Etiquette and common courtesy

You know, I already gave you one alternative to those two options: Friends.

Next to that, it could be a toxic/negative social environment caused by extended family. Family feuds/disputes. Lack of etiquette in the general social community the person is from. Fucked up society.

Mental incapability to absorb and implement etiquette rules. Anti-authoritarian beliefs.

Etc?

 

I used to work with a guy who had CP. He made a lot of noise when he ate. He knew it, and hated it. As such, I was never bothered with it. Well, I was much more tolerant of him, than most others. But, he was otherwise an excellent fellow, so even if he didn't have CP I might have been more tolerant. People who are generally boorish get less of my tolerance than people with a few quirks of etiquette. I have a couple of ticks of my own.

My ex-friend had been pushing my buttons for years...

 

my personal opinion is that the guy probably was just ignorant to his ways, and that is most likely based in not being taught, or not caring. regional gegraphic heritage could possibly help us decide which one, but thats another topic for discussion...
Disclaimer: I'm Southern... i've seen it first-hand form my own cultural peers...

But, just to play devil's advocate... i guess a feasible explanation other than above, could be that the poor guy really was fammished. if thats the case he might could ahve picked a more convenient, less scaled establishment, i.e. McD's or Jack-in-the-Box...

another option is tha the could have a medical issue with his jaw mouth or throat... although, this is something that would probably stir some self-image issues, and deter him from that type of establishment.

those are just 2 possibilities... however, i charge us all with a well versed theory...

Occam's Razor- The principle (attributed to William of Occam) that in explaining a thing no more assumptions should be made than are necessary.

In layman's terms- the simplest solution to a problem is most often the correct one.

the simplest solution is: that he had poor table manners, and not only needed to be taught manners, but also why they are important, how and when to apply them, and to appreciate thier application.

The next question, is who should take on this delicate task...

 

Nevermind

 

Are you being serious?

Mental incapability or anti-authoritarian beliefs are as far away from either of your supposed non-plus-ultra umbrella terms as it gets.

Next to that, your entire discussion with Bodkin van Horn was centered around a person not being taught by his/her parents. Don't tell me "parents = friends, extended family, or a metaphor for the entire social environment" now. Oh wait, maybe this is now all semantics in the face of the practical realities of an eatery. My bad.

I seriously and honestly think you can do better than that.

 

davynn, if you don't mind saying, what did you have to eat, and was the food at least enjoyable?

 

I did, and I admit I responded too soon.

Even so, do you think that there aren't conditions which might make someone more prone to eating sloppily?

Why all the focus on selfishness now? Are you no longer blaming his parents? Who cares if he was selfish? davynn and her friend acted selfishly too. People act selfishly, it's pretty standard.

 

I can get behind the correlation between mental handicap and not being taught as a consequence of not having the ability to learn.

Though, I can't agree with the labeling of non-conforming belief systems as selfish. It's like saying saying a person is being selfish when he/she goes to a popular eatery famous for its triple cheeseburgers (micro-establishment) and then orders a vegetarian dish (contra-establishment) because he/she is a strict Buddhist and does not accept the killing of a life for their own consumption. I can see why from your biased perspective it would count as "selfish", just like the aristocrat who condescendingly observed the peasants' eating manners when he invited them to his table one day.

I do not agree with Mr. Og's behavior and if I sat next to him, I would very likely have asked him to tone it down. The issue I see here is the overly condescending attitude some people are displaying towards Mr. Og in their interpretations and classifications of his behavior.

Who knows, maybe Mr. Og was the only one at the eatery to have truly and passionately enjoyed and appreciated the food he was served. In my book, that would be of much higher value than being an exemplary user of the antediluvian etiquette rules of society.

 

I understand what you're saying. I just think that there can be nonselfish reasons for disregarding other people's feelings. All it takes is a little imagination. Perhaps the guy was taught manners by his parents and isn't acting selfishly; maybe he sincerely believes that his purposefully crass display will give all the other hoity toities in the restaurant the opportunity to bolster their individual senses of self worth by gossiping about him later amongst their friends or on the internet? Maybe he thought they'd enjoy telling their friends about what a boor he was more than they'd enjoy peacefully eating another order of the whatever it is they ordered the last ten times they ate at that restaurant. Whether his reasoning in this is sound or not, it's still a selfless act by someone who was taught manners by their parents.

Even assuming pure selfishness, I also don't think that selfishness is always a bad thing. Clearly, davynn and her friend acted selfishly. Who isn't selfish?

Your dichotomy here is either the person wasn't taught manners by their parents or they are selfish. The "wasn't taught manners" angle is meaningless, given the large number of circumstances where a person can fail to be taught manners by their parents which have nothing to do with parental skill. The "they're selfish" angle is meaningless too: who isn't selfish?

So you have an either/or where both explanations don't actually mean anything significant. Perhaps the guy wasn't taught manners by his parents. That fact, assuming it's true, doesn't actually allow for any further inference about the person. Perhaps the guy is selfish. That fact, assuming that it's true, just makes him a human, and again, doesn't allow for any further inference about the person.

I guess my mistake in this thread was that I assumed that you actually meant something with your first post. Now that you've clarified, I can see that isn't the case at all. It was just a pile of words.

I only backed off the word obsession. I still maintain that you're unjustifiably reliant on the bad parenting as an explanation for any number of things that may or may not have anything to do with bad parenting.

 

You're correct. I didn't provide as much detail as I might have. If he'd had any kind of physical difficulty that would have prevented him from chewing quietly, he would have probably taken more time to chew his food thoroughly and swallow before he shoveled in another mouthful.

 

Why is it that asshole-space often gets a preservation order slapped on it?

I notice that people who Deal Assertively With 'agents of assholey behaviour' (henceforth, "assholes", for brevity) - people who actually Do Something about them, often become magnets for a variety of negative responses, as if the asshole is a protected species; and as if the person whose space has been intruded on should simply tighten their territorial belt, feel guilt for their initial judgement that assholey behaviour is occurring, even if their response is to distance themselves from its sphere of influence.

On this forum, it becomes a discussion; vigorous, heated, yet still a discussion. The parties involved have the intellectual skills to develop and discuss perspectives and positions, the assertive skills to maintain their development, and the flexibility to seek to weigh each others' points on their merits.

Up to a certain point, elements of criticism may well form part of a crucial ecological check. For example:
"The guy might have had a disability" - ok, the behaviour needs to be dealt with, but mitigating circumstances must be taken into account - I should not simply call across "Oi, Asshole! Shut It!"
"Calling him an asshole .. are you prematurely labelling his whole life? Or do you mean the expletive to apply only within the present context?" that is also good to check and clarify. His behaviour might still be unacceptable, and to be dealt with, either by stopping him, distancing self from him, leaving the environment altogether, or insisting that 'the management' deal with it. But these nuances, these checkings out and taking into account, determine the consistency of our chosen (de gustibus non disputandum) high ground. They are our developing Code of Ethics and Conduct for our Articles of Association as individual (eg diner)and group (eg specific restaurant) organisms.

Beyond a certain point, however, the outcome risks becoming no longer a conscientious clarification to aid future conflict-resolution, but rather the disempowerment of the complainer.
There is a logic of disempowerment, where articulacy and clumsiness can be equally effective. Its potency lies in that it does not need to construct or maintain a congruent or effective position of its own, merely to put the other guy on the back foot: it is a policy of underminement that is the discussion equivalent of chomping and slurping. It has input and output, but no coherent internal structure. It is a form of noise which destroys information. Structurally, it is the asshole behaviour it purports to defend.

In this Thread, I judge the point to be hovered around, as if by noble dragonflies on a pond, due to the presence of participants whose respect for exploring ideas maintains dialog whilst avoiding such excesses as death camps either for noisy eaters or for those who dare move to a quieter table. I also judge myself to be thankful and well-taught by y'all. I used to put up with assholes for a while, then go extreme on their butts. Last eight years, I've been more level when dealing with them, but still thrown around by my internal feelings. This discussion is giving me guidance through my stormy waters, stirring the sediment of my old black and whites into clouds of depth and colour.

In the World, though, I see individuals and groups existing at and below emotional subsistence level. I also see self-entitled assholes, tits, wankers, sods, buggers and pricks, and their enablers; I also see the thought viruses they use to crash and paralyze, to discourage and silence the systems of those who object to them; and I celebrate and support those who will not put up with them.

 

The food there is always enjoyable. My friend being of Italian background is always challenging me to try new things ... and I do. The lasagna is a must for me though. There was something called brachiole(?) that was also very good.

 

Because quite often the accepted definition of asshole-space exists no where except between the ears of the complainer and is defended entirely by their own overgrown sense of entitlement.

It seems plain to me that our friend 'Og' did nothing wrong and the invectives that have been directed at him are wholly unjustified.

Etiquette is an arbitrary construct varying a great deal with time and place; table etiquette especially so. Calling someone a 'neanderthal' because they failed to arrive at precisely the same arbitrary guideline for behavior at precisely the same as you did is unreasonably disrespectful at best.

 

Couldn't get through all the responses but I did get a sampling of the pro and con reactions to your own reaction, davynn. If it were me and I was at a nice restaurant (maybe pricey) with a good friend or SO and something similar had transpired, I would've done exactly the same. You didn't approach the man and complain or attempt to embarrass him for what was obviously poorly learned table manners. You simply asked for another table. There's tolerance in the grand sense, which is relatively easy until it interferes and becomes a personal nuisance. Being able to rectify the situation with no hard feelings is the epitome of success in such situations.

None of us are beyond judging others.

 

Well said.