Seriously, I'm getting goddamn tired of this.

[nagia]

Dear zvi:

I think you need to step back and reexamine your actions and your motives. Because it looks to me like you've got yourself in a hole, and rather than jump out of it, you're just continuing to dig.

Do you understand that your post in your journal about this tangent makes up a part of the larger imbroglio? Do you understand that people, in following the larger imbroglio, will re-direct their attention to your post, because you have positioned it as being a part of the larger discussion at hand?

I'm a late-comer to this, but from what I understand, the entry in question would not have received much attention--if any at all--had it not been posted to linkspam, and had the resulting kerfuffle not been posted to metafandom.

It is completely permissible to rabbit trail on a personal journal. That's half of what they're for. And if you rabbit trail on your personal journal, you're not hurting anything. You're not shutting down anybody else's conversations. You're not making a discussion between or about other parties all about you.

If the user in question had posted links to that entry here, back, and beyond indicating that it should be part of the discussion, you would have a point. If the user in question had invaded somebody else's meta post and gone off on this tangent, or had deliberately re-directed someone else's conversation, you would have a point.

But from all indications I've seen, the user in question did none of that.

Not everybody wants to be part of every conversation all the time. I will say this again: not everybody wants to be part of every conversation all the time, and it is ridiculous that you would drag someone into a fight they didn't agree to enter.

This user didn't even have the option to say, "Please take that link down, I don't want to be part of this discussion."

The party who linked the "derailing" entry was linkspam. If linkspam felt that the post was only tangentially related, it had the option of not linking. To decide to link a tangentially related post, tag it as "derailing," and then offer no recourse for the link's removal is, gasp shock surprise, appropriating somebody else's content.

Let's try that again, just to make absolutely sure my logic is clear. linkspam took something that was not linkspam's, without permission, and posted it under a label one hundred percent sure to offend--again without permission--thus using content for linkspam's own purposes in a way it had not been intended.

What exactly would you call that?

Comments

[schattenstern]

And didn't the person who wrote the "derailing" (<.<) post say that they chose to post it in their own journal rather than as part of the discussion that inspired it, specifically to avoid derailing the discussion? (Of course now I can no longer find the comment in which they said that. Meh.) That makes the whole argument of "You're derailing the discussion whether you want to or not and talking about a tangential topic will always always always be derailing no matter how far away you are, and if you disagree you are not aware of your privilege (or whatever)" argument even more... strange, to say the least.

[nagia]

IIRC, sie did, and that makes the issue even more infuriating to me. Not that this is the first time zvi has been an idiot.

I am all for pointing out privilege and pointing out that people are derailing. But what zvi has done here is appropriated somebody else's content and is now backpedalling and backpeddaling with increasingly more insane illogical arguments about how sie has not appropriated somebody's content because it happened to be unlocked, and everybody knows unlocked posts are fair game.

Well, tough shit, zvi, because they're not. Somebody else's entry is somebody else's entry. It does not belong to you. You do not get to do whatever you want with it.

And, for that matter, appropriation is in the exact same category that derailing is in: "shit thou shalt not do and name thyself ally."

I just want to smack hir on the back of the head, and I dont' even know hir.

[schattenstern]

Yes, of course it's important to point out when someone is derailing a discussion, but... this is barging in on the discussion somebody is having with a couple of people in front of their house (let's call it discussion A) and telling them they cannot talk about that because the topic of discussion A is tangential to the discussion B held two blocks away, and that, because someone from two blocks away could wander over and overhear bits of discussion A, it's somehow silencing discussion B? I don't get it.

[nagia]

It's even worse than that. Because not only is it invading Discussion A from two blocks over, it's taking House Owner A's patio furniture two blocks over to House B, without asking, and refusing to give it back.

[kaigou]

I've been trying to figure out the logic in the inconsistency between two different zvi-statements, and wondering whether it's worth the hassle of actually confronting it directly. Basically, in a post about derailing, Zvi clarified (in what I thought was a pretty straight-forward and pragmatic approach) that derailing is based on context above all else. Elsewhere in the same post's comments, she also noted that if you're not sure whether your post is derailing, to not link to the triggering post but just post your own statements without connection.

The first, okay, that makes sense. The second... yes, and yet no, because sometimes the triggering discussion is the context behind a person's post: "that made me think of this." It doesn't mean there's a direct connection, only that that made me think of this (even if sometimes, like for me, there's several other things between "that" and "this").

But then she made a post about how any public post, anywhere on the net, on topic A is part of an ongoing discussion related to topic A, and that if you don't want to be considered part of that, then don't post at all on the 'net. (!?!?)

Which means the pseudo-loophole of contextuality determining derailment (that is, post in another context != derailing) just got wiped, because there is no other freaking context. I mean, if I post about how horses and dogs don't get along, and there was wank last year about horses and dogs, suddenly my post -- thanks to being public -- is now part of this other flamefest of which I knew absolutely nothing? And I'm even potentially derailing it?

It's ridiculous. The contradiction between the two positions is one thing, but for it to be one person and made within days of each other... that's pretty out there. But it's even more out there to effectively argue that there is only one big ur-conversation, and if you deviate, you derail, and if you don't want to be considered derailing, you should just shut up.

Oh, yeah, that's a great way to move the internet talk along.

[nagia]

Fully agreed.

That second position is just mindboggling for me.

To continue schattenstern's metaphor, it's like moving into a neighborhood and talking about your yard automatically makes you part of the big-ass feud between Roger Smith and Steve Blum about that time Steve borrowed Roger's lawnmower and never gave it back. You didn't even know about the lawnmower theft; you just happened to notice that you had crab grass in your yard.

[darkrose]

In general, I agree that if you don't want other people to comment, you shouldn't post publically. However, I also think that within LJ culture, if you say, "Please don't link this in X community", it's a reasonable request. And I think it's bullshit to say that having linkspam tag a post as "derailing" is a neutral act; it's a potentially loaded value judgement by one individual.

I'm also unhappy with the way linkspam has turned into a bludgeon, but that may be a separate post.

[nagia]

That first bit is a point I can get behind: if you don't want comments, then don't put it where it can get them. Makes sense, when you're talking about fanwork and for-public-consumption meta.

But Zvi takes it to a whole new level. "If you don't want to be called derailing, just don't say it/post it/leave it public" is not only absurd, it effectively shuts down conversation. I do not understand why zvi would think that this would be a good theme for a meta post, since meta is all about discussion/engendering discussion.

As for link removal, I'd think it's a totally reasonable request. If somebody civilly points out that they are not/don't want to be/don't consider themselves part of the current discussion and they would like the link removed, there's no reason not to remove the link. linkspam's refusal to do so and apparent kerfuffle about it is just infuriating.