Questions of etiquette

[vvvexation]

A while ago, I stuck my head into one of those periodic community discussions of how and when one ought to reply to LJ comments, and found myself more annoyed than I'd expected. Now, I personally don't see the point of replying when one has nothing to say, but I understand that a lot of people feel differently. I'm fine with that; it's no skin off my nose if I occasionally interact with people whose commenting habits are different from mine--but apparently there are some folks out there who do think it's a problem, and this one in particular really touched a nerve with me:

[...] I think etiquette, in general, is being polite, and either you're brought up to be polite in all aspects of your life, which would include your activity online, or you're not. I see it as an extension of face to face etiquette. Someone is sitting at a computer reading what I've written, and is taking the time to 'talk' to me about what I've written. I think it's rude to ignore that person. So I reply. The only hard part, for me, is knowing when the conversation is over.

I do find that I take offense when I comment in other people's journals and they don't reply to me. I try to figure out what it will take to get them to reply, not always consciously. And if I consistently offer support or encouragement, or try to relate some commonality, and never get a reply, I will stop commenting, and if I don't care enough for the journal, in general, I drop it.

I think if we leave the comments enabled, it means we welcome them, and not to reply seems rude, to me, but that is because I was raised to be polite and responsive to people, to say 'please' and 'thank you', etc. It's just human kindness, and that extends to the world of the Interweb, and LJ.

Well, of course she's free to behave as she likes, but I still felt I had to say this:

One thing you seem to be overlooking is that "polite" is not a Boolean value. People are not raised to either be polite or not be polite; rather, they are raised with an infinite variety of ideas about which collections of behaviors are polite and which are not. Someone who doesn't have the exact same prescribed set of polite behaviors that you do is not necessarily lacking in "human kindness"--which in any case is a separate thing from politeness. (Would you call someone with poor table manners unkind?)

You seem, in fact, to have a circular definition of polite behavior: "I think behavior X is rude, but that's because I was raised to be polite"? No, you think behavior X is rude because you were raised to be polite and you were raised to think that behavior X is not polite. Someone else, however, might not have been raised to think that behavior X is rude, and yet might still have been raised to "be polite," by whatever means they define the term. To assume that anyone who does X must not have been raised right is to assume that the definition of politeness you grew up with is the only valid one.

I see far too many people living their lives on the basis of that assumption, and severely disliking otherwise very likable people as a result, and it frustrates me so much; if only people would listen to each other's reasoning, try harder to accept goodwill even when it isn't displayed with the "proper" sort of action, and most importantly be forthright about what kind of behavior they want from other people rather than expecting everyone to live up to their standards without having been told what those standards are! The problem with standards of politeness is that too many people don't realize their own standards aren't universal, and so just assume everyone who doesn't meet them isn't worth their time, rather than actually communicating with others and trying to figure out where their standards diverge and how their actions really should be interpreted.

Okay, so I'll admit there does have to be some more or less universal standard of acceptable behavior in order for any large number of people to get along at all. But the idea that politeness is an either/or thing and that someone who commits one particular breach of etiquette must be lacking in all social graces? Excuse me while I scream. Do some people ever comprehend the idea that their opinions are not objectively true?

(And yes, I have had much more unpleasant dealings with people like this in the past--why do you ask? Someday, when my fists unclench, I might even vent about them.)

Comments

[deedeebythebay.livejournal.com]

I agree with this to a point.....if it is for my physical safety or the safety of my community at large or the environment, 'hey, don't put oil down that drain it kills the fish', that sort of thing, then yes, we build a larger community that is worldwide....anyone who knows me that is part of the large goal of my life. When I talk of close friends, I don't just mean my inner circle, which might total 10 people....I talk of the 30 or more who know me and know me well enough to be able to do so....it is when you get to people who reach beyond that that things need to be handled a little more with tact.

And maybe that's it. Tact and tone of voice. An individual might have a heart of gold but a response that is uncaring in how it cuts just so it can be honest.....there's too much of that in this world....my vision of building that village that extends to world community....is done with gentleness and care and only escalates as necessary.

I don't walk up to my nine year old and slap her hand if she's doing something I think is unsafe/unhealthy for her (unless it is the only way to avoid imminent disaster), I talk gently, I set guidelines, I discuss, and we move forward. My kids may not be everyone's version of the perfectly well behaved kids but they are responsive to the relationship we have and respectful of the times I call them on their shit.

I don't intend on treating people in my world as if they are my children but if we all found ways to be gentler in our approach perhaps our world would be a bit gentler as well.

My perception and experience of course.

[lintqueen.livejournal.com]

"And maybe that's it. Tact and tone of voice. "

Ding! Ding! That *is* it, IMHO. There's a *big* difference in my mind between saying in a nice way "Gosh, I don't think I'd be comfortable wearing that brightly colored floral dress to the funeral" and saying buntly "You can't wear that." One is subtle and *allows the person a graceful exit*, while the other makes them wrong.

I also think the etiquette of response is not a cut-and-dried thing. I try to read into the person's intent: is she/he looking for reassurance/response/opinion or is this a "I saw the funniest thing today and I have to write it down." In addition, there's the IRL factor... I'm much more likely to comment when I know someone and I'm building a relationship (as opposed to a one-off), she said, whilst making a one-off commment

Etiquette, IMHO, is not about "rules" as much as it's about making someone else comfortable and, as much as humanly possible making things smoother between people. (There's a great Heinlein quote about that, but can't put my finger on it at the moment.)

My $.02, of course, YMMV.

[japlady.livejournal.com]

I agree. I generally suck at this in a really big way.

I have this one friend back in Chicago where I'll say something and have the whole room take offence, then she will repeat exactly the same thoughts with a slightly different tone and a barely noticable shift of words and the same room will congradulate her for her depth... at which point she would point out they had just condemned me for saying the same thing a minute ago.

Recently I got to know a woman who would insult people hard core to their faces but with an ironic tone (even though she was saying exactly what she thought) only to have them only laugh and tell her how much they love her.

Its like theater I guess, everything is in the delivery and most folks can't seem to see past that -- which for my part I have always pointed out was why Hitler made it to the head of German government.