Comments on: Bad Manners

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Tue, 14 Jun 2011 12:04:35 +0000

Politics by other means I have heard it called, but not yet diplomacy by other means.

By: Indigo Red

Indigo Red — Tue, 14 Jun 2011 03:14:48 +0000

@suek - ”I disagree slightly…I think the idea is that manners are fake…a form of lying, and saying and doing whatever the heck you feel whenever you feel like it is “honest”.

I disagreed slightly, too. You came closer to what I meant to write. My mother is one of those who insist upon “telling it like it is” and yet fails to understand why she has no friends to share her final years.

The “formality and ritual communication” of which Ymar speaks is also called diplomacy; when that breaks down, there is aggression, violence, and war which has been called diplomacy by other means. I prefer the “formality and ritual communication.”

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Tue, 14 Jun 2011 01:08:03 +0000

Wouldn’t it be more “honest” to just do it in the open? After all, going behind a wall and pretending to “powder my nose” is a lie, isn’t it?

Isn’t that why France has public urinals out on the streets in open view of people?

By: Libby

Libby — Tue, 14 Jun 2011 01:01:00 +0000

There are few good articles and blog posts about manners via Ed Driscill.com, but I think Carol Platt Liebau says it best, that good manners aren’t about being fake or dishonest: “I was brought up to believe that good manners were nothing more than a matter of kindness: When in doubt, do the gracious thing, and chances are that it would be the “proper” thing. Manners are, in short, a set of rules by which civilized people can live together in harmony.” (http://carolliebau.blogspot.com/2006/04/minding-our-manners.html).
Liebau also links to an article by Dr. Theodore Dalrymple that “…skewers the dumbing down of etiquette in this country (and his own native Britain), associating it as something akin to a liberal disease.” Specifically, that informal manners of those at the bottom of the social scale is an attempt to prove your egalitarian credentials (http://www.amconmag.com/article/2006/apr/10/00012/), which could be seen to be just as fake as some seem to believe good manners to be.

By: Charles Martel

Charles Martel — Tue, 14 Jun 2011 00:36:28 +0000

I believe it’s considered good manners, even among leftists, to relieve oneself in private. Wouldn’t it be more “honest” to just do it in the open? After all, going behind a wall and pretending to “powder my nose” is a lie, isn’t it?

By: suek

suek — Tue, 14 Jun 2011 00:29:08 +0000

It’s the difference between “I want to say (something clever or just plain insulting)” vs “I shouldn’t hurt xxx’s feelings”. In other words, once again, it’s all about “ME”…

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Tue, 14 Jun 2011 00:22:58 +0000

I don’t get where they are coming from. They don’t hate “fakeness”. The only people that hate fakeness are the ones that hate two faced people, including themselves. What they (the line of thinking that suek is speaking of) seem to hate is being of a low social status.

They don’t want honesty. Being too honest would destroy them, as they would have no where to hide… from themselves.

What they are doing is casting a shadow unto others, to hide their inner darkness. By being rude, they set up a feeling of self-righteousness and arrogance. By not placing constraints on themselves, they don’t need to challenge or beat themselves at anything. They can let their demons ride free. They can ignore what they have done, the evils they have seen or the evils they have helped to do.

While I wish human misunderstands couldn’t happen so that people could say whatever they want, that’s not the reality I must deal with. The reality I must deal with is one inhabited by a bunch of lying, self-deceiving, humans. Who if they don’t misunderstand something on purpose, will do so accidentally anyways. Countermeasures must be taken against such humans, regardless of what anyone thinks of their own self.

I became fully cognizant of the importance of formality and ritual communication (manners or etiquette) after I learned a couple of things pertaining to human body language (more than 50% of the total message being communicated, with the actual words constituting only 10% of the total meaning) and after I learned the fragility of human life in H2H training.

Politeness seems on the surface nothing but being afraid to say a few things. But when coupled with the concept of people having the capability and willingness to slaughter each other, politeness starts looking a bit different.

By: suek

suek — Mon, 13 Jun 2011 23:45:53 +0000

>>Manners are now considered too hard to remember, too trivial to practice, too impractical for advancement, too much of a bother.>>

I disagree slightly…I think the idea is that manners are fake…a form of lying, and saying and doing whatever the heck you feel whenever you feel like it is “honest”. And of course, we _must_ be honest. If you have your feelings hurt, it’s _your_ problem – it’s the _truth_ that counts. Of course, that assumes the insulter is the possessor of truth instead of just his or her opinion.

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Mon, 13 Jun 2011 22:38:03 +0000

I’m not making a judgment of what the person in the scooter is or isn’t. His behavioral patterns fit someone who was testing the waters, as he went by once with a drive by and then came back when he realized he could get away with it. Ignoring people is considered best in polite society. They forgot what happens when you ignore people in a society controlled by the corrupt and the evil. That was never considered as part of the scenario processing, but it should have been. Other than that, there is no relevant data available to make a judgment on in the first place. But like I said to Neo in her post-topic concerning Sarah Palin hate, it doesn’t matter so much what the cannon fodder thinks or believes. They are the cannon fodder and they’ll do as they are told. What is of more concern is the centralized mass production that controls the cannonfodder. A judgment can be clearly and accurately made on that. And it’ll trickle down to the people at the bottom of the ladder one way or another. Whoever they may be, whatsoever they may be.

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Mon, 13 Jun 2011 22:32:27 +0000

I think it was Austin that was worse off, but I don’t discount any other major city as a factor.

As I mentioned before, it’s not a deciding case of ideology or politics, but of methods and cultural values.