In a strange mirroring of the article itself, I clicked on the link with preconceived ideas about what it was going to say. Before I read the first paragraph, I was formulating counter points in my head, as well as examples of my own experiences of being at the receiving edge of rudeness. I could feel my blood temperature rising with excitement and affront.
But as I read through this excellent essay, I found myself taking on the actions of her painter friend in the airport security line. I simply let myself read, and absorb the words - without judgement, without getting indignant or self righteous at the injustice of the situations she described.
I read the section on her interaction with the sales assistant in the clothes shop, with much sadness. I realised that in my everyday dealings, I (and possibly many others) flit between the persona of the assistant, and the author.
And in the spirit of her painter friend, I'd simply like to say "Thank You" to whomever posted this article here for me to find and read.
I don't really understand why she would be considered rude for her comment to the sales assistant "No, I say. Actually, I don’t want to come out". Its a bit of a flat statement. Perhaps saying something that has a subtext ("Actually, you are pissing me off with your overattentive pushy sales technique") is being rude?
In that type of case, I always think that it is difficult for both her, and the sales assistant because the person who set the situation up, the impersonal marketing manager at head office who insist that their front line staff act this way are the ones who are being rude and the people on location are both just acting their parts and if they are not comfortable with it there is nothing they can do at that time. The easiest thing they can do is to refuse to interact with that company (either not shopping there, or not working there) though that is not necessarily the most effective way to fix the problem, which is communicating with the person who has set the situation up. For the sales employee it could perhaps be keeping a log of customer interactions and return it to the management to show that this strategy is ineffective (it may not be!). For the customer, it could be writing to the customer service and suggesting that the reason they didn't buy anything was that the sales assistant was too pushy. In both cases though, I would worry that the management would simply blame the sales assistant for the lack of the sale.
I think what the author was trying to get across with that particular story is that any message is dependent on how the recipient chooses to interpret it.
I mean, the airport attendant probably thought they were being efficient and direct by barking orders to the crowd. The sales lady probably thought she was being attentive and useful. Under totally different circumstances (i.e. if the author visited the dress shop after getting a promotion etc.), the interaction could have been very different and they could have played off each other. In this case, the interaction fell flat because each party had different goals and objectives, as well as a different history getting up to that point.
There are a million ways to interpret the "No, I don't want to come out" sentence. (1) She could be simply a rude customer (2) The customer may have had some body shaming issues that makes it difficult for them to show themselves half undressed to a stranger or, similarly (3) the customer may have religious or cultural issues around that, or occam's razor - (4) the customer simply did not like the sales person or the dress and didn't want to continue the engagement any further. And everything in between that.
The salesperson chose to interpret it their own way. On a different day, she may have shrugged it off. On a particular difficult day, she may take it as a personal slight. Perhaps she felt that she had some sort of rapport with the customer based on her accepting the offer to try on the dress, and was personally hurt when it turned out not to be so?
It's not rude because the woman has taken nothing from the clerk. By stating it flatly, as you describe, there is no undermining of the clerk's position. Even IF the subtext is "you're pissing me off", she's still given both of them the benefit of ignorance so they can continue the facade. It's the clerk who chooses to be offended outwardly by it, rending herself even of her own dignity, for, what, maybe to try to make the shopper feel bad for saying something that _could be construed_ as subtextually rude? All she managed to do was give her power away for passive aggressiveness.
> The liberal elite, as far as I am aware, do not make death threats
I guess the author is choosing to ignore all the "Bash the fash" "Punch a Nazi" violent resistance to any ideas that don't support the liberal elite's sacred cows.
Who defines who is a nazi in the modern day? How is Charles Murray a Nazi in any way? You're comfortable with violent action at the behest of the fuzzy logic of incited mobs?
This is a lengthy piece. There is plenty to discuss, and it clearly contains contentious topics. Please don't extract a single statement, no matter how poor or egregious, to use as kindling to start a flamewar. Topics such as these are difficult to discuss in the best of circumstances, and even more difficult on the internet. If you're not willing to put in the effort necessary to do so, please just let it go.
How rude. I upvoted his post anyway. And here we have another example of liberal violence mistaken for benevolence. Censorship becomes "banning a nazi".
Decent article - but she does try to stress the brexit references, as well as references to modern politics and the divisions thereof. Would have been a better piece if she stuck more to her points of analyzing "The Age of Rudeness"
For me it seems to be a bit tacked on. Rundness is a timeless human thing, brexit is in this context just a contemporary local buzzword with relevance limited in scope and time.
Yup. It seems every article I read in 2017 has some forced refrence to Brexit, Trump, or Protests. While my views on those things are not strong, seeing them interrupts my stream of thought when attached to something unrelated. Then I am forced to wonder what views the author is projecting by the inclusion. What was I reading again? Annoying af.
This seems to be largely retreading of traditional complaints about the deterioration of society[1].
Her comments on the airport staff in particular seem to be exaggerating the issues. In both cases, it seems the author is unable to accept that the staff might just be following rules.
The comments on political developments in particular seem rather disconnected. In particular:
> The liberal elite, as far as I am aware, do not make death threats.
This comment in particular really exemplifies the holier than thou attitude which many liberals appear to be unable to get over[2]. Being unable to engage with the other side of the political spectrum is (to me) ruder than retail and airport staff following a script to the point of being overbearing.
Her section on trying on an outfit in particular seems to be her attempting to 'reach out' to the retail worker, in spite of her implied superiority as the consumer in this situation. This really grates with me in terms of the holier than thou attitude I mentioned earlier.
> I consider the role that good manners might play in the sphere of rat-eating
This really seems to be her placing herself morally above others through being tolerant and caring, which ultimately helps nobody. I'm reminded of a quote from one of Term Pratchett's books, "[i]f civilization were to collapse totally and the survivors were reduced to eating cockroaches, Madame Dawning would still use a napkin and look down on people who ate their cockroaches the wrong way around."
Ultimately this smacks of the sorts of idealised view of civilised behaviour which pervaded the British Empire, and ultimately did terrible things when they met another culture. This seems to be an attempt to rationalise retaining the customs of that era without the social classes that came with it.
I think that the inappropriate attempt to capture social capital and convert it into financial gain is rude. When you are able to develop a proper exchange with a retailer - for example to be able to ask about quality or suitability and get advice based on your relationship with them - this is a useful and pleasant experience. When you are captured by a script and then pressured into either being rude to an innocent party or doing what the retailer wants, that's rude. The staff are not rude, they are victims, pawns, the retailers are rude - primitive, obvious and unregarding others. Venal.
To me, that was one of the takeaways from this article - that you can by NICE, but still perceived to be rude, if the attention or interaction makes the other person feel uneasy or pressured or guilty. The end result is the same for the recipient, whether the message is delivered with a stick, or with a velvet glove.
Not just talking passive/aggressive niceness either - simply being unaware if your interaction suits the current mood of the recipient can be interpreted as being rude too. It was a useful reflection point for me, and a powerful message in that essay.
Besides, the author feeds us the fact that others have reacted poorly too her telling of those events, and leaves the reality of the events ambiguous, surely on purpose. The various anecdotes are examples of when she's done something wrong, more or less. It's right there in the text. One could take the story about the shop experience as a turning point--her behavior is still wrong, but she's beginning to understand how and why, and this is compared with the reaction of the person she tells it to, which is closer to how a (possibly very, very slightly) younger her might have taken it, one supposes.
She's not claiming to have been right in these situations. The piece is about her journey to resolve to be more polite, rather than more correct.
I went through several years of depression, and I was VERY rude in any situation where I could get away with it - by which I mean, any situtioon where I knew I wouldn't get punched. It felt like I was able to be me, and not have to stick to the script.
>I was VERY rude in any situation where I could get away with it - by which I mean, any situtioon where I knew I wouldn't get punched.
There sure isn't any shortage of rudeness on these anonymous/pseudonymous online forums, and I'm sure much of it is precisely because people aren't afraid of getting punched, or really having to answer personally for their rude behavior.
What does it mean to be polite? In a naked capitalistic world where people are solely to be motivated by self-interest? It's just machiavellian sociopathic manipulation fooling people using outmoded tribal social instincts to do your bidding.
It's one of the end states of game theory and capitalism, along with cartel control of markets, effective slavery, and irreparable destruction of the environment.
41 comments
[ 4.4 ms ] story [ 85.9 ms ] threadBut as I read through this excellent essay, I found myself taking on the actions of her painter friend in the airport security line. I simply let myself read, and absorb the words - without judgement, without getting indignant or self righteous at the injustice of the situations she described.
I read the section on her interaction with the sales assistant in the clothes shop, with much sadness. I realised that in my everyday dealings, I (and possibly many others) flit between the persona of the assistant, and the author.
And in the spirit of her painter friend, I'd simply like to say "Thank You" to whomever posted this article here for me to find and read.
In that type of case, I always think that it is difficult for both her, and the sales assistant because the person who set the situation up, the impersonal marketing manager at head office who insist that their front line staff act this way are the ones who are being rude and the people on location are both just acting their parts and if they are not comfortable with it there is nothing they can do at that time. The easiest thing they can do is to refuse to interact with that company (either not shopping there, or not working there) though that is not necessarily the most effective way to fix the problem, which is communicating with the person who has set the situation up. For the sales employee it could perhaps be keeping a log of customer interactions and return it to the management to show that this strategy is ineffective (it may not be!). For the customer, it could be writing to the customer service and suggesting that the reason they didn't buy anything was that the sales assistant was too pushy. In both cases though, I would worry that the management would simply blame the sales assistant for the lack of the sale.
I mean, the airport attendant probably thought they were being efficient and direct by barking orders to the crowd. The sales lady probably thought she was being attentive and useful. Under totally different circumstances (i.e. if the author visited the dress shop after getting a promotion etc.), the interaction could have been very different and they could have played off each other. In this case, the interaction fell flat because each party had different goals and objectives, as well as a different history getting up to that point.
There are a million ways to interpret the "No, I don't want to come out" sentence. (1) She could be simply a rude customer (2) The customer may have had some body shaming issues that makes it difficult for them to show themselves half undressed to a stranger or, similarly (3) the customer may have religious or cultural issues around that, or occam's razor - (4) the customer simply did not like the sales person or the dress and didn't want to continue the engagement any further. And everything in between that.
The salesperson chose to interpret it their own way. On a different day, she may have shrugged it off. On a particular difficult day, she may take it as a personal slight. Perhaps she felt that she had some sort of rapport with the customer based on her accepting the offer to try on the dress, and was personally hurt when it turned out not to be so?
I guess the author is choosing to ignore all the "Bash the fash" "Punch a Nazi" violent resistance to any ideas that don't support the liberal elite's sacred cows.
Edit: "Does "Nazis are bad" really qualify as a liberal elite position? Oh wait I just saw your username."
Like not wanting to shoot gays in the street?
Please don't create accounts to do this.
Genuinely curious. Doing a study on how people interpret texts. Agreement seems to be a significant factor in how much people like an article.
Her comments on the airport staff in particular seem to be exaggerating the issues. In both cases, it seems the author is unable to accept that the staff might just be following rules.
The comments on political developments in particular seem rather disconnected. In particular:
> The liberal elite, as far as I am aware, do not make death threats.
This comment in particular really exemplifies the holier than thou attitude which many liberals appear to be unable to get over[2]. Being unable to engage with the other side of the political spectrum is (to me) ruder than retail and airport staff following a script to the point of being overbearing.
Her section on trying on an outfit in particular seems to be her attempting to 'reach out' to the retail worker, in spite of her implied superiority as the consumer in this situation. This really grates with me in terms of the holier than thou attitude I mentioned earlier.
> I consider the role that good manners might play in the sphere of rat-eating
This really seems to be her placing herself morally above others through being tolerant and caring, which ultimately helps nobody. I'm reminded of a quote from one of Term Pratchett's books, "[i]f civilization were to collapse totally and the survivors were reduced to eating cockroaches, Madame Dawning would still use a napkin and look down on people who ate their cockroaches the wrong way around."
Ultimately this smacks of the sorts of idealised view of civilised behaviour which pervaded the British Empire, and ultimately did terrible things when they met another culture. This seems to be an attempt to rationalise retaining the customs of that era without the social classes that came with it.
[1] https://xkcd.com/1227/
[2] https://web.archive.org/web/20170412021638/https://www.reddi... (go to the fourth comment from the top)
One can follow rules while being polite.
Not just talking passive/aggressive niceness either - simply being unaware if your interaction suits the current mood of the recipient can be interpreted as being rude too. It was a useful reflection point for me, and a powerful message in that essay.
She's not claiming to have been right in these situations. The piece is about her journey to resolve to be more polite, rather than more correct.
I'd say dismissing someone because they expressed a phrase that offended you is exactly the crux of the article.
I can only answer this for myself and it is painful to do so.
I am, currently, a rude person. I haven't always been but I believe it is because of a deep disappointment in myself.
I find myself relishing moments in which I am 'right' and can vanquish those that are 'wrong'.
After these moments pass I am embarrassed.
There sure isn't any shortage of rudeness on these anonymous/pseudonymous online forums, and I'm sure much of it is precisely because people aren't afraid of getting punched, or really having to answer personally for their rude behavior.
There are probably others who feel very similar to you, minus expressing it. And you having posted it may have helped inspire an observer.
There are probably moments where you've been "right" and didn't notice it.
What does it mean to be polite? In a naked capitalistic world where people are solely to be motivated by self-interest? It's just machiavellian sociopathic manipulation fooling people using outmoded tribal social instincts to do your bidding.
It's one of the end states of game theory and capitalism, along with cartel control of markets, effective slavery, and irreparable destruction of the environment.