I think the only rule should be, don't post anything that you would personally regret if it became a news story on Pitchfork (or even, actual news) and your post was quoted and Claire Boucher had to read that news story. Kinda obvious but I think we sometimes don't think about that possibility when Reddit's shitty points system is rewarding us so much in the short term for our "interesting" post. Could you personally live with knowing you were responsible for that "news" about Grimes, that your karma came at her expense? (And even, that you helped the media make money off it- "commodifying all her pain"- and stealing from yourself, as the unpaid "reporter"??).

I know the op of that thread feels terrible about it, because he says so in the edited post now. And I feel terrible about posting in the thread at all, and also contacting (privately) a couple of fan tumblrs to ask if she was ok. The thread really couldn't have not existed, the event was so weird and disturbing, it needed to be talked about among fans, and op was clearly not seeking karma (it was a self post after all) but once the thread existed, we could have handled it differently. I think we should always remember "would I want to see this on Pitchfork?" and "how would the mainstream media twist it, if it was in the media." The second rule would be, don't even upvote (and preferably, downvote) any thread or post (even if it's interesting or even true) that you would regret seeing as a news story. Read it, comment if necessary to correct what you feel was wrong or incomplete in it, but downvote the fuck out of it.

I exchanged some messages with another poster here the other day, talking about our theories of which "false friend" Flesh Without Blood is dissing. We did not post about this publicly. If I posted my theory, along with evidence, I guarantee many of you guys would upvote it, regardless of your feelings about me as a poster, because the theory is "interesting" and more well-supported with evidence than any other theory, and is likely true. It's been my theory since day one, and more evidence continually appears. I'm 99% certain who that song is about, and once you know that, a lot of the mysterious things start to make sense about AA and various events since. However, I wouldn't post that publicly, because however interesting it may be, it might become a news story and possibly hurt Grimes- even though it only reflects poorly on others, not on her, it might create drama that would hurt her- and I don't want to do that. I would probably feel suicidal if any artist I love that much was hurt by something I said, but especially an artist as critical of social media as Grimes.

Nobody should take it personally if Grimes refuses to fit into the narrative they impose on her- she absolutely needs to reject any attemps to define her. That's what she stands for artistically- being above categories and definitions- opposing binaries (not just gender). I mean hell, do you think Bjork loves it when Grimes says she hates being compared to Bjork. I'm sure Bjork feels a little bit hurt! But she would also understand Grimes needs to reject all comparisons. A male artist might not need to be so militant about it. If someone suggested a male artist ran off stage because of a "panic attack"... well, you see how differently it would play. She can't let herself fall into that expected victim narrative. Grimes is a fucking badass contrarian punk and she is going to reject anyone who says she is x, by saying no, I'm y. Haven't you noticed she not only alternates in each interview between embracing "pop" and rejecting it, she also alternates in the songs of Art Angels, each song is a rejection of whatever genre you thought she was in the past one.

This is why I adore Grimes. In a way, being dissed by her is an honor, if we understand our essential role in helping her define herself, which she does by rejecting every attempt by others to define her.