Meta: It's Not Quite Derailing

[chasingtides]

I tried to host a conversation about Glee here earlier this week that I believe was mostly successful. Around the same time, I tried to participate in conversations elsewhere about the show (note: I would count myself among the detractors of the show; see my previous entry

Comments

[chasingtides]

Can anyone be objective about something that they freely admit they adore anyway?

[moonvoice]

""You're really too close to the issue and it clouds your ability to see things in an objective way.*""

This seems like a common argument and, to me, a really bizarre one. You're too black to discuss racism. You're too disabled to discuss ablism. You're too female to discuss sexism. You're too queer to discuss homophobia. You're a soldier, so you can't discuss war. You're a survivor of violence, so you can't discuss it. Ever.

I don't believe you were told (from this sentence) that you can't discuss anything. It was only said that your objectivity was in question

[chasingtides]

I may be overreacting to that particular statement, but I realised I couldn't quote the one that I originally intended to in this post. It was in a locked entry on another journal. I do my best to respect people's privacy - that statement was made in a locked entry and I will not air it in a public one. It did make it a bit awkward to work around and this example is quite far from perfect

[moonvoice]

The greater pattern is "You aren't objective, therefore you don't have a good point." Maybe "You can't talk about," is the wrong term - but "You don't have a real point or a point of any merit because x."

*nods* I've encountered this; especially in relation to talking about abuse as an abuse survivor, and definitely as a bisexual woman talking about queerness (since I'm a fake queer, or just a slut, obviously, and have no idea what it's like for the REAL queers out there - which is something I've gotten a lot).

It's awful, and it's wrong, and my answer to that is to basically talk about it anyway. Subjectivity isn't bad, and objectivity isn't always good

[chasingtides]

My opinions are exactly that - opinions. And I claim no objectivity. Most matters in the world, but especially those of human interaction, are incredibly subjective ones. (And I've yet to ever come across an objective discussion of abuse. Or racism. Or ablism. Or anything mentioned here.)

I supposed here, I'm extrapolating "You don't have a point of merit" to mean, "You shouldn't talk about it." On the other hand, if there's a conversation worth listening to, it has merit. If something is without point, merit, or decency and only exists for unhappiness, then you probably shouldn't be saying it.

However, I might have just written myself into a hole.

Glee's a thing for me. Joss Whedon is a thing for me.

It's odd, I think, that I'll watch Supernatural and Dexter and, really, read and watch horror as my favorite genre and then go on to have serious problems with Glee and Dollhouse and Dr Horrible.

[earis]

Re: Glee.
I like a lot about the show, but I hate a lot about the show at the same time, so it can be very difficult to critique effectively.
I totally tried to explain to people yesterday that while parts of Glee are awesome, other parts make we wince and cringe and feel really, really bad. I mean, parts are great. Other parts, not so much.
People were less than receptive, and even dismissive of the problems that I raised. So there might be a third category, the 'it's so awesome we just put up with the rest of it' excuse.

[lotus_bright]

Glee kind of is the little girl with the strawberry curl - when it is good, it is fucking awesome, and when it's bad, it's nuclear.

I put up with it because I've seen what they're capable of when the writers are on, and I'm hoping the hiatus will give them the time and opportunity to correct the issues (although I'm thinking some of them will have to be worked out as the series progresses). If not, I will probably end up abandoning the show. (Which, you know, will just absolutely devastate them.)

[earis]

I know that the first 13 episodes were written at once, which has led to some great things and some terrible things, and I know that after the hiatus, the show will have a chance to adjust to the reactions from people. I just hope that dissenting voices will be able to be heard

[lotus_bright]

No arguments here.

I've mentioned this many, many times, but I'd also like to see them pick a direction for each character and more or less stick with it. Some variation is to be expected, particularly for that age group, but a few of the characters (and here I am thinking of Rachel and Schu in particular) are all over the place and it really takes away from the show. (Not to mention, it'd be nice if they'd drop having every character reinforce how annoying and horrible and terribly-dressed Rachel is - she's certainly obnoxious from time to time, but no more so than most of the rest of the characters, and I'd argue that Kurt's outfits are often worse.)

[optimus_life]

Than keep speaking,talking,blogging. I've had the "your trying to depress people by saying x" well yeah but it's the truth and the truth needs to be told. Even if it makes some people squirm, those who
have try to silence those who don't have.

I like the Twilight movies and only tolerate the books b/c of the fic I'm working on. In no way do I put the author on a pedastal b/c of who she is. In fact I acknowldge the shit she's pulled and take what I want from the fandom.

[chasingtides]

Oh, yes, definitely. Don't let the bastards get you down and all that jazz.

However, I like to try to check my privilege when talking to people about Issues (so part of this is to remind myself that Objectivity is not the Holy Grail of discussions) and, well, I greatly dislike it when I think someone's trying to shut down a discussion with a bad argument because the discussion makes them squirm a bit in their privilege.

(I mean, I love Supernatural. But does that show have issues. Of course, dissecting them is part of why I watch it.)

[lfg1986]

Well, as the person you quoted, I will only say that this is exactly why I never comment on your posts of this manner, and why I never will again. Thank you for taking something I said and making it into something completely different to "prove" your point.

[chasingtides]

I have an open policy and I am open to having a discussion that isn't derailed.

If you feel that you weren't acting in this pattern, I'd love to discuss it (as I said to moonvoice above, this isn't about you and I really wasn't originally planning to use this comment - and if you'd like me to remove it, I'm open to that as well).

[lfg1986]

At this point, I really don't care. If you want to use my words to further your POV, that's fine. But I won't be contributing to any of your other posts of this nature in the future.

[chasingtides]

I do actually care. I value your opinion and, if possible, would like to do my best to understand where you're coming from. If you're not interested, I can do my best to respect that.

However - assuming you mean "meta" when you say "posts of this nature" - I do try my (very human) best to have open discussions, even if my personal opinion doesn't change. The point isn't, to put it crudely, a circle-jerk, but an exchange of ideas.