company dedicated to honoring the text of classic plays! You are not a reactive, simple-minded, hedonistic solipsist. You're a communicator, an actor, writer, and director. Don't those two descriptions sound like opposites to you? And when a communicator puts his thoughts into a medium, is the communication over? The person who gets them out the other end isn't participating in the same process, whether he knows it or not? Come on. When I saw your (very good) performance as Uncle Vanya, that was Checkov talking to me, through you, across space and time, sharing his ideas about love and despair. He didn't communicate them directly to me - how could he? He didn't know what kind of person I would be, or where or when. So he wrapped those in a good story, and that's what enabled them to travel the distance they have, and I hope they travel a lot further.

The creation of art is not just some natural phenomena, some thing that 'happens.' It's one human being talking to another in a way that's ultimately truer and cleaner, and much more powerful, than the kind of communication that the rest of humanity spends so much of its time engaging in.

The emotions that you feel when you experience a good story are a gift given to you by the person who told you that story. You can pretend that the story, like a rock, is some naturally occurring thing that was just sitting there for you to find, but if you do, you're lying to yourself. And hey, lie to yourself if you like, but don't go dragging me into your bullshit. If someone writes a story on numbered pieces of paper, then it's not much of a stretch to suppose that the way to engage those pieces of paper is to read them in numerical order. And if you go and show me what's on the last page first, you are not just messing with my shit, you are messing with the communication between me and the artist, and that is not okay.

Bingo, my friend, you put me in a quandary. Your great post was a response to an email I sent you, so you created an incongruity in the thread. I meant to keep this stuff out of here, but I guess now I won't. The spoiler thing seems to have died down -- so maybe no harm done. So for anyone who is interested, here's what I sent to Bingo:

(Bingo, I have much to say about what your response, but let me get the email posted first.)

=======================


Bingo, you bring up some really interesting points re: intent, and you've clearly though a lot about it. I don't want to bypass the discussion, but it didn't seem appropriate for that thread. So here are my thoughts:

There are MANY reasons why I don't care about intent, and I'd be happy to discuss each with you at length (I'm always into deep discussions are storytelling, which I consider my life's passion and work -- maybe you do too!). But here's the main reason:

I read a story (or watch a movie, but I'll quit saying that and just use "read a story" as a catch-all example of interacting with a narrative) and the patterns of ink on the page cause certain reactions in my brain.

Unless you believe in some sort of mystical spirit in art (fine if you do, but I don't), that's "all" that's going on. (It's a BIG "all", so I don't mean to imply it's trivial.) There's a stimuli and I'm responding to it. And my response is what it is. If I start crying, then it's silly to say that I'm not crying.

And I don't get how you can say that my crying is "wrong." At worst, it's eccentric. Maybe 99% of people laugh and I cry. But how can an emotional response be wrong? It may be socially inappropriate or weird (eccentric). But it doesn't have aesthetic or moral weight. Like a rock, it just is. If you believe that emotions themselves can be right or wrong, I'm not sure we have enough common ground to continue discussing this, but I'm open to trying.

Now my ONLY interest in stories is how they make me FEEL. You can say that's silly or trivial, but nevertheless it's true. So we're back to ink on paper (or light on a screen). I see it and I have a feeling, and my feeling can't be right or wrong. It just is. It's just what happens to me when I parse the ink. (Again, I do own that it can be odd. But I don't care if it's odd, since I only care how a work makes me feel, and odd or not, I feel what I feel. Perhaps you can say that I'm robbing myself of other great ways of experiencing art, and you may be right, but I'm happy and deeply sated doing what I'm doing.)

To me, reading a story is like eating food or taking a drug. Say chocolate makes me happy. You can tell me I'm "wrong" and that the baker never intended to make my happy. Sorry baker, but when I eat your chocolate, I'm still happy.

Now I've simplified human psychology to make a few points, but I can hear you (or the fictional version of you that's currently living in my head) jumping up and down and screaming: "It's NOT just ink and reactions to ink! There's SO much more going on in your head! There's connections you're making between what you read and events in your life, there are political and social lenses through which you can't help reading and interpreting the story, etc."

To which I answer, "Yes. So what?" In other words, I STILL parse the ink and have a reaction, which is what it is. Maybe my reaction is affected by non-ink factors, but it STILL is what it is.

Now one POSSIBLE non-ink factor it MIGHT be affected by is something I've heard the author say in an interview. The story made me laugh, but the author said "I intended it to be a tragedy." Okay, that enters my brain and MAYBE it affects the way I now see the story. In any case, I now the the story SOME way, which is what it is.

What if the author says it's a tragedy and I STILL laugh? Am I wrong? I don't think that makes sense, but you're welcome to call me wrong. But I'm STILL laughing. And THAT'S what I care about. I don't care if I'm "wrong" (whatever that would mean). I care about my emotional response, which somehow seems not be be affected by the author's intentions.

Many people ARE affected by stuff the author says in interviews. Perhaps this is because they respect authors as authority figures or something? I'm sure it's for some good, sensible reason. And ithat's great for them (or bad for them or whatever). They will have the reaction they have, based on their personality.

MANY times, I have read a book or seen a movie, and after hearing what the author has said about his own work, I have realized that I feel diferently about the work than he does. Even if I decide that I am "wrong," that doesn't change my feelings.

Also, as an author myself, I often say things about my OWN work that I later realize is "wrong" -- or that I change my mind about. Sometimes someone else says something that contradicts the way I've been thinking about my own work, and suddenly I see it they way they see it, and I like their interpretation better.

So -- yes -- I MIGHT be swayed by an author's statements, but it's just as likely that I might be swayed by something else -- something a critic says or even some random event that blips in my brain in some odd way.

YOU might be more affected by what the author says than, say, what a critic says or what you ate that day. And that's fine. But that's YOU. And maybe it's MANY or even MOST people. But it's not me. I really don't care what the author intended, because it doesn't tend to affect my feelings, and I only interact with stories because of how they make me feel. So given that, why SHOULD I care?

Now authors are humans, and I'm human, and so naturally we share similar brain structures. So it shouldn't come a surprise IF what-the-author-intended HAPPENS to line up with what-I-feel. Still, I find that it often DOESN'T line up. Interesting! Maybe there's more plasticity in the brain than is obvious. Or maybe I'm just very very eccentric.

Regards,

G

Okay. My response to your response:

You wrote a beautiful, passionate and romantic defense of your views, and I loved reading it and feel ashamed to say that I fear being honest, because I think to do so will peg me as a self-centered soul-less being. But -- as dearly as a love the "poetry" of your response -- I disagree with nearly every word of it.

I'll take it bit by bit:

What matters is that you (the reader/viewer) recognize that art is a form of communication.

What matters to whom? To you? Clearly. To me? No. I recognize that (most) artists are trying to communicate. That's NOT the same thing as saying that art -- the object produced by the artist -- is a form of communication.

A piece of art is an inert object. An artist can throw it out there, HOPING it will be taken as an act of communication, but I don't have to receive it that way. And (this is a really subtle point), I'd say even then the act of communication is the "throwing it out there," not the object it self. A writer tapping away at keys is a form of communication; the resulting text file (or print out) isn't. It's ones and zeros on a disk or ink marks on paper. For you to say marks are a form of communication is a use of metaphor. Which is why I said your post was poetic (and beautifully so).

Metaphors are personal. The meaning that you ascribe to something is not necessarily the meaning I ascribe to that same thing. So it's fine for YOU to feel that a painting is a form of communication, but I don't. And here I'm going to out myself as soulless. I think a painting -- the actually physical OBJECT -- is pigment on canvas.

Now you know enough about me to know that I passionately love art, and this may always seem paradoxical (though I don't think it is), but the truth is that I passionately love art DESPITE the fact that I think art is "just" matter. Not mystically connected to the artist who created it.

If you don't acknowledge that, then there's no need to treat art any differently than you treat anything else.


Well, as you now know, I don't acknowledge it. And you're right: there's no need to treat it (art) as special. I don't think it IS special. And THIS is why I've said here that I don't think my relationship to art is better or worse than anyone else's. I love art. But if someone doesn't -- if he prefers sports or whatever -- then I don't believe he's of a lower order or not as enlightened as I am. I may not want to be friends with him, but that's just because he doesn't share my interests. It's not because my interests are special or magical or of a higher order.

(As an artist -- and as a member of an artistic community -- this is not something I discuss often. As you can imagine, such a view doesn't make me very popular.)

Let me be very clear (so that I can avoid sounding completely soulless) that I FEEL like art is the most profoundly important creation of the human race. But I don't privilege my feelings as good describers of reality. Which doesn't mean that I devalue feelings. Feelings matter deeply to me. They matter because I love sensation. They don't matter because they are accurate guides to reality.

if you're just reacting at a gut level to everything ... then you might as well start doing some serious drugs.

I don't do drugs because I'm scared of them. I'm scared of how they affect my health. But otherwise you're right. (You're LITERALLY right, whereas I know you were trying to make an outlandish statement to show me the foolishness of my position.) I love to feel and art makes me feel more deeply and in more complex ways than anything else I can think of -- except for love. I haven't experimented with drugs (scared), so I don't know if they could make me feel as deeply and complexly as art, but if they could -- and if I wasn't scared of them -- I'd take them and perhaps give up art. Whatever works works.

who cares what other people are actually trying to say to you, right?

Well, I care what my friends and family are trying to say to me, but I don't care what Shakespeare, Chekhov or Francis Ford Copola are trying to say to me because (a) they don't know me and (b) um ... I just don't care.

(But... And here's the "paradox" again. I LOVE the objects they created!)


you have a theatre company dedicated to honoring the text of classic plays!

Again, a poetic phrase. I don't really know how you can "honor" a text. My company is about telling stories. We use the classics, because I feel their stories are the best stories. I don't think they have been surpassed. So why not tell the best if you're into telling stories?

You are not a reactive, simple-minded, hedonistic solipsist. You're a communicator, an actor, writer, and director. Don't those two descriptions sound like opposites to you?

Well, sure I'm a communicator. To be human seems to mean to want to communicate (I doubt artists want to communicate more strongly than non artists). And maybe I use my art as a means of communication. But that doesn't mean the audience receives it as communication.

Truthfully, I don't think all that much about communicating when I'm directing. I think about telling a story clearly and evocatively. I know, I know, TELL it to who? I don't focus on that part. I focus on the telling. I guess it's still a form of communication, but it feels very different to ... say ... this. Here, I'm trying to communicate with YOU. I'm very aware of that. But I don't feel this way when I direct.

In any case, it doesn't matter what I'm trying to do (except to me). The audience members will receive things in their own way. MAYBE they will receive them as a form of communication -- IF they endow art with the same meaning that you do.

And when a communicator puts his thoughts into a medium, is the communication over?

Again, a poetic thought, but what does it MEAN? How can a communicator put his thoughts into a medium? Thoughts are processes that happen in the brain when neurons fire. How can these be "put into" a medium?

I can certainly agree that once an artists types something on paper, the paper and type still exist (unless someone destroys them), but I suspect you mean something much more profound. I don't know how you feel about being called a mystic or spiritualist. You may be fine with it; you may balk at it. But I have a hard time interpreting your statement any other way.

It's as if you're saying that thought is some kind of "energy" that inhabits the paper. This, I think, is a common form of mysticism, even among people who are supposedly atheists or skeptics. But I don't share it.

If the artist wrote in English, I will receive the literal words he wrote as words (not as abstract marks), because I can read English. But I when you talk of the author's intent, I assume you mean more than his intent that when he writes "duck," I picture a water fowl. Since the author and I are human and share similar brain structures, his words MAY conjure up some of the same feelings in me that he had when he wrote them. But the mind is very plastic. And the author has different associations and memories in his mind than I do in mine. So my interpretation will necessarily be quite different from his.

The person who gets them out the other end isn't participating in the same process, whether he knows it or not? Come on.

No. He's not. The artist made a object. The person looks at it (listens to it. whatever.) I know you weren't talking about things on that simplistic level, but I think it's important to say.

Yes, both are thinking or feeling. The artist has thoughts, puts pen to paper (MAYBE in an attempt to convey those thoughts) and creates an object (a story or whatever). The person then encounters the object and has his own thoughts and feelings, based on that encounter.

You are implying that there's a wire from the artist's brain to the person's, but you haven't shown me any evidence of that. It's lovely, romantic notion -- the connectedness of people through art -- and I HATE to come out against it. But where's the evidence? I can't believe it (can't -- not "don't want to") just because it's a great, romantic notion. I also can't believe it, even though I sometimes FEEL like it's true. (I sometimes FEEL like I have psychic powers, but I don't.)

When I saw your (very good) performance as Uncle Vanya, that was Chekhov talking to me, through you, across space and time, sharing his ideas about love and despair.

A LOVELY, mystical thought. I LOVE it and sometimes FEEL like it's true. But where's the evidence? It's complete mysticism.

It's one human being talking to another in a way that's ultimately truer and cleaner, and much more powerful, than the kind of communication that the rest of humanity spends so much of its time engaging in.

God I'm glad you're so passionate about art! I'd love to live in a world filled with people like you!

But I don't know what you mean -- on a literal level -- by truer and clearer. "Much more powerful"? Maybe. It is to me in the way I outlined, above. It makes me FEEL more powerfully than anything else (almost). And I would like to live in a community of other people who react this way to art. Much like a cat lover wants to be around other cat lovers.

When I tell stories as a director, as much as I AM communicating, I'm trying to make the audience feel. I recognize that -- as you say (or as I interpret what you say) -- art can generate powerful feelings. At least it does so for me, and I HOPE that some others are enough like me that it will do the same for them. I don't care what feelings they feel -- just that they DO feel. If "Uncle Vanya" makes me laugh and makes them cry ... GREAT! More feeling in the world! I love it!

I don't tell stories to convey ideas. I don't tell them to convey specific feelings. I just tell them and HOPE that they prompt feelings in others. In fact, if everyone felt what I felt, that would be boring.

And it's fine if other storytellers are more into conveying ideas. Or more into conveying specific feelings. I'm just talking about what I try for. And in the end, it doesn't matter what I or they try for. The audience -- each audience member, actually -- will feel what they feel. We throw it out there; they pick it up. What happens, happens.


The emotions that you feel when you experience a good story are a gift given to you by the person who told you that story.

I'm going to force myself to be a spoilsport and bring this down from the clouds: I wouldn't feel what I feel when I read "King Lear" if Shakespeare hadn't bothered to write it. Does that make the play a "gift given to me by Shakespeare"? That's a metaphorical way of thinking about it. And it's lovely, but it's not LITERALLY true. Shakespeare deposited. I collected. (Could I be more cold?)

You can pretend that the story, like a rock, is some naturally occurring thing that was just sitting there for you to find, but if you do, you're lying to yourself. And hey, lie to yourself if you like, but don't go dragging me into your bullshit.

How am I doing that? You have my blessing (as if you need it!) to believe what you want and have any relationship with art that you want (and to think any negative/positive thoughts that you want about my relationship with art). And I more than respect you for it. I LOVE the fact that each person can form his own relationship with art. I've formed mine. You've formed yours.

If someone writes a story on numbered pieces of paper, then it's not much of a stretch to suppose that the way to engage those pieces of paper is to read them in numerical order.

What do you mean by "the way to"? The way to according to whom? The God of stories?

Sorry, I don't mean to be sarcastic, but If you want to make me understand, you'll have to clarify. WHY do I need to read them in numerical order? Because the artist wants me to? Why do I have to do what the artists wants me to? And if I do, what will be the payoff? If I do read them in numerical order but find that I like them better out of order, what then? I'll tell you what: than I like them better out of order. Am I wrong to like them better out of order? Maybe. But I still like them better out of order?

WHEW!

It's lovely, romantic notion -- the connectedness of people through art -- and I HATE to come out against it. But where's the evidence? I can't believe it (can't -- not "don't want to") just because it's a great, romantic notion. I also can't believe it, even though I sometimes FEEL like it's true.

Well...okay, I'm willing to come out and say that I believe it *because* I feel that it's true. But that doesn't quite do it justice...it's not that I feel like it's true...it's that I feel the truth of it.

You're right that a novel is just a stack of paper. And I don't think that the paper is physically invested with any sort of magic. What's magical is the fact that one person can connect to another through that paper.

And you're right...there is no proof that this is what's actually happening. And you can call me a mystic if you like. But the truth is that I just don't take logic and hard facts as the end-all be-all. Nobody actually knows anything for sure. You and I think we're communicating with one another, but maybe we're not...and that 'not' could be happening at many different levels. Maybe we'll come to an understanding here, and then we'll hang out sometime and both realize that we misunderstood each other. Or, at another level, maybe we're using words such as 'art' or even 'novel' or even 'paper' that have such different meanings for each of us due to a lifetime of associations, that even though we'll both *think* that we've come to an understanding, we really won't, but neither of us will ever know it. Or, at another level, maybe what you think of as English and what I think of as English are actually not the same language, and we're not talking about the same thing *at all*, and we'll never know because life is orchestrated by mysterious forces to keep us from ever figuring it out. Or, at another level, maybe you and I are just brains in vats, and we're interacting in the Matrix. Or, at another level, maybe you are a brain in a vat, and you're the only one in the universe, and everything else is just a dream you're having.

We don't know. And there's really no way to prove any of those things one way or the other. So we all make decisions, conscious or not, about what we actually believe. Some of those decisions are more or less arbitrary, some are practical, and some are simply because we get a very strong feeling that something is true, even though we can't prove it. For example, I don't think that you and I are brains in vats. If there was some kind of cosmic poker table, I would be willing to bet a lot of money on that fact.

Here's another one of those things that I actually believe. I believe that the feelings that I experienced when watching Uncle Vanya were at least some of the same feelings that Checkov had when he was writing it. And these are not the sort of feelings that can be summed up in a word like 'sadness.' You can write around something, tell someone 'I felt sad,' and they have a general idea of what you meant. But if you tell them a story, and you're really good, then you can make them feel sad...even make them feel the particular kind of sad that you felt. You can't do it directly, though. It has to come upon them as if it's their own feeling...because, in that moment, it *is* their own feeling.

I know that Checkhov did that to me. Call it mystical if you want. But I know it at the same level that I know I'm not just a brain in a vat.

That communication that people have through art is very special...knowing that it's there, and experiencing it, can make me feel good about being alive, even when I'm experiencing a work that's depressing, like say, Long Day's Journey Into Night. The fact that I can't prove to you logically that this communication really takes place doesn't mean anything to me. Logic is a closed system, and I think it's silly to suppose that everything must be bound by it. (It's also possible that what I'm describing is bound by logic, and we just haven't discovered exactly how yet...some of the Matthew Arnold-esque structuralists actually tried to do this.)

Anyway, I'm tired. That's not something I can prove either, it's just something I know. If you try to keep me awake, I'll get upset. Same if you spoil the ending to a good story.

"... I'm willing to enterain the idea that whether or not I'm snobbish in real life, my writing comes across as snobbish. I'm not sure how to make my (non-snobbish) point without sounding snobbish to you. ..."
posted by grumblebee 03 October | 11:00

Don't worry about "enterain"ing it another minute, you special, sensitive, artistic snowflake. With this thread, you've created the greatest one man homage to the long troll of the last decade, and the greater irony is, you didn't need 100 rehearsals to do it. As a fan of the absurd, my hat is off to you, and at the same time, I pity you the sensibilities that could, but for love of the absurd and ignorance of the wider world, play this thread out to the length you have. I say this as a compassionate person who deals directly with mental illness on a daily basis, as a concerned caregiver.

Re-reading this thread, I'm gobsmacked afresh each time. You've created a thing that can't possibly be fully appreciated (or even understood) on a first reading, apparently attempting to convince people that a fresh first reading of a thing is a special pleasure for your incredibly sensitive self, which to be good human beings, they ought devote attention to preserving. And yet, like the fully imagined train wreck that it is, this thread demands re-reading after re-reading, in the same way the Zapruder film fascinates so horribly, as Kennedy's head explodes afresh with each rewind necessary for a deeper understanding. Great artistic inversion that, making your plea for the preservation of surprise such a gratingly repetitious whine.

Your quixotic question and contributions here stand as signpost on the road to the fresh hell an Internet exchange can quickly become, in ways which surely deserve the greatest archival respect, and frequent quotation, far into the future. Let all who pass this way look upon your posts and compassionately mutter in passing, as I do, "There, but for the grace of God, go I."

And in the end, with a full re-reading of your position, you've convinced me that it is, indeed, far better to ask forgiveness of offense later, than to assume the ridiculous burden of pre-judging what I might say, that might offend you. I congratulate you on the power of your rhetoric, in the full flower of your artistic sensibility.

Bingo, I have no argument with anything you just posted. Especially since you put it on such a subjective footing.

I know how it feels to FEEL the truth. The difference between you and me -- perhaps -- is that I don't think my feelings of truth correspond to truth in the physical world (if, indeed, there is a physical world).

When I read a book, I often feel like there's a personality behind the book, and that this personality is talking to me. So perhaps on the level that matters most, you and I share something important. You believe (I think) that this feeling is actually some kind of bond between you and the author. I believe that the feeling is created inside my head. Most of the time, the differences between us don't matter.

But here's a weird thought experiment: Say both of us read "Uncle Vanya" and feel that Chekhov is talking to us -- and telling us specific things. One of those things is thing X. Now lets say we're SURE Chekhov is telling us X. We feel it in our GUT. Not necessarily the real Chekhov -- but the authorial personality version of Chekhov that we extrapolate from the book. Still, we FEEL it.

Now, let's say that we travel back in time and meet the real, historical Chekhov. And he says, "You're quite mistaken. I never meant X." What would you do? To me, this is easy. I'd go with the phantom Chekhov rather than the read Chekhov. Not because I'd choose to -- I just would. Even if I didn't want to, I couldn't help myself.

Here's a weirder example, and you may that I'm perverting things too far: let's say Shakespeare came back from the dead and said ("HAMLET SPOILER >>>") "I've changed my mind. Hamlet DOESN'T die at the end." Let's say he even manages to recall all copies and changes the ending. Is Hamlet dead or not? I don't think there's a right answer, but to me Hamlet is dead.

A more realistic example is "Close Encounters of the Third Kind." I think it's a stupid movie, but when I was a kid, I liked it. Anyway, the movie came out in one form, and then Spielberg changed his intentions and re-edited it in another form -- adding some new scenes and deleting others. He made it clear that the NEW version was the official version -- a pretty clear broadcasting of intent. But I hated the new version and loved the old version. So I didn't give a shit what Spielberg said. And even if I did -- even if I grudgingly said, "Okay, his version is the official version," that wouldn't have changed my feelings. I still wouldn't have liked it. My words would have just been polite gestures towards the director. They wouldn't have described my inner feelings.

Re: logic. I think it's fine to reject logic, but I can't deal with rejecting it in a hypocritical way. In other words, I can't deal with saying, "I'm going to follow logic when I need it to solve a problem but rejecting it when I find its outcome unromantic or scary." To me, that seems like an act of cowardice. I'm not saying you're a coward or even that that's what you're doing. But I couldn't do it.

Yes, anything is possible, but I don't feel that this means I can say, "okay, to hell with it! I'm choosing the reality that I like best!"

But I do envy you your romanticism!

And lest you misunderstand me, I DO agree that SOMETIMES the following scenario happens: storyteller hopes to evoke a particular, specific response and so he arranges his work to evoke that response. And then the viewer feels that exact response. Yes, of course that happens (due to the similarity of human brains and shared culture).

I'm saying that...

-- It isn't guaranteed to happen.

-- If it doesn't happen, that's not a bad thing. Which is an opinion, of course, and thus unprovable. But if you say it IS a bad thing, that is also an unprovable opinion. Ultimately, it comes down to how each person choose to interact with art.

-- The artist's intent (literally: the thoughts in his brain) have ZERO effect on the reader, because psychic powers don't exist (according to my skeptical bias). However, what the author SAYS about his intent (in an interview or whatever) MAY affect SOME readers, depending on their feelings about authors.

-- Just as people are pattern-seekers, and see (for instance) meaning in the arrangements of stars (where there is no real meaning), people are also social animals and see "psychology" where there's none present. Which leads to all sorts of interesting affects, like projecting thoughts onto animals, puppets, cars, etc. ("My computer HATES me!") So thought I think it's much less connected to any sort of physical reality than you do, I am not surprised that you -- and many other people -- feel that the artist is talking to you through the book. I think this is an illusion created by our minds.

Paulsc, I'm confused by some things in your post. Can you clarify?

On the one hand, you say things like "you special, sensitive, artistic snowflake," which (forgive me if I'm misreading) sounds sarcastic and mean. But at the same time you say, "I say this as a compassionate person who deals directly with mental illness on a daily basis, as a concerned caregiver."

I don't get it: are you trying to chastise me or help me?

I don't understand why I'm a "special, sensitive, artistic snowflake." We've established -- haven't we? -- that I have condescended to people and have been snobbish (I contend this is by accident, but so what? A deed is a deed, and we must take responsibility for what we do by accident, no?). How can a snob be sensitive and special?

You say, "you've convinced me that it is ... far better to ask forgiveness of offense later, than to assume the ridiculous burden of pre-judging what I might say, that might offend you." But when have you offended me? I don't understand? I never took offense at anything you said? Did I seem like I did?

I won't beat the dead horse re: spoilers any more. I've said over and over that I'm NOT claiming that the fact I dislike them makes me special. Or that people who view stories in another way are less-advanced than I. I fear that my communication skills are not good enough to convey this to you or convince you. I think I must give up on that front.

Again, I may be wrong, but it sounds like I've made you angry or aggravated or something. Have you thought about not returning to this thread?

I apologize to you -- or anyone else -- to whom I've cause offense.

Shit. Paulsc: by "have you thought about not returning," I wasn't trying to suggest that I think you should leave. I'd rather leave than have you do that. I'm just confused about why you're here, in a thread that seems to be causing you upset. But certainly you have the right to stay.

"... I don't get it: are you trying to chastise me or help me? ..."

Neither, as you are not Socrates, and I am not a Platonic foil in some Dialogue, and this thread doesn't rise to those classical rhetorical standards. I think it true that you believe yourself to be especially sensitive, and perhaps artistic, as you say early on, in the pseudo self-deprecating manner routinely marked by a special spelling device

... Next to the important people in my life, there is nothing as important to me as stories. Perhaps that comes across as judgmental 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." ...'

and then say later

"... I'm very literal-minded (in case you didn't guess), and (I hate to say this, because it's become a cliche) almost definitely "suffer" from a light (maybe not as light as I think) form of Aspergers. So I'm sorry if my thick skull got in the way of my understanding. ..."

So, I re-read the thread, and watch you preen, and watch you apologize prettily for your disabilities, and I'm truly sympathetic that you seem incapable of understanding anything anyone has said in it, except as it please you to do so. I'm able to be both snarky and genuinely compassionate, without contradiction, because it's a long silly thread, and you've bounced around a bit in it. That's one of the hazards of the long troll form, but them's the rhetorical breaks.

"... How can a snob be sensitive and special? ..."

Not a good question. The Romanovs went to their deaths answering it. But occhiblu had some advice for you about it, as did others upthread. Hence the archival value of all this.

"... But when have you offended me? I don't understand? I never took offense at anything you said? Did I seem like I did? ..."

I intended no offense to you in anything I've posted, and if I had, have enough command of the language to make myself clear. Don't bother yourself further trying to decide if I've offended you. ;-)

"... Again, I may be wrong, but it sounds like I've made you angry or aggravated or something. Have you thought about not returning to this thread? ..."

I'm certainly not aggravated, but you can't begrudge me pausing to mark trail occasionally, for later passerby, maintaining archival interest for them, can you? For we're barely 145 posts into a long troll, and by the standards of the broader Internet, barely warmed up to one another.

Leave the thread? Pshaw, man! I've never failed to feed a troll I've found, intentional or blissfully accidental, so long as I've had a working keyboard, and I won't fail you now.

Wow; this has really become an epic tale with multiple plot twists and a cast of... several. (Please! Nobody tell me how it turns out!)

I'm still confused, paulsc. What's a "special spelling device"?

I don't understand why, when I asked if you were chastising me, you brought up Socrates and Plato and dramatic foils. What does all that have to do with chastising?

When you say I believe myself to be "artistic", do you mean autistic? I ask, because shortly after mentioning it, you refered to when I brought up Aspergers. I believe I have Aspergers because it runs in my family and I have symptems of it -- but I've never been formally diagnosed. I'm not sure if I'm artistic, as I'm not really sure what that word even means. I think it's a silly word.

You linked two quotes of me -- one in which I worried that I was coming across as judgemental and another in which I worry that I'm overly literal. Both of which I DO worry about. But I'm clueless as to why you pasted in those quotes or how they relate to each other or how they are "preening". Aaaargh! I feel like an idiot. I'm so fucking confused.

I'm sorry, but I don't know enough about the Romonov's to understand why my question about snobbery is a bad question. It's a very important question to me. Why is it bad?

You say you "intended no offense to you in anything I've posted", which is fine, because I'm not offended, but I don't understand how you can say you intended no offense but -- at the same time -- that you're being "snarky". It's possible that I misunderstand "snarky. Isn't a snark an insult? And if it wasn't intended to offend or chastise, what was "special, sensitive, artistic snowflake" about?

How are you "pausing to mark trail"? What trail are you marking? And in what way are you "maintaining archival interest"? This thread IS archinved, right? What are you adding to the archive that isn't already here?

I don't get the "troll" references. I clicked your link in an earlier post, but I still don't get it. How are we barely into a long troll? Isn't a troll someone who tries to get people to fight? I hate fighting! And even if I was a troll, why on Earth would you want to feed me? Wouldn't that make things worse, or am I screwing up the meaning of the word troll, too?

Confused. Confused. Confused.

It would help my addled brain if you could post without using any web slang (troll) or allusions to history (Romonovs/Socrates). Nothing wrong with that, but it's too complex for my brain.

Ah, my dear grumblebee, I feel we're setting out, finally, on a long journey, through dense thickets, and dark forests filled with small, twisty trails and passages. But fear not, I'm sure we'll have fun.

Sorry to take things a bit out of order, but best we start in the clear light of dictionary definitions, for basic questions:

"...Isn't a snark an insult? ..."

No, not as I read the vastly useful FreeDictionary
"snark·y Pronunciation (snärk)
adj. snark·i·er, snark·i·est Slang
Irritable or short-tempered; irascible."

I describe my tone, but you need not take umbrage, yet.

"... What's a "special spelling device"? ..."

Well, you're the self-described author, and I the Internet rube, but, "... artEEST ..." is what stuck out in the section I quoted. It's a pretty commonplace literary device, used extensively by such notables as Mark Twain to indicate satire, or satirical self-deprecation. If you don't care for those connotations, don't load your prose with anything but plain language.

"... What does all that have to do with chastising? ..."

You asked a question presenting a dilemma, which is an old Socratic device, from Plato's Dialogues. I rejected choosing either horn of the dilemma, by tossing a little sand in the bull's eyes. It's all 2500 year old manuevering, so I hope I haven't spoiled anything for you, by this explanation, but I fear I may have.

"... And if it wasn't intended to offend or chastise, what was "special, sensitive, artistic snowflake" about? ..."

Well, you see how you capitalize the word "feel" repeatedly when talking about your views?

"... It makes me FEEL more powerfully than anything else (almost). ..."
"... I know how it feels to FEEL the truth. ..."

You do that, repeatedly, to draw attention to how deeply you emote. It's annoying, and you do it so often, you can't blame us Internet clods for inferring you're desperately trying to convey special meaning by doing it. The rest of us, of course, just "feel" in normal lower case. Hint: Here's your chance to throw some sand back!

"... How are you "pausing to mark trail"? What trail are you marking? And in what way are you "maintaining archival interest"? This thread IS archinved, right? What are you adding to the archive that isn't already here? ..."

The only value these kinds of threads eventually have, once they've left the front page of whatever Web site hosts them, is as archival references. Somebody in the future is bound to Google the term "troll," and we'll serve as some demonstration of what a useless endeavor it is. So, act immortal from now on, as we're speaking to the future. For my self, I hope to add a little additional value, here and there, with some poor reference to rhetorical tactics, as my on-going contribution, in commentary.

"... I don't get the "troll" references. I clicked your link in an earlier post, but I still don't get it. How are we barely into a long troll? Isn't a troll someone who tries to get people to fight? I hate fighting! And even if I was a troll, why on Earth would you want to feed me? Wouldn't that make things worse, or am I screwing up the meaning of the word troll, too? ..."

No, I think you started trolling when you posted your "question."

"... For those of you who get upset when people complain about spoilers, what exactly is it that upsets you?

It's hard to express this in writing, but I beg you to believe that I'm NOT trying to start a fight or barage you with logic. I'm deserately trying to understand something that I don't get. ..."

Whether you truly intended it or not, you phrased your opening question, about a contentious topic which is essentially one of opinion, in classic troll form, on a Web site where the moderation is intentionally loose, and proceeded to let out line for over a hundred posts. Bravo! You've donned the costume at the outset, and spoken the lines throughout. Enjoy my applause.

But don't waffle, or deny chickens you knew as eggs, when they come home to roost.

Yes, anything is possible, but I don't feel that this means I can say, "okay, to hell with it! I'm choosing the reality that I like best!"

How condescending and ridiculous. Your quip does not in any vague way reflect my attitude.

But I do envy you your romanticism!

I'm not a romantic. I suppose that you could call me a capital-R Romantic, in the sense that I'm generally on board with the philosphies on art laid out by Wordsworth in the introduction to Lyrical Ballads. But you're obviously talking about the sort of romantic who chooses to believe in a world other than the one he's living in, because he likes the imaginary world better, and that's not me at all. If you think that it is, there's no point in continuing this.

I can't deal with saying, "I'm going to follow logic when I need it to solve a problem but rejecting it when I find its outcome unromantic or scary." To me, that seems like an act of cowardice. I'm not saying you're a coward or even that that's what you're doing. But I couldn't do it.

Gosh. If you're not saying that's what I'm doing, then why are you even bringing it up?

I wouldn't feel what I feel when I read "King Lear" if Shakespeare hadn't bothered to write it. Does that make the play a "gift given to me by Shakespeare"? That's a metaphorical way of thinking about it. And it's lovely, but it's not LITERALLY true. Shakespeare deposited. I collected. (Could I be more cold?)

Uh, no, that's nonsensical. You and Shakespeare do not share a joint checking account. He brought something into the world, and you are benefitting from it. It's not an issue of coldness or metaphor; that's what actually happened. Similarly, you can pretend that you and I are not really having this conversation, and that my text is just appearing to you out of the blue. But you would just be lying to yourself. How...(what's the word you used?)...cowardly.

I doubt that Checkov would really want to offer a thorough explanation of his work, even if we were to bring him back to life. Most good artists don't, because they were trying to express something that isn't reducible to a more straightforward explanation. And if he did try to articulate what he was trying to do (if he even could), then the sum of his more banal articulations are never going to equal the sum of his art as far as ability to connect his own mind to others'. As I said at the beginning of my last comment, the important thing is not our own ability to somehow extract the author's 'message' and turn it into a synopsis in the parlance of our time. The important thing is to acknowledge that it exists because someone was driven to write it. ('Important' obviously meaning 'important to me,' which, while being a personal judgement, does not change the fact that what I'm saying is literally true.)

The Special Edition of Close Encounters does suck eggs. But all that means is that Spielberg made a bad revision. So what? I never said that all art is perfect, or that artists are infallible.

Bingo, I want to apologize in advance for not responding to your post immediately. I have limited time this morning, and Paulsc addressed me first. When I get a chance, I will reply to you. But I do want to apologize (wow, I'm doing that a lot!) if I put words into your mouth, misunderstood you, or mischaracterized you. I am invested in understanding your REAL position.

Paulsc, I think we have (at least) there major points of confusion and/or disagreement:

1) You're much more cultured and educated than I am, and I have a hard time keeping up with you. That's not your fault, but it is a communication problem between us. If I can't understand you, I can't have a conversation with you.

Specifically, I am challanged by all of your literary and historical allusions. I'm still unsure what point you were trying to make about me writing "artEEEST", and since I don't share your Twain reference, I'm still in the dark.

On the other hand, you did say something that I totally understood: "You do that [writte FEEL in upper case], repeatedly, to draw attention to how deeply you emote. It's annoying, and you do it so often, you can't blame us Internet clods for inferring you're desperately trying to convey special meaning by doing it. The rest of us, of course, just "feel" in normal lower case."

That's crystal clear to me, because there are no allusions or metaphors (like "either horn of the dilemma").

You should write however you want to write, but note that I am having a hard time following you.

2) I think -- but my point, above, leads me to believe that I may be misunderstanding you -- that you're someone who enjoys "a good rough-and-tumble fight." And that's fair enough. You're entitled to your likes. But I don't. I don't like fighting or conflict at all. I like discussion, and I'm fine with disagreement. But I have zero tolerance for flames. I don't find them entertaining or funny or fun. They just make me depressed.

I'm assuming we're different this way because you define snark as "
Irritable or short-tempered; irascible." Then you say, "I describe my tone." I thought, earlier, that you were saying I was the snark. But if you're claiming to be short-tempered, etc. and I'm such a coward about fighting, how are we going to communicate?

You also say, "You asked a question presenting a dilemma ... I rejected choosing either horn of the dilemma, by tossing a little sand in the bull's eyes." If I understand this (and BOY, I'd say there's at leat a 50% chance that I don't), you're saying that I posted a question and you chose to a violent response. Not physically violent, of course. But conversationally violent. Perhaps all in good fun. But violence is never fun for me.

You even say, "Here's your chance to throw some sand back!" No! I don't want to throw sand. I don't want to fight. I am interested in what you have to say, but not in the context of snarkiness -- even "fun" snarkiness. Sorry if that makes me a spoilsport.

NOTE: those previous two points are serious issues, but we can probably overcome them if we're really willing to work at it (I don't know if you think it's worth it). You can talk down to me, or I can put a little more effort into researching your allusions; You can "play nicer" or I can get a backbone and join the fight. But this next point, I think, is the KEY point: the crux of our communication problem.

3) You have accused me of dishonesty. That's what trolling is, right? If I'm a troll, then I'm posting here under false pretenses. I'm CLAIMING to want answers to questions, but I secretly have another agenda (which I guess is to provoke people into arguments????)

It's completely fair for you to make this accusation, and I will even grant you the fact that I can see why you might think that.

But I fear you've made an unfalsifiable accusation. If you have any interest in continued discussion between us (and it's fine if you don't), then it's vital to me that you answer this question: in some fictional world, what possible evidence could I give you that I'm not trolling? If the answer is "None. I'm convinced you're a troll, and nothing could ever shake me from that conviction," then I don't see how we can continue.

I don't even begrudge you HAVING That opinion. I'm just saying that -- from a practical standpoint -- I don't see how we can get past it.

Put yourself in my shoes: I go to court and the judge says, "You are accused of stealing. Defend yourself!" Fair enough. On the other hand, if he says, "You are accused of stealing, and I know the accusations are true, and nothing you say or do will convince me otherwise," then what's the point of the trial? I might as well just go straight to jail.

If my wife says, "You cheated on me!" I can defend myself. But if she says, "You cheated on me and nothing will ever convince me that you didn't," then what can I do by get a divorce.

I don't want to put words in your mouth. You haven't actually said, "You're trolling and nothing you say or do will convince me otherwise," but you have said, "think you started trolling when you posted your 'question.'" So that's been you charactization of me from the very beginning. Fair enough, but what's the point, then, of me going on?

You've "read my mind" quite a bit:

-- You do that, repeatedly, to draw attention to how deeply you emote.

-- People who inadvertently post spoilers lack evolved souls...

Again, I can understand how I lead you to believe these were my thoughts and intentions, but they weren't. At this point, what else can happen besides you saying, "Yes the were" and me saying "No they weren't." Maybe if we do that eloquently, it will turn into the kind of "fun fight" that you like ("I smile then, like I'm smiling now, watching this dog pile. But I don't get the impression anyone is winning anything here"), but I have no interest in getting into a fight.

Unless we can overcome this obstacle, which would mean either you conceding that I'm not trolling (or at least that I MIGHT not be trolling) or me conceding that I am, we're at a total impass.

Now, I think one of the worst things one human can do to another is ignore him, and it pains me that you might think I'm about to do that to you. If you have a question or issue you'd like to address with me, please do so and I will respond. But other than that, from my point of view, we're done.

If you would like to "have the last word," the battlefield is yours (especially since I hate battlefields). Feel free to respond to this, characterize my intentions in any way you like. I won't try to defend myself. There would be no point.

paulsc, you're being a bit of an asshole here. I think 90% of us who engaged with grumblebee here "know" him from AskMe or MetaFilter, we're perfectly familiar with his writing and discussion style, and we were willing to engage based on the sincerity he's shown time and time again on MeFi. If you think he's trolling, then as he said you're entitled to your opinion, but this really isn't the site for personally attacking other people -- however clever your attacks may be -- based on your whims.

Which is, in fact, why many of us spend time here rather than on MeFi.

grumblebee: I am invested in understanding your REAL position.

Please don't put any more effort into that at this point. I was really just trying to get an anti-spoiler policy on Metafilter. You had no interest in that, and you took it here, and I should have stayed there (insofar as that discussion was concerned). I like you, but I'm not really motivated to keep this going.

...I hasten to add that my 'real position' is prefectly real and I'm not posturing. I'm just not really into this type of discussion.

No worries, Bingo. I know you're not posturing. And I won't blah blah blah about it any more. Despite any philosophical differences, we both love stories and that's what's most exciting to me. I didn't know you were a film student. That's what you said you were, right?

=========

occhiblu, thanks for the support!

It's interesting: this may sound silly, but I sympathize with paulsc (or the version of him in my brain) -- though not always with his way of phrasing things. When someone claims to be wildly different from you, how much benefit-of-the-doubt do you give them before you assume they're bullshitting?

The views I've expressed here are clearly outside the norm (as you and several other people have posted). If I'd gone even FURTHER outside and said something like, "I've never tripped and fallen over in my life," my guess is that everyone would have called bullshit. (Pity the poor guy who really hasn't ever fallen -- if that's possible. No one will ever believe him!) I call bullshit, too. Well, I probably some wimpy version of "bullshit", actually ("I'm not sure you're being honest...") because I hate flames so much.

Everyone reaches a point at which their credulity gets stretched beyond the limit. I don't know what did it for paulsc: maybe the fact that I claimed to care so deeply about something that (surely ANYONE would agree) is trivial; maybe it was how long I went on and on about it; maybe -- probably -- it was a combination of factors. It's fascinating to me that paul smelled a rat way back when I posted the QUESTION. It (apparently) stretched his credulity that anyone could even ask such a question without having a hidden agenda. I don't get it, but I sympathize, because I've had my own credulity stretched.

(On that last point: maybe, to paulsc, my question was similar to "Why to people get so upset about abortion?" One might easily get suspicious of that without reading more. Surely EVERYONE knows why people get upset about abortion, so probably the poster is just trying to start a fight. The main difference between paulsc and me is that, though we'd both have that same suspicion, I'd give the poster more benefit of the doubt. It is POSSIBLE that someone might have lived in a hole and never entered into (or heard) an abortion debate. Even paulsc -- who I'm speaking for in a pretty disgusting way, so please contradict my errors, paul! -- may feel like, sure, it's remotely POSSIBLE that grumblebee is being honest, but -- hey -- life is short, and I can't be open to every tiny possibility. I certainly make gut decisions like this -- don't we all?. I would never do it quite the way paul has done it, but I understand the phenomenon.)

Going back to the original reason that I posted this thread, Paulsc's comments have been really useful to me. I don't condone his caustic tone, which is unnecessary, but he's made me see yet ANOTHER problem with the way I present my case. It's so outside reality (to some people) that they are going to have a hard time believing I'm honest -- even if I am. I think you were sort of telling me the same thing.

The question is: what's to be done? My bad tactic was to keep hammering my points, hoping that at some point my sincerity would be obvious. Yet I was digging myself deeper and deeper into a hole. You suggested that I just make my points once and then chill. And I agree that this would have been a BETTER option than what I did. But it's still a sucky option.

Not because I want to listen to my own voice, but because shutting up wouldn't have convinced paulsc. Going on and on definitely didn't convince him, but shutting up wouldn't have either, because he made a decision about my intentions the moment I posted the question. Damned if you do; Damned if you don't.

Perhaps the answer is that there IS no answer: you can't make everyone understand you, and that's just part of life so grow up and accept it... Of course that's true, but I think we run with that possibility too often, because it's easy. It's easy to just give up.

I've been thinking about this stuff a lot for the past few years, because I've been profoundly affected by it. I lost a friend -- the only time that has happened to me as an adult -- because of a similar misunderstanding.

This friend was an actor in my theatre company, and I kicked him out of the company. I didn't want to do it, but he violated a cardinal rule of the company. I agonized about this for days, because I really didn't care that he'd broken the rule and because he was my friend, and I WANTED him to be in the company. But it's one of my jobs to enforce the rules. I realized that if I kept him in the company, I would be acting in a grossly unfair and corrupt way (I would have instantly kicked out any non-friend member who had violated the same rule). I explained all this to him, apologized, and kicked him out.

I expected him to be angry that I'd kicked him out of the company. But he wasn't angry about that. He was angry that I was being dishonest to him. Huh? How had I been dishonest?

He and I had once had a interpersonal crisis. I can't go into the details, but let's say it was a fight over a girl (it wasn't, but that will give you an idea of the sort of problem it was). He claimed that I was CLEARLY still mad about that, and that was the REAL reason I'd kicked him out.

I actually hadn't even been thinking about that. I'd kicked him out for the reason I'd said -- because he violated a rule.

I was never able to convince him that I wasn't dishonest. As I did here, I'm sure I dug myself into a deeper hole with him by "battering him with logic." But even knowing that, I'm not sure what else I could have done. Keeping quiet, I'm sure, would NOT have solved the problem.

Again, it's probably unsolvable. Sometimes you lose friends. It's terrible, but it happens. But it was one of the most traumatic things I've ever been through, and it still keeps me awake at night.

The best I've been able to figure for myself, though I know many find it distasteful or weird:

People are just at different stages in their lives or journeys or incarnations or however you want to formulate it, and we're all going to be slightly out of synch with our personal development, and sometimes you just have to accept people as teachers or as students and then let them go. Because otherwise you're trying to force learning on an unwilling student, or pull teaching from an exhausted teacher, and it's not good for either of you.

"... "That's what trolling is, right? If I'm a troll, then I'm posting here under false pretenses. I'm CLAIMING to want answers to questions, but I secretly have another agenda (which I guess is to provoke people into arguments????)

It's completely fair for you to make this accusation, and I will even grant you the fact that I can see why you might think that." ...

Ah, yes, grumblebee. There's a rock upon which many waves break. Would that the human heart be ever as clear about motive, as you may wish to believe you've been here. If it were, if yours were, then discussion would proceed to truth as if we were a chorus unfolding themes in a newly discovered Brahms motet.

"... So that's been you charactization of me from the very beginning. Fair enough, but what's the point, then, of me going on? ..."

Of course, only you can know what you think, or feel. But even you can be confused about that. That's human, and common. Sometimes people talk merely to discover what they themselves really think. They come to wisdom as donkeys learn to sing, by braying as long as it takes. No harm in that, though it be not so pleasant for the first passerby (as this thread hasn't been for early posters), and if in the end, the donkey learns to sing, all who encounter him later stand amazed at the prospect.

I'd say you find your point in going on, even if to do so you need to ignore me, in all those who may happen by eventually, hearing that we've got a singing donkey. We are, as I've said upthread, now speaking for the archive. In fact, announcing you'll ignore a person directly engaging you is another classic tactic of a committed troll, and equally, of a person who merely loves the sound of his own voice.

So, it's possible, I suppose, that you are, as Socrates so often claimed to be, braying for greater truth, to hear what you might eventually come to think, and hoping others will supply. You could be playing the troll quite accidentally, doing your level best to learn to sing, and if that is the crown you've come to claim, bray on.

"... Unless we can overcome this obstacle, which would mean either you conceding that I'm not trolling (or at least that I MIGHT not be trolling) or me conceding that I am, we're at a total impass. ..."

I wouldn't say that, but then I'm not so quick as you to bind myself in chains of false dichotomy. See, that's the problem with dualistic thinking: In the greater world, there generally are more than the two alternatives a dualistic thinker tries to force upon his foes, by casting dilemmas. (And think about the word "dualistic" for a moment, in the context of a dialogue. Metaphors at twenty paces, my dear grumblebee?) You suggest there are only two possible results to our dialogue, which are that I might recant my charge that you've been stringing us along, or that you admit you have been. But I've already suggested a third, that you wish to continue indefinitely for the amazement of passerby, and now I tell you that many more occur to me.

You could, I grant for theory's sake, be on the very verge of bursting out with something new from Brahms, a feat of such surpassing historical importance, as to make all questions of how you learned to sing entirely moot. So, the street corner is yours, again, for the moment, and Google will eventually supply as many willing to be amazed as you would like. And even I, dear grumblebee, like Brahms.

I'm sorry, paulsc, too much "Brahms" and "donkeys". I can't follow you.

But it does sound like you didn't really read what I wrote (or I wrote it unclearly). You're claiming that I'm using a specific tactic: ignoring you. Look at what I wrote. I said I'm NOT going to ignore you. I invited you to ask questions or make comments, and I told you I'd respond to them. I just said that I didn't see the POINT in us continuing to talk to one another, as we're at an impass. And I said I wasn't planning to initiate anything new with you. I'm not. But I will NOT ignore you. I will always reply to your questions, because ignoring people (in my book) is bad.

Also, I claimed that you and I had nothing meaningful left to say to one another. You responded by saying that I might "wish to continue indefinitely for the amazement of passersby." That has nothing to do with what I said. I said that I didn't see the point in continuing to talk to YOU. I didn't say I didn't see the point in continuing to talk. I never threatened to leave the thread. I'm not planning to leave. I'm not planning to ignore you.

But I'm not-ignoring-you out of politeness. I see nothing but a waste of time in us continuing to talk, unless we can come to some agreement on the issues I brought up. (Which I doubt we will.) Still, I am willing to indulge in a waste of time rather than snub someone.

wise words, occhiblu!

"paulsc, you're being a bit of an asshole here. ..."
posted by occhiblu 04 October | 09:35

Thanks, occhiblu, for your eloquent defense of grumblebee, and for your scintillating explanation of the rules of the Internet, as you have come to understand them. The value of your contribution to posterity, down through the ages, coming here from Google, should be obvious.

It isn't to me, but I'm not posterity, and haven't their opportunity to look back, with understanding, from the shoulders of giants upon which, presumably, both you and they stand.

I'm not trying to explain the internet, I'm trying to explain this site. Most of us are here because we don't like the assholery of MeFi, and I think you'll find that many of us are vocal in trying to keep it out. So quit it.

I'm beginning to think the whole "troll" thing here can be parsed using classic fart wisdom: "He who smelt it dealt it".

"... But I'm not-ignoring-you out of politeness. I see nothing but a waste of time in us continuing to talk, unless we can come to some agreement on the issues I brought up. (Which I doubt we will.) Still, I am willing to indulge in a waste of time rather than snub someone."
posted by grumblebee 04 October | 13:43

That's good, grumblebee. Civility of tone and an apparent regard for manners are hallmarks of the successful long troll, who otherwise would ground out his thread early, by sending off all respondents in disgust. And, it's still perfectly in character for a man of the theatre, who claims to be confused by simple simile. Well played, and although I take from that we can expect no new Brahms, it leaves us and whatever audience remains room for further sport.

"... The question is: what's to be done? My bad tactic was to keep hammering my points, hoping that at some point my sincerity would be obvious. Yet I was digging myself deeper and deeper into a hole. You suggested that I just make my points once and then chill. And I agree that this would have been a BETTER option than what I did. But it's still a sucky option. ..."
posted by grumblebee 04 October | 13:18

What's sucky about it? No matter how loud, or how long a donkey brays, he's not guaranteed of making a tune. Perhaps it's sucky for you, who believe in long rehearsal, and hope against hope for wisdom amongst all the noise. But the long course of history marks brevity as a compelling feature of eloquence, not to mention a decent respect for the intelligence of an audience.

"...Not because I want to listen to my own voice, but because shutting up wouldn't have convinced paulsc. Going on and on definitely didn't convince him, but shutting up wouldn't have either, because he made a decision about my intentions the moment I posted the question. Damned if you do; Damned if you don't. ..."

Your conclusion here is false, grumblebee. I didn't mark you as a troll immediately, because posting a poorly formed question is not only the action of a troll. Beating it about in a thread disingenuously can be, especially if done at graceless length, sprinkled everywhere with gratuitous apologies. Enough of that, and as you remark, my credulity was strained to breaking. As was that of many others much earlier, who've given up, and apparently left the thread.

"...Going back to the original reason that I posted this thread, Paulsc's comments have been really useful to me. I don't condone his caustic tone, which is unnecessary, but he's made me see yet ANOTHER problem with the way I present my case. It's so outside reality (to some people) that they are going to have a hard time believing I'm honest -- even if I am. I think you were sort of telling me the same thing. ..."

I would be far happier to have rendered you this service, if it didn't result in still another posted reply from you to this thread, but I knew the probable result of feeding a troll, going in. Can't say I'm a bit surprised, or disappointed.

And frankly, a caustic tone is what it takes, apparently, to create any break in the din you create in your efforts to supposedly learn why people get upset about other people who object to people who post spoilers. You've engaged in considerable self-moderation of this thread you started, which is boorish at best, and yet again, a further classic characteristic of a long troll.

Eventually, if a thing brays like a donkey enough, beyond all braying behaviors of normal donkeys, it's fair to try to look for what might be a root cause of all the noise. Occam's razor prompts me to suggest you'll never learn to sing, but I don't mean to be prematurely unkind.

"... Perhaps the answer is that there IS no answer: you can't make everyone understand you, and that's just part of life so grow up and accept it... Of course that's true, but I think we run with that possibility too often, because it's easy. It's easy to just give up. ..."

It's even easier to shut up, after you've asked a question, than to give up trying to answer it yourself. The reason it takes donkeys so long to learn to sing by braying alone, is that they learn no breath control. If you care about answers, let answers accumulate. If you care about diversity, wait for it to appear. If you would draw out others on some point they make, making your own in response is a poor way to proceed.

But to troll well, ignore all this, and continue banging your keyboard.

"I'm beginning to think the whole "troll" thing here can be parsed using classic fart wisdom: "He who smelt it dealt it".
posted by taz 04 October | 14:25

Could be, taz, could be. Wink. Nudge.

"... So quit it."
posted by occhiblu 04 October | 14:05

Quit what? Being civil and helpful to grumblebee? Because he's actually said, and I've quoted him, that he's learned some things from my contributions, and been prompted to think about his technique.

Being mindful of posterity? I dunno, occhiblu, but I think I may owe them something more, than abandoning them to your veiled threats of vigilante justice.

You've grossly misread the tone of this site. Cloaking your condescension in random allusions and pretty language does not hide the fact that you are being nasty to another member. Just about the only rule here is "Be nice to other users." Not "pretend nice." Not "plausible deniability nice." Just plain ol' nice.

Well, "don't mock the administrators" would probably also qualify as a rule, though unwritten, and you've managed to break that one, too. Kudos.

I don't know why you think you're addressing Google here rather than the actual people on this particular site, but your own blog would seem to be more suited to the task you've set yourself. The rest of us would like to be able to have a conversation without being harassed, mocked, or compared to barnyard animals.

And at this point you're reminding me entirely too much of a particularly vile ex-boyfriend, so I'm done.

occhiblu, I'm really grateful for your contributions here. It will be a shame if you leave, but I understand.

paulsc, true to my trollish role, I'm going to adopt a new rhetorical tactic: I'm not going to reply to anything you write if it contains metaphorical references to Brahams, donkeys, etc. I'll be happy to talk to you if you'll use plain, simple language. Yes, I am playing a dirty trick here and ignoring you unless you write the way I want you to write. I just can't take the complicated language any more.

Also, please note:

I think you started trolling when you posted your "question."

and then later:

Your conclusion here is false, grumblebee. I didn't mark you as a troll immediately, because posting a poorly formed question is not only the action of a troll.

?????????

Paulsc, having seen your "wink nudge" comment and thought about your "hint" to me to throw sand "in the bull's eyes," I'm starting to wonder if you're goal here isn't just to have fun pissing everyone off. I'm not going to DECIDE that that's your goal -- as you've decided that my goal is to troll -- but I am getting deeply suspicious.

As I mentioned earlier, everyone has their levels of credulity, including me. So eventually I WILL tip over into an unchangable psychological profile of you. And it it's "You're sitting at home smirking about what you can get away with here and how long people will put up with it," then I have no time for you. That's juvenile.

IF you would like to have a serious conversation with me about the topic of this thread -- and IF you can do so without Brahms, donkeys and other allusions -- then I will be happy to talk with you. Otherwise, over and out.

Quit what? Being civil and helpful to grumblebee?

You have been helpful, but you haven't been civil.

Okay: I'm fucking done.

I entered into a discussion with paulsc in good faith and he conned me. I have been on Metafilter for six years and have never had a serious problem with anyone -- until now.

A friend emailed me links to paulsc's posts on AskMe and Metafilter, and he's a totally different person there (often kind and helpful). Having read them, and his blog, and having re-read what he's posted here, I now see that his posts here are a scam and I'm a huge dupe for falling for them. He is putting on some kind of odd persona here, writing in a pedantic style that he doesn't use anywhere else.

I don't know what his game is: maybe he thought it would be fun to see how long he could troll by calling someone ELSE a troll. Maybe he quickly realized that I was overly-serious, trusting and a little naive -- and he felt that such a person was too easy a target to resist; maybe he considers me a pseudo-intellectual and was trying to create a satire of the way I write; maybe he has some sort of odd theory about web communication and wants to try out some experiment; maybe he's just fucking around. Whatever.

I sent him an email apologizing for anything I said here that might have offended him -- because he halfway convinced me that I was the one at fault -- and I didn't think all that much about his reply until looking back at it today. But, again, its style is completely different -- toned down and without cryptic allusions to Brahms -- but he made it clear that he only wanted to discuss things with me here. I now see that the risk to him was that he wouldn't get the negative attention that he craves if our discussion didn't take place in a public forum.

In my six years at MeFi, I have never before succumbed to the sort of vindictive post I'm writing now, and I hope I never do it again. I hope I never armchair psychoanalyze anyone again the way I'm doing so now with paulsc.

My guess is that this was his attention all the time. He saw someone who prided himself for being civil and decided he was going to bring that person down to his level. And he succeeded. He won.

There will be ZERO communication between me and him of any type from now on.

So, I come back from dinner, and find 1 minor flameout from occhiblu, and a full flameout from grumblebee. If I were really a troll, I'd award myself 10 points for the full flameout, and 5 points for the minor one, and try to say something egregious enough to get either of 'em to jump back in, which would be worth another 20 points each, for makin' a brain eatin' zombie, back from the thread dead.

But I won't, 'cause I'm not.

Wink. Nudge. Which I said in response to taz's comment, because weretable and the undead chairs made first mention of trolling in this thread, not me. And though he "dealt it" I don't think he "smelt it."

Anyway.

"... There will be ZERO communication between me and him of any type from now on."
posted by grumblebee 04 October | 19:04

Suit yourself, big guy. Ball, bat, home.

But I was ready to concede the win to you. Really, dude. Had it all keyed, then I previewed, and you'd flamed out. Eh, for what it's worth to posterity.

paulsc: i just read this entire thread after having left it alone after my last comment. You said pretty much everything I was thinking and with much more pinache. bravo.

So...is this thread over?

::sob sob::

Not necessarily, TPS. I'm still available for civil conversation with anyone (except Paulsc) who's game.

Civil conversation? How boring. I'm looking for knock-down, drag-out bitchiness! Heheheh. Only thing to make the work day go faster ;-)

Yeah. Here I am, a big fan of conflict in art, but I'm a coward about it in real life. Of course, I'm also a big fan of zombies in art. I'd shit my pants if I met one for real.