Spoiler Alert! Are Spoilers Rude?

Posted on by

2

The ultimate spoiler. [Via xkcd.com]

Dear Uncommon Courtesy,

What is the etiquette on posting TV spoilers on social media? I thought you had to wait until at least the following day? A guy in my feed posted something about Game of Thrones before I got a chance to watch it that same night!

Sincerely,

Totally Spoiled

 

Official Etiquette:

Both Miss Manners and the Emily Post Institute say that the onus is on you to avoid spoilers.

Our Take:

Victoria:  Okay, so spoilers. I have people on my Facebook wall threatening to de-friend other people for posting Game of Thrones spoilers. This is serious business! And should be an interesting discussion because I HATE spoilers and I know you don’t mind them. I think definitely you shouldn’t post anything at all until the episode has aired in all markets (for tv).

Jaya: Definitely, and also I like the point that sometimes popular shows air at the same time. Some people say that if you “really care” you’ll watch the show as soon as it airs, but maybe you wanted to watch two shows and DVR’ed one, and you think you’re safe if you watch it immediately after!

Victoria:  Hahah just avoid the internet entirely until you’ve watched everything. Ugh no. Personally, I don’t think you should post a spoiler in any kind of headline, ever.

Jaya:  Definitely not in headlines, but that’s more of a journalistic integrity thing. I do think some of this is self preservation. The chances of spoilers happening on social media is so high for really popular shows, so if not being spoiled is important to you, maybe avoid it. Though I don’t want to victim blame here…

Victoria:  Like it’s fine to say OMG GAME OF THRONES TONIGHT WAS INSANE but not like, this THING happened.

Jaya:  And even writing SPOILER ALERT: SO AND SO DIED is bad.  You read those words at the same time, that spoiler alert does nothing.

Victoria:  Yeah! I hate sneaky spoilers too- I once had something spoiled for me in a discussion of something completely unrelated.

Jaya:  Within a reasonable time frame, or way after the fact?

Victoria:  Waaaay after, but still.

Jaya:  I mean, I had lots of stuff in The Wire spoiled for me, but it aired 10 years ago, I should not expect people to not talk about it.

Victoria:  Yeah, I agree. And I mean, on the internet, its one thing. But I think if you are talking about something with actual people in person, it’s polite to ask “have you seen this, are you going to see it, do you mind if I talk about spoilers?”

Jaya:  I agree to an extent, but I do think there is a statue of limitations. Everyone is busy and may not have gotten around to consuming a show or movie or book they want to consume, but do you have to do it for everything? I haven’t seen Godfather II, should people check with me before discussing a famous movie that came out 40 years ago? If I’m discussing a mutually-enjoyed TV show with a friend, do I have to announce to everyone within earshot that they may want to move to another room?

Victoria:  I think that it’s fine to talk about old stuff in a general way, but you should still try to avoid real “spoilers” in the sense of things that actually spoil a big twist or surprise. And honestly, I think people do this pretty naturally.

Jaya:  True. I guess part of this conversation taps into my dislike of the idea of “spoilers” in general. I tend to think that a good story should not rely on a “twist,” and that the journey of an art form, not finding out what happens at the end, is what matters. Even if you know every detail of what happens in a story, you do not know how that story is told, and that is the true joy of art. But I get that not everyone thinks that way.

Victoria:  I see your point with that.

Jaya:  And I make an effort not to reveal anything that isn’t general cultural knowledge. But I’m sorry but if you don’t know the twist of The Sixth Sense you’ll just have to know it now.

Victoria:  Yeah, I guess some major things are such a cliche at this point that they aren’t even really spoilers. But man, if you are talking about a movie and someone says “I haven’t seen that yet” and you deliberately spoil it- that’s just not cool,

Jaya:  Oh yeah! That’s a dick move. But if you’re talking about Citizen Kane, and reveal something, and a person shouts “UGH way to go dude, I haven’t seen it,” I don’t think that’s my fault.  I think the longer a certain piece of media has been out, the more it’s on you to be vigilant about not getting spoiled.

Victoria:  And I personally am pretty good at catching them- I saw The Wire without any spoilers! Because I was hyper vigilant about not reading ANYTHING about The Wire, or like, Baltimore in general.

Jaya:  Hahaha, yeah! Like if you know you’re gonna watch The Wire, and someone brings it up, it may be your job to remove yourself from the conversation. Obviously this is harder on social media when things just pop up, but also maybe have a sense of humor. There was a Portlandia sketch that “spoiled” one Wire point for me. Oh well, it’s been 10 years, I’ve had enough time. And it’s not like knowing it made the show worse.

Victoria:  Yeah, I have actually sought out things after they were spoiled because it made them sound more interesting than I had originally thought!

Jaya:  Hahahaha, yeah! that’s the flip side of spoilers! But yeah, with social media, definitely not that day for TV shows, or probably the first week or two a movie is out. Books I don’t know.

Victoria: Yeah, books, maybe a few months?

Jaya:  Also I feel like books are so complicated that if you say “omg I can’t believe Anna didn’t get the abortion in This Novel” I’d be like okay, I don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.

Victoria:  Yeah, the only major book spoiler i can think of is the big Harry Potter one.

Jaya:  You mean that Ron is the last horcrux?

Victoria:  Basically.

Nancy Mitford and U vs Non-U Speech

Posted on by

16

Nancy Mitford calling to say you sound like a pleb. [Via]

Obviously, I think that etiquette and manners today has nothing to do with wealth or social class- manners are for everyone! Historically, however, the rise of etiquette books in the Victorian period had a lot to do with the growing middle class and their desire to act like the upper classes. So someone had to teach them how to act. But then the rich caught onto this and constantly changed the rules to throw the middle classes off. Nice, huh? The moral of the story, is that there was (is?) a way to tell social class, regardless of money or education.

In the 1950s, Nancy Mitford (of the endlessly fascinating Mitford sisters), borrowed an idea from British linguist Alan S. C. Ross about U vs non-U vocabulary and wrote a very popular essay about it, “The English Aristocracy,” in which she gave a list of words that were Upper Class (U) and their non-U (not Upper Class) counterparts. She argues that with the Upper Classes in Britain no longer being necessarily richer or better educated than anyone else, their language was the only thing left to distinguish them as Upper Class/aristocratic.

A selection:

U
Bike
Vegetables
A Nice House
Graveyard
Die
Jam
Napkin
Sofa
Rich
Lunch then Dinner
Non-U
Cycle
Greens
A Lovely Home
Cemetery
Pass on
Preserve
Serviette
Settee or Couch
Wealthy
Dinner then Supper (except U-children and U-dogs also have these meals!) [ed. this is my fave]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Interestingly, Emily Post had her own list of “U vs Non-U” vocabulary in 1920 (30 years before Nancy Mitford’s famous essay). Some of Emily’s choices:

U
At our house we go to bed early (or get up)
Beautiful house—or place
Went to
Gave him a dinner
Had something to drink
Wash
Non-U
In our residence we retire early (or arise)
Elegant home
Attended
Tendered him a banquet
Partook of liquid refreshment
Perform ablutions

 

 

 

 

 

Perhaps you will notice a pattern in both the Mitford and Post lists- a large portion of the “non-U” word choices are pretentious and overly wordy. Mitford actually says that the “non-U” speakers are mostly among the middle class- the lower classes tend to use the same words as the U speakers. The reason for this is that the lower and upper classes were pretty comfortable with their station and it was only the middle classes that were striving to “better themselves” by using fancy words that they thought sounded upper class.

Now, Mitford’s essay wasn’t completely accepted as truth, even at the time. Evelyn Waugh wrote a rebuttal essay that was published in Noblesse Oblige: a book containing Mitford’s essay, the original article by Ross, Waugh’s rebuttal, and other related essays. Waugh argues that these “U” and “Non-U” differences don’t actually exist as language is constantly in a state of flux and is also regional and family specific.

Today, especially in America, I don’t think you can pick out any words as being specifically upper vs middle class (unless you are the type of person to see entire regions as more lower class than the region you live in!), our culture is too homogenized for that, and it seems that differences are more regional and generational.  Though in 1983, Paul Fussell argued that America does have a class system in Class: A Guide Through the American Status System. His benchmarks for upper, middle, and lower class were: the upper class says “Grandpa died,” the middle class says “Grandpa passed away,” and the lower class says “Grandpa went to Jesus.”

However, I think the point about pretension vs being comfortable with yourself absolutely does exist, and for that reason, Emily Post’s list seems to hold up pretty well. Pretension is sort of rude because it is extreeeemely annoying- we all know someone who uses “myself” instead of “me” (incorrectly) and other big words that they don’t seem to know the meaning of, or they just talk in a roundabout manner of “needing to equip themselves with the necessary instruments of learning” instead of “buying school supplies.” This kind of thing makes everyone uncomfortable, and as we all know, causing discomfort in others is one of the hallmarks of rudeness.

What say you? Is pretension rude? Are there any words or phrases that you would argue are definitively class-based? Are middle class people in Britain really trying to act working class? Tell me in the comments!!

Door Etiquette

Posted on by

1

Revolving doors strike terror into the hearts of the impolite. via Wikimedia Commons

Regular Doors:

This is really basic stuff, but apparently it needs to be said:

  • Hold doors for anyone coming behind you.
  • Especially hold doors for someone who has their arms full.
  • Say “thank you” if someone holds a door for you.
  • Don’t slam doors.
  • Don’t stop once you are on the other side of the door. Someone might be right behind you.
  • Along the same lines, don’t stand in front of doors.

Revolving Doors:

There are a lot of revolving doors in New York City and apparently no one knows how to use them, from what I’ve been witnessing lately.

  • If you are in a revolving door, you must push! Don’t rely on someone else to do it for you.
  • One person per slot (unless you are with a small child). You do not fit and you are slowing the whole process down.
  • Go with the flow of the door, don’t try to walk the opposite way that everyone else is pushing.
  • If you have an option between a revolving door and a regular door when entering a building (especially in winter and summer) you should choose the revolving door as it keeps the heat/air-conditioning in better.
  • Don’t stop once you exit the door, you are even more likely to be run into than with a regular door.
  • Technically, traditionally, if a man and a woman are entering a revolving door, the man should actually go first so that he can get the thing moving since he is physically stronger. These days, your mileage may vary with this.

Where Did The Grocery Store Baggers Go, And What Do We Do Now?

Posted on by

5

Is the low priced, delicious food really worth the Trader Joe’s lines? (The answer is yes.) [ViaFlickr user scardeykat]

Dear Uncommon Courtesy,

 While shopping at Trader Joe’s the other day, I observed a group of customers who were standing at the cash register and letting the cashier bag all the groceries in the customer’s reusable bags when they could have easily been helping. It took so much longer this way and there was a long line (this being a Trader Joe’s in New York City). What is the correct etiquette here? Are cashiers expected to bag all groceries or should the customer help out?

Sincerely,

Tired of Waiting in Line

Official Etiquette:

There is no real official etiquette here as the abundance of reusable bags and the lack of designated baggers at grocery stores are both fairly recent occurrences. So I went straight to the source and called Trader Joe’s customer relations. They say that the cashier should absolutely bag the groceries in reusable bags the same they would bag them in their own paper bags. They do mention that, of course, many customers prefer to do their own bagging and that is fine too. I’ve also spoken to Target’s customer service on this question, and they also say that a cashier shouldn’t refuse to put the customer’s items in their own reusable bag.

Our Take:

Jaya: Interesting research, Victoria! I have noticed a decline in the number of specific bag people. Which I think makes this harder, because either way the line gets held up longer than people are used to.

Victoria:  Oh for sure, I haven’t seen a “bagger” in ages. Although, maybe its more of a suburban thing? The nice Safeways near my parents old house always had them and when I was in Savannah for Christmas, the big grocery store (a Kroger, maybe?) that we went to had them. I’ve never seen them in the city, but i have seen them recently outside the city. Maybe its the higher rents here.

Jaya:  I mean, I grew up with them at Gristedes in New York City. And I live near two pretty large grocery stores. I think it’s more of an economy thing. Why hire two people when just the cashier can do it?  I only noticed them not in the city in the past five years or so. However, what I did notice in research, is a lot of people getting frustrated at cashiers not bagging their groceries with the bags they brought, or then getting frustrated when it took too long. You can’t have both! Or! People getting frustrated when it isn’t done to their liking, which happens no matter what bags you use.

Victoria:  Yeah. I mean, I guess I think the most polite way to do it is get started on the bagging while the cashier is still scanning and then let them finish while you are swiping your credit card and everything.

Jaya:  That makes sense, and also I saw lots of cashiers writing on forums that people should put their bags in front of their groceries, so everything is open and ready.

Victoria:  Yeah! I always put the bags on the conveyer belt first and then try to put something heavy in them to make them stand up. Although, usually they still fall down.

Jaya:  Yeah, here’s the thing with this though. Yes, it’s policy and ideally this person is getting paid to bag your groceries and do this. But if the line is long and it’s something you have the ability to help out with, you probably should.

Victoria:  Totally! And maybe grocery stores should put in a little thingy that makes the reusable bags stand up properly.

Jaya:  Haha though it depends on the bags. I usually just bring old tote bags.

Victoria:  I mean, yeah for sure. But if they sell their own bags, they should have one that fits those bags, you know?

Jaya: I can’t stand people who could easily help with bagging, but let the cashier do it alone, and then complain about things taking a long time.

Victoria:  Hahah yeah! Although, our good friend who works at a grocery store chimed in and said he’s pretty fast at doing it, so he almost prefers to just get it done.

Jaya:  Yeah. ETIQUETTE TIP: Read situations correctly. You know, just be great at judging the tone of every interaction. Easy Peasy.

Victoria:  I see your sarcasm there. Also a thing: some corporate chains actually have timers in the cashiers machine that times how long a transaction takes! And like, they get in trouble if they take too long. Which is sad and terrible, but also makes me feel like I have to hurry hurry hurry to bag up my stuff and get out of their way.

Jaya:  Ooh that’s rough.

Victoria:  Oh! And then when we lived in Rome- its actually 100% the status quo that the customer bags the groceries and each checkout lane has two channels so the cashier funnels your stuff down one channel and you bag it up while they are funneling the next person’s stuff down the other channel. And then you get yelled at in Italian for not having exact change, so maybe that’s not the nicest system either.

Jaya:  In general I think flexibility is nice. If grocery stores are not going to hire people to bag groceries, it makes it a bit more complicated for everyone involved. Like, I can see it both ways. I can see that maybe a cashier wants to do the bagging and get it over with. Or I can see that if you have a 10 person long line you maybe hope the customer can bag their own stuff so you can get through it.

Victoria:  So basically, try to help out if you can and move things along, and if you are waiting in line, maybe be patient that someone isn’t doing their own bagging because maybe they can’t for some reason.

Jaya:  Or maybe they’re used to shopping at places where it’s done for them, because apparently everywhere has a different policy/different idea of whose job it is.

Victoria:  Yeah, I think that’s a source of a lot of the confusion. And even at the same store, some cashiers will do it and some won’t

Jaya:  Definitely, so I know sometimes I’ve been standing there like an idiot not bagging things, not because I wouldn’t, just because I was used to having it done at that specific grocery store. Also, in general, long lines at grocery stores suck but it is a known quantity. I find this super interesting. I think we’re at this very fascinating point in grocery store history where people are used to baggers but stores have stopped hiring them. “Fascinating point in grocery store history” like that’s a thing (ed: it is a thing!!).

Victoria:  Haha, and we didn’t even TALK about self checkouts. Let’s save it and shopping carts for another day!

How To Handle Yourself In An 17th-Century Coffee House

Posted on by

11

Some notes about the Coffee House, a private club : together with a list of resident and non-resident members : and including the rules of the Coffee House, rule six being that there shall be no rules. New-York Historical Society

Some notes about the Coffee House, a private club : together with a list of resident and non-resident members : and including the rules of the Coffee House, rule six being that there shall be no rules. New-York Historical Society

Are you guys watching Cosmos? I just caught up, and in the episode about Newton and Halley and how humans figured out the stars, Neil DeGrasse Tyson mentions how these young intellectuals often met in coffee-houses. He describes them as places where “a poor man need not give up his seat for a rich man.”

Coffee houses first appeared in cities like Istanbul and Damascus in the 1500s, and popped up in Europe in the 17th century. In the Middle East they had become popular places for political gatherings, but also for social and business causes. In 1883 the Coffee Public-House News published that in Turkey, “Coffee is consumed by all classes at all hours and on sorts of occasions. The little berry is indeed a very factor in Turkish society. Nothing is done without it–no business discussed, no contract made, no visits and civilities exchanged without the aromatic cup, and the accompanying chiboque or narghileh. If a purchaser enters a bazaar to purchase a shawl or a carpet, coffee is brought to him. If person calls at another house, coffee with the tobacco must greet the new comer. There can be no welcome without it, and none but words and forms of general etiquette take place until this article has been served all round. At parting, coffee must still be present, and speed the guest his way.”

Similar rules soon entered English society as coffee houses gained popularity in London. Tyson was correct that one of the main draws of the coffee house was that any man could enter and sit where he like, regardless of social status–as long as he could afford the one-penny fee of entrance, which generally meant the middle class were the “worst off” in any given room. Women, however, wouldn’t be caught dead in one, and according to Public Domain Review, “The fair sex lambasted the ‘Excessive use of that Newfangled, Abominable, Heathenish Liquor called COFFEE’ which, as they saw it, had reduced their virile industrious men into effeminate, babbling, French layabouts.”

Hints on Etiquette and the Usages of Society: With a Glance at Bad Habits by Charles William Day notes, “On entering a coffee house and sitting down take off your hat; it is only a proper mark of respect to your own class towards whom you should pay the same deference you exact from others.”

However, this social class free-for-all worried some.  In 1674 A Brief Description of the Excellent Vertues of that Sober and Wholesome Drink, Called Coffee was published, a broadside that extolled the benefits of coffee, especially in a culture where beer was the popular drink. But the other side of the broadside was the poem The Rules And Orders of the Coffee House, which included monetary penalties for rude behavior:

THE RULES AND ORDERS OF THE COFFEE-HOUSE

Enter, sirs, freely, but first, if you please,

Peruse our civil orders, which are these.

First, gentry, tradesmen, all are welcome hither,

And may without affront sit down together:

Pre-eminence of place none here should mind,

But take the next fit seat that he can find:

Nor need any, if finer persons come,

Rise up for to assign to them his room

To limit men’s expense, we think not fair,

But let him forfeit twelve-pence that shall swear:

He that shall any quarrel here begin,

Shall give each man a dish t’ atone the sin;

And so shall he, whose compliments extend

So far to drink in coffee to his friend;

Let noise of loud disputes be quite forborne,

Nor maudlin lovers here in corners mourn,

But all be brisk, and talk, but not too much;

On sacred things, let none presume to touch,

Nor profane Scripture, nor saucily wrong

Affairs of State with an irreverent tongue:

Let mirth be innocent, and each man see

That all his jests without reflection be;

To keep the house more quiet and from blame,

We banish hence cards, dice, and every game;

Nor can allow of wagers, that exceed.

Five shillings, which ofttimes do troubles breed;

Let all that’s lost or forfeited be spent

In such good liquor as the house cloth vent,

And customers endeavour, to their powers,

For to observe still, seasonable hours.

Lastly, let each man what he calls for pay,

And so you ‘re welcome to come every day.Rulesandorders_coffeehouse

Apparently this was hung on the walls of many an English coffee house. The Printers Devil says, “It is hard to gauge exactly how seriously one is supposed to take these ‘rules’; certainly, contemporary accounts make it clear that nearly all of these were, in practice, openly flouted by the patrons of such establishments. . .There is some evidence that this may represent something of the truth of the actual social mechanisms at work in coffee houses.” Similar to how many coffee shops may say “no laptops” but people just spend the whole time doing work on their tablets. Though really, if we could ban having to overhear the awkward first date conversations in coffee shops we would in a second.