kevin_standlee (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
kevin_standlee) wrote2013-04-10 01:56 pm
kevin_standlee) wrote2013-04-10 01:56 pm
Entry tags:
Different Worldviews
I find myself wondering what Jonathan McAlmont and Danny O'Dare do to put bread on the table, and musing over whether whatever that is compared to my Day Jobbe is one of the reasons we are talking past each other to the point where I have taken Mary Kay Kare's advice about saying anything else over there. (In short, I am "Just [letting] people be wrong on the Internet…", as he asks.)
My Day Jobbe, which I should be doing right now and will be again in a few minutes, is a computer database programmer. I primarily write and maintain Microsoft Access-based small database application for quick deployment. (Warning: People who snark that Access isn't a "real database" will be considered discussion derailers and treated accordingly. I'm allowed to do that on my home turf, evil person that I am.) Being a programmer gives me a certain view of how I approach the world, process-wise. The character traits that led me into computer solutions engineering possibly are what drew me to an interest in parliamentary law, which is also a large rule-set that a knowledgeable person can "program" to accomplish certain tasks. I find satisfaction when the rules have been followed and everyone has had their say within those rules, even if I don't necessarily get my way. (Besides, if I lose, I often have a way to come back another day when the conditions have changed.) That doesn't necessarily mean I like the result, but if the decision was legal, I have no grounds for attacking on that basis.
(Example: the Mark Protection Committee's decisions in Australia in2011 2010 were legal within the rules framework, even though their substance infuriated me. I therefore worked within that same framework to overturn the decision legally. I never claimed the decision was illegitimate, only ill-advised, and I'd have a very difficult time having a meaningful discussion with someone who doesn't see the difference.)
Not everyone thinks rules are worthwhile. That doesn't make them inherently evil (c.f. the Dungeons & Dragons "chaotic good" alignment; I'm probably lawful good on that scale, recognizing that paladins and their ilk can be a right pain to be around), but it often makes it nearly impossible for me to have a useful debate with them, on account of we differ so badly on basic assumptions. It's as though I brought a golf club and they have a tennis racquet, and we're standing in the middle of cricket pitch trying to play the game. (Of course, being adverse to rules, they probably aren't interested in any competitive sports anyway, but that's another story.)
My Day Jobbe, which I should be doing right now and will be again in a few minutes, is a computer database programmer. I primarily write and maintain Microsoft Access-based small database application for quick deployment. (Warning: People who snark that Access isn't a "real database" will be considered discussion derailers and treated accordingly. I'm allowed to do that on my home turf, evil person that I am.) Being a programmer gives me a certain view of how I approach the world, process-wise. The character traits that led me into computer solutions engineering possibly are what drew me to an interest in parliamentary law, which is also a large rule-set that a knowledgeable person can "program" to accomplish certain tasks. I find satisfaction when the rules have been followed and everyone has had their say within those rules, even if I don't necessarily get my way. (Besides, if I lose, I often have a way to come back another day when the conditions have changed.) That doesn't necessarily mean I like the result, but if the decision was legal, I have no grounds for attacking on that basis.
(Example: the Mark Protection Committee's decisions in Australia in
Not everyone thinks rules are worthwhile. That doesn't make them inherently evil (c.f. the Dungeons & Dragons "chaotic good" alignment; I'm probably lawful good on that scale, recognizing that paladins and their ilk can be a right pain to be around), but it often makes it nearly impossible for me to have a useful debate with them, on account of we differ so badly on basic assumptions. It's as though I brought a golf club and they have a tennis racquet, and we're standing in the middle of cricket pitch trying to play the game. (Of course, being adverse to rules, they probably aren't interested in any competitive sports anyway, but that's another story.)
no subject
But the whole thing is troubling; it's symptomatic of the way that younger people as a rule (not just fans, and not just now) have a huge amount of energy focused on spotting what is wrong and needs fixing, and zero willingness to engage with the often fusty processes that work to enable change.
no subject
The funny thing is that I certainly don't remember being like that when I showed up in 1984. Yes, I had the "I want to change everything!" attitude, but I went about it by learning how the system works and doing my best to take it over. To some extent, I succeeded, to the extent anyone in this community does. I surely didn't think someone else was going to do it for me!
no subject
But then we grow up.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
As I said to Kevin in another thread. It was reminding me of conversations with my 15 year old niece who just can't wrap her head around the fact that her dad (who's older than I am by a margin) and I both know when she's lying about boys, parties and drinking and can''t wrap her head around the fact that the reason we spot it so fast is that we did it too and her grandfather was a much bigger bastard than we are.
no subject
As for the crowd in our "discussion" - When they claim to be fans but can't bother to go to the cons, or do anything but pontificate on the Internet, I really wonder how fannish they are. They may read the stuff, but they are hardly "FANS" = Fanatics. Pontificating on the internetz is lazy fandom at best, arrogant fandom at worst. It is definitely NOT participation fandom.
I know I am an Old Lady, but my daughter is in her 30s and my son just turned 24, and the grandkids at 18,14, 12 and 7. I have a busy presence on Facebook with friends of all ages. And I talk to all of them. I am hardly Out of the Loop by any definition. Well, I guess sort of, almost everyone I'm friends with Goes to Cons, even the 20-somethings. That's how I meet people, and keep my heart and brain young. What a concept.
And I ran away from the "conversation" too, when it became obvious, they weren't interested in Real Life Answers or even Real Life, just Pontificating on the Internetz and telling all of us we are Wrong, because that is what they do instead of going out and meeting people. Sad life.
no subject
On the other hand, it's usually not very productive to criticize people for the kind of fandom they enjoy. Conventions are not for everyone, and fandom should be big enough for all kinds of people, to do the activities they like. "Lazy fandom" to me reads like there should be only one kind of "proper", accepted fandom, and that's not the way I like to think of things. In my opinion, claiming to be a fan and somehow communicating with others is quite enough to be accepted as a fellow fan.
And, in my experience, a "lazy fan" (using your term for someone who only connects to other fandom through discussions on the net) can sometimes become an active, participating fan, when treated right. If someone just wants to discuss things on the net, and you do that long enough without demandind anything else, sometimes you happen to be present when they ask if there's something more they could do.
I'm not saying that particular conversation would necessarily have turned out differently if the participation in WSFS part would have been left out, mind you.
no subject
The regrettable thing is that those of us who do actively engage with the process and who are willing to listen to proposals are going to be put off by all of the wingeing, making changes even less likely.
They're not actually interested in change, I think. As I said to
no subject
I have a real issue with people moaning loudly about the need for change and inviting a discussion and then getting upset when they get it. Fans are hardly unique for displaying this kind of behaviour and I must admit it does feel like an age related thing.
But then, I'm fairly sure there was a panel on 'The Greying of Fandom' on the programme of the first Con I went to 20 years ago, and I suspect that there were similar panels on convention programming 20 years before that. And yet, here we still are.
I don't mind that he doesn't want to do conventions, I would find purely online 'fandom' a little antiseptic myself but you don't get to moan about how convention fandom does things and how weird it is and still get to tell them/us what to do to please you.
no subject
I've known some people like that, and sometimes they can still be coaxed into having a fruitful discussion anyway. But that requires a considerable effort from the other party to check their own ego at the door, to avoid pusing buttons and steering the conversation to topics that they have something more positive to contribute. (Not that I'm claiming to have succeeded in that all that often.)
no subject
It certain feels arrogant to me, as bad as the Trufen guys moaning at each other on their email list. Lazy? They all seem to write a lot, but actually I think that's part of their problem with the Hugo Awards.
Writing large volumes doesn't always mean writing good stuff, and good stuff will get missed and lost in the noise. Not to mention, there's a LOT of Blogs out there. Getting enough people to agree on a single writer and blog that would get enough nominations to be on a ballot strikes me as being quite hard.
He also wanted RequiresHate on the Ballot and that's as unpalatable to me as Ted Beale being there.