![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cimoreneI posted here the other day that the meta debates going around about squee-harshing or "pissing in someone's cheerios", as well as other widespread opinions and practices in fandom, clearly demonstrate that there is in existence in fandom a norm (or etiquette rule, or expectation, if you prefer) which requires a certain level of polite reserve and social distance. Our community clearly does to a great degree limit the acceptability of stark argumentative replies to someone in their own journal.
I've seen counter-arguments in several posts, most recently in![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
musesfool's[1] such as this and this, which hinge on the commenters' right to comment as they like in a public post. This argument isn't a sensible contribution to the debate, since recent posts (including the post which those comments reply to) have explicitly acknowledged that they do have that right, and focused instead on saying that they should exercise tact in determining whether to use it. When they say that everyone has the right to comment in public posts, what they really seem to be arguing, often, is that it is automatically socially acceptable to comment however one wishes either (a) because the post is public (and the poster has consciously chosen not to make it impossible to comment) or (b) because it is universally automatically socially acceptable to say whatever you want to on the internet.
In my first post linked above I discussed the fact that posts are public and some of the reasons (mainly practical) people make public posts even though they don't readily welcome any and all comments.
Now I want to touch on (b).
The logic here seems to be that the internet is by nature a public forum and that its whole point is discourse; and that in practice, everyone does say whatever they want to on the internet. In short, the argument is that because the behaviour is expected (as possible, not as certain), it is socially acceptable.
This is barely a logical fallacy; it's more a case of one simply not following from the other. The issue is not whether the behaviour should be expected, but whether it is rude. It is true that it is possible to comment to a public lj post and that we all, on the internet, are aware of the possibility of receiving any sort of comment, including trolling. It is also true that we are aware of the possibility of people doing many other things which are fairly common, such as cutting others off in traffic, making a scene at a party, or borrowing a pen from someone and putting it in their mouths and then handing it back. Certainly I knew that when I offered to lend a pen to the girl who asked if anyone had one, it would be within her physical power to do whatever she wanted with it, and I have seen people chew absent-mindedly on borrowed writing instruments before, and I gave her my pen anyway. Does that mean that I was inviting her to chew on it? Arguably, perhaps. Does it mean that chewing on it is not rude? No.
The key term in the question "Is it universally and automatically socially acceptable to say whatever you want to on the internet?" is socially acceptable. I refer you again to the opening paragraph of this post: this meta debate and the countless fans coming forward and sharing their opinions on the issue (as well as many earlier incarnations of this debate; it's hardly a requirement that has sprung up overnight), as well as the behaviour and expectations of those fans, demonstrate that the norm does exist. If a norm exists, if large numbers of community numbers periodically rally to uphold and reinforce it, then breaking it is, by definition, not socially acceptable. Social norms do not have to be logical - they frequently are not, such as the ones about what you do with your knives and forks, or the one about showing nipples on American television, or the ones about which kinds of jokes are polite in which settings. But that doesn't mean that they don't exist, that communities do not demand obedience to them and punish breaking them, sometimes stringently.
I've seen counter-arguments in several posts, most recently in
musesfool's[1] such as this and this, which hinge on the commenters' right to comment as they like in a public post. This argument isn't a sensible contribution to the debate, since recent posts (including the post which those comments reply to) have explicitly acknowledged that they do have that right, and focused instead on saying that they should exercise tact in determining whether to use it. When they say that everyone has the right to comment in public posts, what they really seem to be arguing, often, is that it is automatically socially acceptable to comment however one wishes either (a) because the post is public (and the poster has consciously chosen not to make it impossible to comment) or (b) because it is universally automatically socially acceptable to say whatever you want to on the internet. In my first post linked above I discussed the fact that posts are public and some of the reasons (mainly practical) people make public posts even though they don't readily welcome any and all comments.
Now I want to touch on (b).
The logic here seems to be that the internet is by nature a public forum and that its whole point is discourse; and that in practice, everyone does say whatever they want to on the internet. In short, the argument is that because the behaviour is expected (as possible, not as certain), it is socially acceptable.
This is barely a logical fallacy; it's more a case of one simply not following from the other. The issue is not whether the behaviour should be expected, but whether it is rude. It is true that it is possible to comment to a public lj post and that we all, on the internet, are aware of the possibility of receiving any sort of comment, including trolling. It is also true that we are aware of the possibility of people doing many other things which are fairly common, such as cutting others off in traffic, making a scene at a party, or borrowing a pen from someone and putting it in their mouths and then handing it back. Certainly I knew that when I offered to lend a pen to the girl who asked if anyone had one, it would be within her physical power to do whatever she wanted with it, and I have seen people chew absent-mindedly on borrowed writing instruments before, and I gave her my pen anyway. Does that mean that I was inviting her to chew on it? Arguably, perhaps. Does it mean that chewing on it is not rude? No.
The key term in the question "Is it universally and automatically socially acceptable to say whatever you want to on the internet?" is socially acceptable. I refer you again to the opening paragraph of this post: this meta debate and the countless fans coming forward and sharing their opinions on the issue (as well as many earlier incarnations of this debate; it's hardly a requirement that has sprung up overnight), as well as the behaviour and expectations of those fans, demonstrate that the norm does exist. If a norm exists, if large numbers of community numbers periodically rally to uphold and reinforce it, then breaking it is, by definition, not socially acceptable. Social norms do not have to be logical - they frequently are not, such as the ones about what you do with your knives and forks, or the one about showing nipples on American television, or the ones about which kinds of jokes are polite in which settings. But that doesn't mean that they don't exist, that communities do not demand obedience to them and punish breaking them, sometimes stringently.
