Thinking about arguing

[next_to_normal]

My sleep schedule is still pretty out of whack after almost two weeks off from work, so I haven't quite managed to fall asleep at a reasonable time or adjusted to getting up early again. This is not aided by the fact that I was up until 2am reading The Hunger Games last night. (In my defense, it's about a week overdue at the library, so really, it's in everyone's best interest for me to finish it as soon as possible.)

That is to say, this is perhaps not the best time to be attempting to construct logical meta, but what can I say, I didn't have a book to read on the bus this morning. :)

Anyway, I have been sort of vaguely keeping an eye on the recent discussion of the S8 comics, and although I have absolutely no intention of commenting on the content of those arguments, I did observe something interesting (to me, anyway, maybe not to you, lol) about the nature of the arguments.

What I have noticed, not just in the comics discussion, but also cropping up in comments at several other places, including angearia's Buffy/Riley meta and a fairly recent post on gabrielleabelle's journal, is the use of the phrase, "Some people in fandom say...." as a preface to and/or justification for their rebuttal. Arguing, in essence, that it is necessary to defend position X because there are some unspecified people in fandom saying contradictory thing Y. In particular, I've noticed the ways in which that leads to nearly every argument degenerating into the two sides talking past each other.

*Please to be noting I was extremely tempted to title this post "The 'Some' of All Fears," but I resisted the impulse to pun.

Now, there's nothing inherently wrong with those kinds of generalizations. A lot of times, it is relevant and useful to talk about trends in society and/or fandom. I just did it in the preceding paragraph, in fact. But it tends to open up a big ol' can of worms. :)

There seem to be two basic responses to the "Some people say..." argument:

1. "Who says that? Nobody says that. I have never heard anyone say that."
2. "Well, maybe some people say that, but that's not what I'm saying."

The first response is sometimes used as a deflection, an attempt to cast the original statement as a straw man argument, thus rendering a thoughtful rebuttal unnecessary. "Nobody actually says that, therefore the premise of your argument is invalid." It's impossible to prove a negative, which places the burden of proof on the commenter who asserts that people DO say such things. They must be able to provide empirical evidence of people who are, in fact, saying that. Even then, those examples may be discarded as anomalies or extreme factions, insisting that no one reasonable actually says that (of course, what constitutes "reasonable" is a pretty subjective determination).

It's rare that someone has a sampling of empirical evidence at their fingertips, though, particularly when the argument comes from a general perception based on an aggregation of indistinguishable reactions over days or weeks or months or even years of having these same conversations over and over. And there's no way to argue that definitively for either side. You can't empirically prove a perception, but you can't disprove it, either.

Sometimes it truly is a strawman - one person intentionally or unintentionally misrepresents the prevailing trends in fandom, thus enabling them to refute the distorted view rather than the actual one.  But other times it's simply an indicator of a difference in perspective. The internet is a big, big place, and one of its defining features is the user's ability to tailor one's content as broadly or narrowly as one would like. We have the ability to shape our experiences, depending on what forums or communities we frequent and which individuals we interact with. This leads to very different perceptions of the way things are or what fans collectively think and say, even within the same segment of fandom. gabrielleabelle's "unpopular opinions" post is a testament to that, where both sides of an argument on multiple issues perceived themselves as holding an unpopular opinion. (Our tendency to feel like the beleaguered minority is also a factor here. People tend to notice disagreement much more than support, which leads to viewing ourselves as being in the minority, even when that's not factually accurate.)

The second response accepts the given perspective ("Yes, some people say that.") but requires an evaluation of the scope of the argument. Are we discussing broader trends, or are we debating opposing individual viewpoints? If the topic at hand is about aggregate patterns in the behavior of a particular group, then yes, talking about what "some people" do is valid and relevant. To hold up yourself as an exception ("Maybe some people do that, but I don't.") is to disregard the parameters of the discussion. We're not talking about you. We're talking about the collective behavior of a whole group, within which there will obviously be some individual deviation, but typically behavioral patterns do emerge. We do not make individual posts and comments in a vacuum. We are influenced by others' opinions, our perception of what's "acceptable," as well as social conditioning regarding societal norms and storytelling cues, and that influence definitely needs to be recognized. Claiming to be immune is missing the point.

On the other hand, if someone is putting forth an individual viewpoint, then it's equally inappropriate to respond with "Some people say..." Doing so attributes an argument to the person that they have not actually made. Moreover, it demands that they defend a position they may not even hold. I see this a lot when people make assumptions about hypocrisy. If a particular character does X, they're criticized for being too Xy, but if they do the opposite, then they're criticized for not being Xy enough. Or character A gets judged harshly for a particular action, whereas character B is let off the hook for doing essentially the same thing. I'm not going to say we don't have our biases or are never hypocritical in our judgment of characters, but I've seen "some people" used as a way to conflate those contradictory opinions, when in fact the individual commenter never claimed to agree with both.

So. I suppose this should have some sort of conclusion, though I'm not really sure what it is. This is mostly just my observations of the things I've seen, because I'm nerdy and I like to dissect arguments like that. I don't know that I have any particular advice on how to have more constructive discussions, except maybe to recognize when the disagreement is based on different perceptions and to acknowledge that just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not happening.

Comments

[gabrielleabelle]

This entire post is incredibly sexy.

Or so I've heard some people say.

[next_to_normal]

Who are these people?? I want an annotated list! so I can "show my appreciation" *wink*

[gabrielleabelle]

Ack! No! I have no sources! Or quirky icons! You have defeated me with your superior rhetoric!!!

Anyway, having woken up a slight bit more, this dynamic interests me as I do find myself running up against it, on both sides (as in a recent discussion that I'm sure you're responding to). My time in fandom has started to train me out of responding to generalized phenomenon without having examples of it handy, but it's also taught me that what people take away from discussions isn't always what actually happened. So I end up being the one asking for examples a good bit. Even still, fandom is large and has been around for a while. It's quite likely that almost every opinion under the sun has been stated somewhere.

[next_to_normal]

One of the things I have noticed about you and think is incredibly sexy is that you take a very academic approach to fandom debate. Like, just because it's a TV show doesn't mean we shouldn't structure our arguments properly! So yeah, your comments had definitely prompted some of this (in a good way!), because I was thinking about how you tend to direct the discussion by defining the parameters very clearly.

It's quite likely that almost every opinion under the sun has been stated somewhere.

Very, very true. It's like anything else - you can cherry-pick evidence to support just about anything, so you can find one really out-there quote from a fan and call it representative of fandom as a whole. But that's also why it's important to take a step back sometimes and ask yourself, "Is this just an isolated quote from John Q. Random, or is it representative of a pattern?"

[gabrielleabelle]

One of the things I have noticed about you and think is incredibly sexy is that you take a very academic approach to fandom debate. Like, just because it's a TV show doesn't mean we shouldn't structure our arguments properly!

lol. That's mainly cause I get confused if the parameters of the discussion aren't defined. People come from many different angles, often with different vested interests etc. It's efficient to try to narrow down exactly what's being debated and what each person's stance is. Otherwise you have a muddled mess of DOOM and CONFUSION, which irks me.

But that's also why it's important to take a step back sometimes and ask yourself, "Is this just an isolated quote from John Q. Random, or is it representative of a pattern?"

Yep.

Though there's nothing really wrong with responding to an isolated opinion. If it bugs you, it bugs you. You're allowed to point and go, "DID YOU SEE WHAT THEY SAID???"

Patterned trends tend to carry more weight, though, as they can often be connected to larger societal trends, and it's worthwhile to point that stuff out. Or, at least, it's worthwhile to me because I am a sociology nerd and revel in picking apart stuff like that.

It can be difficult when discussing patterns because, as noted, some people won't have noted said patterns, and oftentimes such discussions take the patterns as a given. Having to "prove" its presence can be difficult because any examples can be dismissed as cherry-picking or exceptional opinions. Without having access to any fandom-wide surveys or numbers, we're all just going on our perceptions, and if someone just hasn't run across any of what's being addressed, there's very little that can be convincingly presented to prove its existence (Which doesn't mean it doesn't exist, of course).

When the very premise of the discussion - the assertion that there's a larger pattern of opinion X - can't be readily illustrated, then the following conclusions are easily dismissed. Which leads to frustration and woes all around.

I rambled. See what you did?

[next_to_normal]

Though there's nothing really wrong with responding to an isolated opinion. If it bugs you, it bugs you. You're allowed to point and go, "DID YOU SEE WHAT THEY SAID???"

Oh, definitely. The problem comes up when someone takes an isolated opinion and attributes it to, say, all Spuffy fans, because one out-there Spuffy fan said it.

I like it when you ramble. :) Especially when I agree with you!

[calturner]

This is not aided by the fact that I was up until 2am reading The Hunger Games last night.

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts on The Hunger Games. :) I read all three books in less than a week, and was up until after 3am this morning finishing the final book in the trilogy. I can't remember the last time I read a series of books this quickly, so it's safe to say that I loved them. In fact, I think it's going to be a long time before I forget about Katniss, Peeta, Rue etc. Powerful and thought-provoking stuff!

I don't know that I have any particular advice on how to have more constructive discussions, except maybe to recognize when the disagreement is based on different perceptions and to acknowledge that just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not happening.

Yes, this.

[next_to_normal]

Yep, finished it in a day, lol. And then cried a little bit because I am numbers 48 and 20 respectively in the library queues for books 2 and 3. (I'll probably end up buying them anyway, lol.)

I have sooooo many TV/book/movie reaction posts to do (I think my list is up to 6 now?) but I promise to get around to this one soon!

[rahirah]

Random observation:

"Some people" very often translates to "A specific person or persons whom I expect you to recognize, but whom I don't want to confront directly for whatever reason." There are some subjects which I just don't want to argue about with some people, because I know from past experience that it will not end well. And yet I do want to respond to points they make in the context of the larger fannish debate.

[next_to_normal]

Haha, that's okay, too. :) Though I think it's subject to the same perspective issues - if your readers don't know the specific person/post you're referencing, the basic argument needs to resonate as something they've heard before. Otherwise, people are still likely to respond with, "What? Who says that? I've never heard that before." And at that point, it's difficult to back up your argument without calling out the person you didn't want to confront in the first place.

[quinara]

Yeah, I'd second this - and also add that it's usually hard enough in fandom to separate opinions from personalities (mostly, I think, because of the way people use their fannish opinions to define their identity online), so out and out quoting someone you disagree with becomes a lot more socially dicey than citing an academic article (for example). There have been arguments where I've felt torn between the 'people say' approach and actually pulling up a series of comments people have made, in the linky flesh, and ripping them apart, but in the end it never seems worth humiliating people (since that tends to be the only reason people link negatively in fandom) for my own rhetorical coherence. Not to mention that I'm certain most people don't make comments with the intention that they'll be able to stand up to academic scrutiny, nor that they'll be referenced in posts much beyond the one they've replied to.

[next_to_normal]

Not to mention that I'm certain most people don't make comments with the intention that they'll be able to stand up to academic scrutiny, nor that they'll be referenced in posts much beyond the one they've replied to.

Yeah, that's definitely true. And it always feels a bit awkward to me when someone's comment is linked or quoted as part of a conversation they're not even involved in or aware of (like shipperx's comment being posted on BF when she wasn't even a member there).

But then again, there's also a difference between a response to one specific comment using "some people" as a form of anonymity and a general response to a common viewpoint espoused by "some people" by saying oh, by the way, this is just one example of the kinds of comments I'm talking about.

[quinara]

But then again, there's also a difference between a response to one specific comment using "some people" as a form of anonymity and a general response to a common viewpoint espoused by "some people" by saying oh, by the way, this is just one example of the kinds of comments I'm talking about.

In what sense do you mean? In both cases (it seems to me) you're essentially calling someone out (or making them anonymous)... I suppose I think that in generalised discussions, when you're talking about trends/common viewpoints/whatever, it's all about negotiating how much each side is willing to believe out of what the other person's saying. I'm talking very much as an art student here, but I don't tend to find statistics/surveys/quotes pulled from samples very persuasive on their own, because you can nearly always find counterexamples and fling them around until the cows come home. If you and/or the person you're talking with are unwilling to agree or compromise on the basic premise for your discussion, then I tend to think the conversation's pretty much broken down and no one's mind's going to change through select examples. (Which I think is similar to something you said in your post...?)

[next_to_normal]

I was thinking more in the sense that when you argue about a trend or generalization, you're not putting a person on the spot and making them defend their argument the way you are if you make a post specifically addressing their comment. It's just my personal reaction, but I know that I feel somewhat attacked when someone makes a post that is specifically addressing something I recently said, and I KNOW it was me that prompted it, even if they don't say so.

I would feel a lot less personally called out if someone said, "Some Spuffy fans think Buffy didn't love Spike in S6," in a general discussion of fandom's opinion of whether Buffy loved Spike, and cited a comment of mine as an example. A lot of people think this way, so any one of them could respond (if a response is even necessary). Now, if they mischaracterized or misinterpreted my view, then yeah, I'd have a problem with that, but not if it's just to demonstrate the point of view.

For example, Gabrielleabelle, in a recent discussion, cited two sources to prove that there are people in fandom who slut-shame Buffy for having sex. She's certainly not expecting those people to come over and defend their stance - particularly since the argument wasn't even about whether or not slut-shaming is wrong, but rather whether or not it happens to Buffy. She was using them as an example to show that it DOES happen because her claim of such was questioned.

I think you're definitely right that it is a negotiation, and if the other side is unwilling to even acknowledge the possibility, then no amount of examples are going to be useful. But I guess my point here is to say that, when a "some people" statement comes up, we all have to evaluate our own perceptions. Is it possible that some people really do say that, and I just haven't seen it? Or is this person making a wild generalization based on cherry-picked quotes to prove their own point? And if you absolutely can't agree that maybe the other person's perception is valid, then you're right - there's really no point in continuing the discussion at all.

[quinara]

I know that I feel somewhat attacked when someone makes a post that is specifically addressing something I recently said, and I KNOW it was me that prompted it, even if they don't say so.

Yes, that does get a little ridiculous - and is often, definitely, a rhetorical strategy to re-characterise the original comment into something more rant-worthy without recourse (because you can hardly come back with the specifics of your original comment to a 'generalised' post...).

Re your next point, though - yes of course citation can quite easily disprove someone saying 'nobody says that', but (and perhaps I'm being too generous) what I think people tend to mean when they say that, or something close, is 'that isn't a prevalent/significant opinion in fandom'. I don't think (and this is all getting very meta now) people tend to get into arguments about the simple fact of whether something does or does not happen (though I'm sure it happens every now and then). To bend my own general rule and refer to your gabrielleabelle/ms_scarletibis example, (which I'm now curious to know why you anonymised... ;) ), I disagree that Ms. Scarletibis was ever actually claiming that Buffy being slut-shamed doesn't happen ever. Throughout that comment thread she qualifies what she's arguing, saying things like "I don't think the viewers (overall) view her in this light, however." and that she 'personally' hasn't seen Buffy being slut-shamed. Her question 'so...where is all of this coming from?', to me, isn't a statement of her disbelief that it happens anywhere - it's a question of why Buffy's gender (and the argument that a significant amount of fandom's criticism of Buffy comes from an anti-feminist place) is playing such a big role in the post's comment thread and being so emphatically stated. I don't agree (entirely) with Ms. Scarletibis' position, but, since I'm pretty much all in now anyway, I've got to say that citations telling me that twenty-six people think this way (the 25 people in the FB group and the commenting bloke) isn't enough to convince me that gender-bias is blindsiding Buffy-critics wholesale.

I'm not sure that makes any sort of point... But, I suppose what I'm saying is that people are rarely naïve(?) enough to believe there are opinions that nobody thinks anywhere - but they'll often disagree on the significance that opinion holds in general fandom, which isn't something easily solvable by citation. So, generally (is this what I've been trying to say?), specificity over anonymity is often not really worth it, because with fandom being so wide, the fact that something actually happens doesn't tend to be the point, so much as the significance of the opinion.

[next_to_normal]

because you can hardly come back with the specifics of your original comment to a 'generalised' post...

YES. I think that's what upsets me the most about it, because it puts me in the position of having to defend myself without seeming like I'm defending myself - otherwise I'm "too sensitive" and making a generalized post "all about me." (And yes, I have been told that exactly.)

I've got to say that citations telling me that twenty-six people think this way (the 25 people in the FB group and the commenting bloke) isn't enough to convince me that gender-bias is blindsiding Buffy-critics wholesale.

I wasn't suggesting that you (or Scarlet, for that matter) should have been convinced by Gabs' examples, just demonstrating how they were used, since your original concern had to do with the "calling out" aspect of examples, not the validity of them.

But, I suppose what I'm saying is that people are rarely naïve(?) enough to believe there are opinions that nobody thinks anywhere - but they'll often disagree on the significance that opinion holds in general fandom, which isn't something easily solvable by citation.

Yeah. This is sort of what I was getting at in the original post. I mean, you'll see people say, "Oh, really? Where have you seen that?" but they don't actually want to see examples, because they'll just dismiss them as extreme or unrepresentative or whatever.

And most of the time you can't really represent a general trend with an example. I'm sure Gabs didn't see those two sites and assume that slut-shaming was a trend. It's something that's based on observations over much time in fandom, interacting with a lot of different people, and those are just the links that were handy. But if someone hasn't seen the same things you have, how do you bridge that gap? That's something I don't really know how to answer. Sometimes you can't, and sometimes all you can do is show them a small slice of what you've seen and see where it gets you.

I'm not saying specificity is the answer. I don't think that every "some people" statement should be backed up with links to supporting evidence. But I think that question of what are we really looking for when we challenge a "some people" statement (and, in fact, what we mean when we use "some people") is something we should consider more often in debates.

which I'm now curious to know why you anonymised... ;)

Ha! That's more a measure of avoidance based on previous antagonism.

[quinara]

since your original concern had to do with the "calling out" aspect of examples

Oh, sorry; I think my point got all mixed up. I think (eventually) I was trying to say that factual citation, like going 'some people say Buffy didn't love Spike in S6 (see next_to_normal from last Monday: 'I don't think Buffy loved Spike in S6') isn't useful, so isn't necessary. So, then, you're left with using citation for more subjective purposes - to disagree or whatever - and that (yeah, this last bit definitely got left out) kind of does leave you in a place of 'well, you know, next_to_normal said XYZ - not that I'm going to engage with her, but go and see what she said!!'. Though I am definitely not saying that the passive-aggressive generalised post about 'people' is the way to fix it! Just that it's a problem.

But if someone hasn't seen the same things you have, how do you bridge that gap?

Honestly, I'm not sure you can. I totally agree with you that we need to think about what we're trying to get at when we challenge a 'some people' statement, because I think, if you don't agree on how fandom's generally thinking and want to have a discussion that depends on that, your options are to either agree to accept one situation as hypothetically true, and then discuss the finer points of the argument that was being built off from that (a sort of 'I don't agree about X, but anyway...' response), or walk away - possibly to start your own post with 'wotsit reckons this about fandom and argues this; I don't agree and so have this reason for the phenomenon' and have a different conversation with people who share your assumptions. Or probably something else too - I don't know...

[next_to_normal]

Ah, I see what you're saying. And I agree that if it's only being used to disagree while avoiding confrontation, it's not particularly useful (or very nice, lol).

I don't know that I'd say citation is never useful, though. I think it can be helpful in certain circumstances, particularly when the topic is more subjective - if, for instance, the issue had been what constitutes slut-shaming (which doesn't have a universally agreed-upon definition), rather than the simple "do people do it" question, an example would illustrate that person's definition - and if you disagree with the definition, then you know what you're in for.

It also probably depends on how receptive the other person is. If they're willing to consider your side, an example might help them understand your point. (It's why we always do example problems in math class, because the theory sometimes doesn't make sense until it's applied.) If they're firmly entrenched in their opinion, then all the examples in the world won't help.

I think, if you don't agree on how fandom's generally thinking and want to have a discussion that depends on that, your options are to either agree to accept one situation as hypothetically true, and then discuss the finer points of the argument that was being built off from that (a sort of 'I don't agree about X, but anyway...' response), or walk away

Word. I think a lot of frustration comes from a disagreement over the premise of the argument, so that you can't even get to the substance of the argument without fighting that battle first (and it's a battle you're very unlikely to win).

[quinara]

It also probably depends on how receptive the other person is. If they're willing to consider your side, an example might help them understand your point. (It's why we always do example problems in math class, because the theory sometimes doesn't make sense until it's applied.) If they're firmly entrenched in their opinion, then all the examples in the world won't help.

Yeah, you're right. I agree there's got to be constructive ways to do it. I suppose I don't tend to see that happening in instances where citation's being presented/being demanded as a replacement for a 'some people say' statement, but I suppose it could be!

[rogin]

Word to this post.

I get the allure of not calling names. It allows to argue against a group not an individual, so you don't call someone specific to public attention.

But a lot of times I feel it is used to hind form counter arguments with "Oh, I didn't mean you!"

Which leads to "well, I don't mean you either when I say..." posts.

[next_to_normal]

Yeah, I am definitely of two minds about the anonymity aspect. I mean, I totally understand why people would want to do that, and I can understand the unnamed individuals being grateful that they're not being called out.

On the other hand, if you're going to argue with me about something, I'd rather you argue with me, not go off and post something that is clearly about me but coyly doesn't name me specifically. It can come off as unpleasantly passive aggressive. Particularly because the mob mentality of flists is that people will often agree with your post, even if they have NO IDEA of the context, just because they like you, so it's not exactly fair if they don't hear the other side.

(In fact, on more than one occasion, I have seen "some people" posts that are obviously directed at one another, and the same commenter will agree with both posts, not realizing they're on opposite sides of the same argument!)

I also really dislike it when someone posts something that is blatantly a response to someone in particular, but when that person responds with, "Um, I think this is about me...?" they say, "Oh, no, I didn't mean you!" when it's obvious they did. Like, okay, you tried to be subtle about it, but you got caught, so just own up to it.