Etiquette and common courtesy

"I'm sure that I'll survive" I was placing his opinion of me and it's relative importance to me within the context of my ultra-feminine, snooty, put-upon, perpetually pre-menstrual, worldview. So crucify me!
I'm kidding!
Please do start another thread on the subject matter you suggest ... or kick it off here. I'm okay with it.

 

I'm not really sure how I managed to give the impression that I doubt her account, which I guess leaves me to clarify. I do not doubt that the man in the restaurant was conducting himself in such a way as to offend the sensibilities of davynn and her friend. Nor do I doubt the sincerity of her condemnation of him for his conduct. In addition, I'm reasonably certain the comments in my last post wouldn't make any sense at all if either of those things were true.

Attempting to pretend that I don't judge people unfairly would be an asinine position; as would pretending that other people are flawed for doing the same thing. From where I sit, the main difference is not anything like what you claim it to be, but rather that when someone points out possible errors in judgement I prefer to seriously consider their point rather than double down on my initial assessment. Though, that's not really the main thrust of what I'm trying to get at. My problem is specifically with the notion that being less cruel than you could have been is necessarily a sign of respect. The man's presence (or lack thereof) for the remarks is inconsequential to the respectfulness of the remarks themselves. From some of the comments made it is plain that not everyone agrees you can disrespect a person not in your presence, so I guess it will have to be left at that.

Incidentally, in relation to her judgement of the content of the man in question's character, I do find her comments to be unwarranted. I've known some thoroughly decent and quite kind human beings with lousy etiquette. I don't doubt that some of the finest human beings who ever lived would likely be described by the present company as boors. Rules of etiquette are situational and highly variable, hence my earlier remark about their being arbitrary. Which, in my experience, makes them a remarkably bad predictor of human decency. I'm reminded of a quote I recently read from Norbert Elias in reference to Chinese table etiquette

In the (extraordinarily likely) event that I find myself with the proverbial 'knife' in my hand, I certainly hope it isn't in a room with some of the folks from this friend. It's quite clear to me this feeling is mutual.

---

And for the record davynn, I didn't say you were sanctimonious, only the assertion it seems to me you were trying to make in your second post.

 

Concerning Remixer 's post,

I, too, notice when posters respond with the 'you've got your opinion, and I'm OK with that', or in this case, the 'I'll Survive.' An orange flag gets raised in my mind and I seek to apply the following distinction:

Are they the 'only' response? Or are they additions to more thorough response?

In the former case, a poster's entire process has been discounted. An opaque knot of closure has been tied. Possibly relevant discussional strands have been buried in a global "Oh I am strong enough/mature enough to take your post on my chin". It diverts attention away from the debate, siphoning the energy into 'how I feel and am resilient'. It can be used in the 'disempower' strategy I reference in my previous post, either as an alpha ape chest thump ('That was not nice but SEE HOW I AM STRONG) or a victim appeal ('see how I am strong but THAT WAS NOT NICE').

In the latter, at least some of the poster's points have been addressed on their own merits. The discussion is being supported by both parties. In this case, I want to propose that the 'feeling responses' and 'ouch, but I'm OK' are no longer just diversions, but additions, in which case they can be valuable metacomments on the Tone of the discussion. Eg temperature gauges, emotional steering phrases, whereby the participants, though disputing points, may even give themselves and each other, as feeling beings, support toward their best responses.

There are times when both cases are operating, for example in the ebb and flow of a long-stranded discussion between parties who are trying to mutually clarify terms at the same time as asserting difference regarding matters of practical and ethical importance - an ebb and flow which may generate heat and frayed nerves: wobbles, yelps and jabs, the inelegant expressions of feelings which, if acknowledged, can be adjusted for and thus enhance the dialog.

My working position is that the same words or phrases can be appropriate/empowering or inappropriate/disempowering dependant on the context of utterance, and that in this thread, all parties are vigorously jostling perspectives, and that I've seen members of both sexes grunting and groaning, and as a result, points clarified and rephrased without being abandoned.

I think Remixer 's point is robustly on-topic, and later, I might extend my response to cover, more explicitly, restaurant behaviour and other real world conflicts brought about by expectations and their disappointment.

 

Hektore, I say that a person's willingness and ability to tell if they are in a new space, and to seek to learn some of its rules and etiquettes ARE very strong indicators of that person's capacity or intent to display 'human decency' in that context. I also say that human decency is context-dependent, and that the most generally decent human being we can hope to meet or to become is one who actively seeks to understand the culture we enter. Cf rules for newbies to forums, most of which advise to have a good read and get a feel for the place before copious posting.

I acknowledge your experience of meeting fine human beings who are boorish or with bad table manners. My experience is that they tend to ride rough-shod over those around them; some people may, indeed, benefit from boorish people, or see them doing fine things, and correctly judge that they're fine human beings in those instances. But unless they've educated themselve about the context, such people's fine actions are no better than a roll of the dice. I'm saying that they can do fine human things, but that they are more likely to have done it by an accidental match of their preconceptions with the territory, than through the wisdom which comes from learning from the local here-and-now, and therefore likely to be less useful and more disruptive to more people. And if they are ignoring local signs, with knowledge and consciousness that they are doing so much the worse. They are more than clumsy and thoughtless; in the language of motorists, they are willfully dangerous drivers.

I might not banish such people from having a part in my life, but my red light would be glaring, and I would need to put their status on hold while I cross reference with their behaviour in other available areas. Until the time and energy required becomes counter-productive, in which case I settle for avoidance or expulsion. Even if their behaviour 'reassured me' in some of those other available areas, I would still be disquietened by the incongruity, by their lack of integrity across sub-contexts.

In a simple night at a good restaurant, the fact that they have 'brought in' the doubts that their apologists might expect me to give them the benefit of, adds insult to the injury. My basic proposition is that people can and should learn the local customs rather than just relaxing into their current norm. And that if they haven't, there are no doubts. A limiting case is if they are disabled or trying actively to integrate but making newbie mistakes.

Another limiting case is where an outsider brings an important, as yet unknown perspective which could enhance the community. In this event, I hope s/he'd present differently from an asshole, and that 'we' would have the senses to recognize h/er as other than such. This is where your urge for forbearance and gentility, even at the level of our inner thinking, might make the difference between gaining crucial learnings, or losing the baby with the bathwater as we irritably pull the plug. Then again, I've found that choking back initial outbursts sometimes chokes also those still small voices of calm in which wisdom reigns. Look at Bodkin van Horn 's ark of input to this thread ... much has been a horn lock with Borla. However, in hindsight, he was moving toward his recent post, which has spotlit, IMO, a crux node - the fulcrum of a seesaw boundary between the learnings of assertiveness and of forbearance, and that our charting of these waters is a worthy endeavour. It may save us from being downtrodden wimps whilst protecting us from becoming the very assholes we vilify.

As conscientious people, our early grunts and groans, even expletives are often a necessary part of the climb that leads to our best conclusions. And I'll continue that in my previous post.

 

Firstly I use to eat with my mouth open. No one corrected me until I was like 25. Then a new friend corrected me. We are friends for 12 years now.

Secondly I eat with my hands. I even lick and suck my fingers while eating. Why do I do that? I am turn in to an animal when I eat at my privacy. I just love eating that way. Now dontt picture me as a pig, please picture me like a teddy
But I do it only at home and only when I have privacy. Not even when I have friends or extended family around. Why? Because I am informed that it bothers others

 

Etiquette is subjective. noodle and I once were scoffed at in a nice restaurant because we like to share a bite of food with each other if it's remarkable. This was a crotchety, senior, lady who didn't seem to enjoy anything. Sometimes noodle likes to turn her lobster carcass into an asparagus wielding ninja. Personally, I think people are trying too goddamn hard to fit into a perceived reality. I think people should be respectful to others. However, I'm the one plopping down hundreds of dollars for MY dinner. If the only way you can be aware of what I'm doing is by staring or eavesdropping, then by all means...go fuck yourself. This is assuming of course that everyone is simply speaking in conversational tones. When people eat/talk/slurp loudly, it bothers me and I consider it rude. Again...subjective.

and then....

You have cultural differences. Asian cultures seem to be perfectly fine with slurping noodles, or eating loudly. Go to a Korean restaurant that is filled with Koreans...or a Chinese restaurant in Chinatown, wherever.

 

Granted, this is just from my perspective, I can't ever recall being bothered by another person's table manners. Particularly the table manners of someone who isn't even sitting at my table.

But I can say this with full assurance, I would rather have a nice meal adjacent to a noisy eater, than an interminable meal at a table with someone who is prone to disgusted looks. Life is too short.
--- merged: Feb 8, 2012 10:20 PM ---
The gist of my sentiment being, if someone being noisy next to you in a fancy restaurant is the paramount worry of your evening, well, boo-fucking-hoo. Take a moment to look around, realize where you are, say a little prayer of thanks (if that's your thing) and shut the fuck up and eat. You don't have to marry the motherfucker, he's just there trying to enjoy a meal, too.

This is where crompsin is supposed to come in with a reference to first world problems.

 

You add perspective to this topic ... and in an even-handed way. "If the only way you can be aware of what I'm doing is by staring or eavesdropping, then by all means...go fuck yourself." I totally agree ... if someone snoops ... they deserve whatever they get.
If I know beforehand that my boundaries or sensibilities are likely to be challenged, as in your example above, then I would simply avoid those situations. I wouldn't expect anyone to change a cultural norm just for me.

 

To whom it may concern. I am not the type of person to "shut the fuck up" and suffer in silence.
... and I do count my blessings ... I like to count reasonable people among them.

 

There's some things I do in private I would never do in public. That's why they call it private. Whether or not people would be offended is a concern but more than that, I don't think everybody needs to know everything about me.
--- merged: Feb 9, 2012 1:17 AM ---

My SO and I often takes bites of each other's food, off of each other's forks and I'm usually too focused on him, our dinner, and our conversation to notice if anyone is staring at us. If they are, I can only assume they might be thinking. "Gee, those two really seem to enjoy each other. Why don't we talk and laugh like that and taste each other's dinner anymore, Harry?"

Dining, like life, should be fun and enjoyed as much for the experience as the food.

 

Behold, the asparagus wielding ninja lobster...

Not the same dinner that uncharted and I shared a bite of his amazingly delicious venison, but the same restaurant.

Let me preface my response by saying that I, for one, want to punch my own sister in the face whenever she eats from a spoon, but I typically get up and leave the table when she picks one up. If someone's eating habits are really affecting my experience to the point that I cannot enjoy my meal, it really is my responsibility to a.) manage my own issues or b.) see if I can unobtrusively move. Honestly, I tend to just order another glass of wine and suck it up. Life's too freaking short to ruin a nice dinner out by focusing on my annoyance at someone else's enjoyment of their dinner. If they're being disruptive or a general asshole, I've been known to throw dagger-eyes in their direction or to mention my displeasure to an attentive waitstaff. Typically my tolerance is rewarded by the apologies of said embarrassed waitstaff and sometimes a beverage or dessert. Once, we got $25 off our next visit due to the extremely disruptive behavior of another table that was enjoying their beverages a little too enthusiastically. I did think for a moment that if uncharted 's sister had had a ninja lobster, she might have stabbed someone in the eye with it. But, we all finished our meal and left instead. With dinner credit in pocket.

 

My point is, who is suffering?
Another point is, being bothered by something is totally subjective. There are no laws of propriety. What's more, what is totally reasonable to you may seem completely unreasonable to me, and vice versa. Someone said earlier, in jest, about this being a matter of taste. And that is the absolute truth.

I think what some of us have taken objection to on this thread is the seeming attitude that 'this is what my friend and I experienced and our response was totally reasonable and therefore let's have a discussion about how much we are bothered by rude people in restaurants.' Obviously, not everyone at this particular venue feels the same way. Some people feel like your response to this gentleman was a snap judgment and your response unreasonable, perhaps even rude. Personally, I don't really care. No harm was done. It was just a particular situation in your day among many others that you decided to bring up here. But, as with all things fairly trivial and insignificant, where one's feelings fall on either side of it is just a matter of taste. What do you find distasteful? My own reactions to behavior are dictated by different impulses. Which is what I gather from a few others here including the venerable Mr. Van Horn and Hektore. I'm not about to go several pages defending my viewpoint on the matter. It's just the cloth I am cut from. At my age I have become quite accustomed to realizing that it is sometimes far outside of the mainstream.

 

I think that how I handled the situation as stated in my original post was very far removed from unreasonable. I'm not going to chart my course by someone else's expectations of what my subjective experience should be! If I'm uncomfortable in a given situation it's as unreasonable as hell to expect me to do nothing.
That is my absolute truth.
I've been reluctant to say this but I think the true heart of the issue [may] reside some people identifying with Mr. Og in some way. It wasn't my intention to offend anyone here if that's the case.

 

No one has asked you to change anything. We are expressing our opinion. As for identifying with your restaurant cohabitant, I can't say that I identify with any of the participants in your story. I am a 46-year-old middle class southern woman so manners isn't exactly a problem for me. In fact, I'd go so far as to speculate that my manners might even be more refined than yours. I also have a long history of defending people who are being judged for petty aesthetic reasons.

 

I take close interest when criteria for people's concerns are judged to be petty.

It can be argued that manners are in no way petty, and that to reduce them to a matter of aesthetics or taste is to be ignorant of their significance as navigation tools and indicators within a given culture's fabric of social cooperation and survival.

Then again, I am English, therefore, to me, that argument has been 'a simple and obvious truth' - I don't need social anthropologists to have written books to explain it. The restaurant and tea room is a microcosm: a pulse point with which to gauge the health of the community, and an intervention point from which to maintain it. People who didn't instinctively know this were idiots, and We tried to educate everybody on Earth to do it our way, but by 1970, I discovered cultural relativism, decided to dismantle the Empire and disentitle myself, and seek to build a sense of me more capable of respecting and navigating the here and now; for different cultures give different behaviours more or less weight in expressing fundamental local criteria. The locals judge some of those criteria to be obviously universal, that's where we get evangelism and jihad ; and, because, 'obviously' so, then, through diminished motivation to understand the 'other', we get intolerance, irritation, and mud-slinging.

I also speak when newspapers or individuals are told to shut up. That's why I opened the Paedophile Ring thread. There may be good reasons, governing how and when to share information or concern, but let it be through reasoned negotiation, not injunction plus label saying 'here's the Reason'. Silence can limit suffering, also sustain or intensify it, but who decides whose suffering is to be deemed of significant or trivial foundation, whether in the restaurant or in the wider community?

There is room for slippage concerning boorish people eating sloppily in a restaurant or arguing sloppily on a forum - the issue does not involve people getting physically hurt, and we may call it, mistakenly, in my opinion, a matter of taste. Different cultures, or power bodies have, in different periods of history, called plenty of activities matters of taste, or convention, which, here and now, 'we' would deem to be violating 'fundamental human rights'. Some would call boorish people in the workplace a different matter, some would not: call it sexual harassment vs "Nobody got hurt, it was just a bit of fun and if you don't like it, then What's Your problem?" Just how much slippage do we really want to to accept or allow?

The irony is that apologists for assholery, whether themselves assholes or just enablers, get faced with the choice of eating their words or choosing to dance even more convolutedly, because when they need to lick what they consider to be their own righteous wounds, be it among family, in forum threads or in blogs, they expect and often shall receive an empathy and support they choose not to give. My worries for many years have been: do they actually care about that choice, or even notice it? Will they begin to form an appreciation of others' needs outside of their own present understanding of their own? And will the concept even make sense?

 

Zen ...

I thank you for your lucid contributions to "Etiquette and common courtesy". I was prepared to make a fool of myself by writing a parody of my original post employing the psychological undercurrents that I've been picking up on as inspiration. To be clear ... you probably saved my ass from myself.
Your clarity and breadth of scope in #115, was adequate to send my condescending, lesbian, bitch from hell back to her lair.

I was going to send this in a personal message, but ... what the heck.

 

I fail to see how my viewpoint on this particular situation denotes an ignorance of anything. What I can say about ignorance with total assurance is that we don't know anything about the gentleman in question in the restaurant that night other than the fact that THE WAY HE ATE was enough to label him with a plethora of names and various judgments and speculations about his childhood and his very nature as an asshole on this planet. But somehow, questioning the response of a person here with us who has related the story in her own words is beyond the breach. I think that's ridiculous. And to imply that my sarcastic comment about shutting up is somehow related to freedom of information is, well, absurd. I think, in this day and age, with everything I have seen and experienced, that moaning about the behavior of one person on one night in one restaurant and implying that it was so disgusting that there was 'suffering' is petty. That is my perspective and it is just as valid and just as much based on reason and worldly experience as is the perspective of anyone who disagrees with me.

I'm not sure where you're going with your last paragraph, but it sounds personal. And I'd just like to note that I don't expect understanding and support, but I get it from many people. And I give it in spades when it is needed. But if this story were told to me by my mother or my sister or any other family member or someone I am close to, I would respond in the same way. And you know what's really great? These people know and love me and they know that I mean well. So they accept me and sometimes they even laugh because they know that my style is pretty acidic sometimes. Many people here at TFP know this about me, too, but they also know that I have a very soft side. Those few who know me. What I don't need or give is superficial back-patting when someone is being silly. Nor do I want it. And frankly, it irks me when I see it.

 

Some people have no idea.
But all in all, what she said.

And, oh yeah, we're totally due for some St. Augustinian margaritas and 8oz beers again, madam

 

And while we are on the subject of TFP and superficial backpatting, I would just like to say that there was a time here at TFP when people felt comfortable disagreeing and saying so bluntly and we would have these long, delirious conversations in which very few people walked away hurt and defensive because everyone had ample opportunity to just lay it all out there. And it was fun, people had a good time pushing each other's buttons because in the background there was this running current of camaraderie. It was kind of cool, I miss that.
--- merged: Feb 10, 2012 2:32 AM ---

fer sure. when this semester is over. when it's finally over. i'm going to get drunk for days.

 

Oooh, oooooh, we'll have to find a place to crash. Because by the time my trimester is over, I'll be a babbling idiot.
And I'm going to slurp that drink like a mofo. Hope you're up for it!

Seriously, Davynn, it was your description of the man whom you found distasteful that truly got my back up. "Og the barbarian"? "neanderthal"? The guy was enjoying his dinner with gusto. You know nothing about this man other than the fact that you "lovely" friend was upset and about to make a scene. There probably was a scene made, with tables being moved and such. Did anyone stop to think that the gentleman possibly couldn't help it? Mild cerebral palsy causes impairment in fine motor skills that wouldn't otherwise be readily visible. I have a friend in this situation. Her jaw muscles are totally screwed up... you wouldn't know that there is something amiss unless she spoke when excited, was eating, or trying to run. But it cracks us all up that she sounds like a starving lumberjack when she eats. I don't care if you agree with a single person on here. This place is about debate and conversation. You started a conversation. And you've gotten six pages out of it... congrats!