Probably the biggest complaint I have about the word “discourse” is that it conflates two concepts that used to be separate: wank and meta. The differences are important.
Meta was a discussion. It was meant as a jumping off point to look at a complex issue. It dignified its subjects by treating them with the maturity they deserved. It was reflective and enriched by multiple points of view. Whether serious or light-hearted, meta thrived on presenting evidence and discussing the impact of that information. Its purpose was to get everyone involved thinking more deeply about a topic, often including the OP.
Wank was wank. Whether it was ship wars or personal vendettas, wank was about in-fighting. It was ~ drama ~. It was there to start a fight it planned to win, and winning was its only goal. It was frequently superficial and careless in its impact, and it generally rested entirely on either false evidence or no evidence at all. It was the stuff that made gawking into a major fandom passtime, via fandom_wank and other resources.
This doesn’t mean there wasn’t poorly thought-out meta, or that no wank ever did something good. (Some wanks were very good at teaching everyone important lessons, like that you need to know what you’re doing in order to run a con, and not to harass actors.) It’s not about the tone, either – I’ve seen some very angry meta and some light-hearted wank bait.
The difference is entirely in approach. Meta frames itself as part of a dialogue and actively invites participation and alternate interpretations of the data. Wank declares itself the one true way and actively invites popcorn and/or everyone running for cover. Meta understands that there are multiple truths in terms of personal experience but that facts, such as they can be determined, are important as a base to work from. Wank is about what someone thinks should be the facts, in the face of all evidence to the contrary.
Prior to tumbl-hell, it was understood that feeding the trolls was a bad idea. When fans wanked, most others noped out. But now, with this new “discourse” term elevating ship wars to some sort of art form and dignifying arguments which we used to understand were full of baloney, people feel required to engage. Instead of pointing and laughing from a safe distance, we’re feeding the very worst trolls and giving them the power to convert others to trolldom and harass anyone who doesn’t conform to their wank-defined rules.
The thing is, we did this before. In the 90s. It sucked. The point of the term “wank” was to recognize the self-congratulatory nature of the (probably universally human) behavior, box it, and set it to one side. We couldn’t stop it from starting, but we could choose not to feed it. Now it’s out of the box again, and it has not improved with age, let me tell you. Phew.
So, petition to bring back both terms and drop “discourse” like a rotten potato. It’s not useful, because it conflates real conversations with standing in a room screaming with one’s fingers in one’s ears.
This reminded me of an article I read a couple of months ago that stuck with me. It was about talking to Trump supporters, and how the two approaches of either always blowing them off as racist idiots who can’t be reasoned with, or approaching every interaction as an earnest attempt to see their point of view and to introduce other perspectives, are not viable.
The thesis was that there are basically two types of conversations that can happen when we talk about ideas. Some people*, even if they hold views we find odious, base those views on perceived facts–those facts may be incomplete or erroneous, but they are operating in good faith in that they believe that facts matter and opinions should be somehow grounded in facts. Other people, even some who hold views we agree with, use opinions and facts interchangeably, as a way of making a point about identity and belonging. They will say that they believe what they understand their group to believe, and it doesn’t matter if that belief is an opinion, a fact, or a straight-up lie.
Someone who’s arguing in Style A might say, “Global warming is bunk; the last couple of winters have been the coldest I can remember.” What they mean is, “I have made a conclusion based on the facts immediately available to me.” They may not be curious enough, or educated enough, or have enough time on their hands to seek out additional facts upon which to base their conclusions, but there is a fact in there somewhere, and they care about it. Show that person a map charting average winter temperatures across the globe, and point out how a portion of North America (the portion where I and my imaginary interlocutor happen to live) is the only place that recorded lower temperatures than usual, and everywhere else on the planet was higher, and that person might reconsider, or at least conclude that they don’t understand the topic as well as they thought they did.
Someone arguing in Style B might say, “Global warming is bunk because environmental regulation hurts jobs.” What they mean is “People in my group believe that global warming doesn’t exist, and that environmental regulation takes away people’s jobs. The connection between these two statements is that they are both things that people in my group believe, about the same broad topic area.” This person does not care whether either of these statements is literally true. Either one can be used to justify or “prove” the other, but presenting evidence against one won’t weaken the speaker’s belief in the other–or even the first one, probably. Presented with facts that challenge their beliefs, this person will double down on those beliefs, because you aren’t having a conversation about what is true about the world; you’re having a conversation about what kind of person they are. And you, a stranger of the internet (or a co-worker around the water cooler, or a distant cousin at the family reunion) are not going to change their mind about what kind of person they are.
So the best approach is to gently engage with Person A (if you have the time, facts, and spoons to do so), but leave Person B alone. But the hard part is, you can’t always tell which type you’re dealing with. The only solution is to make the best call you can, based on the available evidence. If you make the wrong call, and get into an argument with someone using Style B, don’t beat yourself up over it, but be aware of the sunk cost fallacy–when you realize your mistake, just walk away.
The bolded point above is, I think, really important, because for those of us who have been socialized to Not Feed the Trolls, it’s really embarrassing to realize we’ve done just that. It’s tempting to keep hammering away, trying to either turn it into the Style A discussion you thought you were having, or at least score some points so you don’t look stupid. But there’s not really any point, unless you’re performing for an audience whose views you might change, or whose opinion of you is important to you.
So those are my thoughts about The Discourse, and they’re as relevant to fandom wank as they are to Srs Bzns.
(*I say “some people” here as a shorthand; of course, the same person may argue in Style A in some situations and Style B in others.)
y’all, calling wank ‘discourse’ is sarcasm.
a wank by any other name
Published
ugh 