3 ms·

That's not really a coherent statement. If people don't even know it, it's not part of the culture.

shermantanktop 7mo ago
Who are the “people” that you are referring to? This makes total sense to me. There is no monolithic “culture”— there are multiple related cultures, differing little in essence but differing greatly in the details. And each individual is usually only partially ignorant anyway. Culture changes, too, and asymmetrically. So the “done thing” may be done be very few anymore.
- maxerickson 7mo ago
  I guess I was talking about the people that don't know about the culture you guys say they are part of.
  - dxdm 7mo ago
    For some reason, you're reading things into the original statement that are not there. "An etiquette exists in a culture" does not mean everyone has to follow or even be aware of it.
    - maxerickson 7mo ago
      I would say I'm accurately reading "Western culture" as a nonsensical concept. Add an s and it gets a little better.
      - dxdm 7mo ago
        If mentally adding an "s" to the original comment enables you move past this issue and actually consider the comment as it was intended, then I would say that is well done and worth the effort to get to this point. :) Have a great Sunday!
        retsibsi 7mo ago
        Please don't do passive aggression here :(
        dxdm 7mo ago
        Yeah, I see the problem. It's not a good way to convey what I was trying to say. Thanks for calling it out.
        maxerickson 7mo ago
        consider the comment as it was intended What do you think "reading" means?
anal_reactor 7mo ago
I feel like there was a brief period when middle class came to existence and started mimicking customs of the upper class, which were very complicated because the upper class was mostly bored and had invented this shit to kill the time. Then two things happened: 1. Upper class stopped being formal because formality stopped being a signal of upper class. 2. Middle class stopped having social gatherings in general. So, like, "it is a part of the culture" in the same sense as traditional outfits are a part of the culture - most people have very vague awareness, nobody really cares.
- lo_zamoyski 7mo ago
  > invented this shit to kill the time This is unnecessarily flippant, trivializing, and reductive. The upper classes had the time and position to refine manners. I think one mistake people make is to think manners are arbitrary nonsense. But manners, when fitting, honor the self and others with conduct that suits the dignity of the human person and functions as a sign of that dignity. You cannot tell me that a man hunched over a table cramming food down his throat gaping at a television is no different than one who eats according to the above custom of etiquette. I’m not one for stiff artifice especially when slavishly applied, but I don’t think manners as such are arbitrary. That nobody cares would explain why so many people look like slobs and behave like boors. If we begin with human nature and then view the virtues as perfections that actualize the fullness of that nature, then it becomes clearer that some behavior is more fitting and honored better by certain practices.
  - anal_reactor 7mo ago
    > when fitting This phrase is doing a lot of heavy lifting, because what one considers basic etiquette another considers a theatre. The end result is often that people gather in order to perform the spectacle of manners rather than use manners to facilitate a social gathering.
  - TheOtherHobbes 7mo ago
    One of the true markers of being upper class is that you can get away with literal atrocities (see Epstein and co) as long as you're discrete enough and/or polished enough when talking to underlings and wannabes. The upper classes in the UK regularly practice tone policing, where legitimate dissent is waved away as uncouth, even though what they say and do is far worse in private, and sometimes in public. If you're looking for human dignity, I don't think this is its natural home.
rvba 7mo ago
Is is also topic od relevance. Poland has honorifics that are probably on par to those in Japan, but since the language is difficult to learn and frankly speaking nobody cares about Poland, barely anyone even knows this. Also lots of corporations prefer "american style" approach of just refering by name (even to the CEO), so this dissapears. Probably could write few pages about this, but nobody would care to read.
- pndy 7mo ago
  I wonder what will become of our honorifics in upcoming decades. Our language changes so much under influence of English, imported sociopolitical trends that surely made some of our bards spin in their graves. On a side note, I find interesting is that Czech language still naturally uses that plural form we abandon due to popularity of pan/pani forms.
- apeescape 7mo ago
  I'm interested in learning more about this! As a Finn I love Poland and have been there multiple times (most recently just two weeks ago). I don't know the language, but details like honorifics reveal interesting tidbits of the culture and society. I guess I should prompt an LLM about it.
  - jech 7mo ago
    >> Poland has honorifics that are probably on par to those in Japan > I'm interested in learning more about this! It's very simple, actually. For strangers, you use the third person and the title « Pan » or « Pani » (Sir or Lady). You avoid pronouns, « The Lady has forgotten the Lady's purse on the table ». For friends, you use the t-form ("ty", thou), and use a diminutive rather than the full name. « Johny, you've forgotten your bag on the table ». For work colleagues, you traditionally use « Pan » or « Pani » with the full form of the first name. « Mister John, the mister's bag is on the table ». This is perceived as old-fashioned, and is increasingly being replaced by the t-form. The v-form has fallen into disuse, as it was promoted by the Communist regime. (The old-fashioned honorifics still exist, but they are only used in administrative correspondence: the only time when you're "the respectable gentleman" is when you need to pay taxes.)

Who are the “people” that you are referring to? This makes total sense to me. There is no monolithic “culture”— there are multiple related cultures, differing little in essence but differing greatly in the details. And each individual is usually only partially ignorant anyway. Culture changes, too, and asymmetrically. So the “done thing” may be done be very few anymore.

maxerickson 7mo ago
I guess I was talking about the people that don't know about the culture you guys say they are part of.
- dxdm 7mo ago
  For some reason, you're reading things into the original statement that are not there. "An etiquette exists in a culture" does not mean everyone has to follow or even be aware of it.
  - maxerickson 7mo ago
    I would say I'm accurately reading "Western culture" as a nonsensical concept. Add an s and it gets a little better.
    - dxdm 7mo ago
      If mentally adding an "s" to the original comment enables you move past this issue and actually consider the comment as it was intended, then I would say that is well done and worth the effort to get to this point. :) Have a great Sunday!
      - retsibsi 7mo ago
        Please don't do passive aggression here :(
        dxdm 7mo ago
        Yeah, I see the problem. It's not a good way to convey what I was trying to say. Thanks for calling it out.
      - maxerickson 7mo ago
        consider the comment as it was intended What do you think "reading" means?

anal_reactor 7mo ago

I feel like there was a brief period when middle class came to existence and started mimicking customs of the upper class, which were very complicated because the upper class was mostly bored and had invented this shit to kill the time. Then two things happened: 1. Upper class stopped being formal because formality stopped being a signal of upper class. 2. Middle class stopped having social gatherings in general. So, like, "it is a part of the culture" in the same sense as traditional outfits are a part of the culture - most people have very vague awareness, nobody really cares.

lo_zamoyski 7mo ago
> invented this shit to kill the time This is unnecessarily flippant, trivializing, and reductive. The upper classes had the time and position to refine manners. I think one mistake people make is to think manners are arbitrary nonsense. But manners, when fitting, honor the self and others with conduct that suits the dignity of the human person and functions as a sign of that dignity. You cannot tell me that a man hunched over a table cramming food down his throat gaping at a television is no different than one who eats according to the above custom of etiquette. I’m not one for stiff artifice especially when slavishly applied, but I don’t think manners as such are arbitrary. That nobody cares would explain why so many people look like slobs and behave like boors. If we begin with human nature and then view the virtues as perfections that actualize the fullness of that nature, then it becomes clearer that some behavior is more fitting and honored better by certain practices.
- anal_reactor 7mo ago
  > when fitting This phrase is doing a lot of heavy lifting, because what one considers basic etiquette another considers a theatre. The end result is often that people gather in order to perform the spectacle of manners rather than use manners to facilitate a social gathering.
- TheOtherHobbes 7mo ago
  One of the true markers of being upper class is that you can get away with literal atrocities (see Epstein and co) as long as you're discrete enough and/or polished enough when talking to underlings and wannabes. The upper classes in the UK regularly practice tone policing, where legitimate dissent is waved away as uncouth, even though what they say and do is far worse in private, and sometimes in public. If you're looking for human dignity, I don't think this is its natural home.

rvba 7mo ago

Is is also topic od relevance. Poland has honorifics that are probably on par to those in Japan, but since the language is difficult to learn and frankly speaking nobody cares about Poland, barely anyone even knows this. Also lots of corporations prefer "american style" approach of just refering by name (even to the CEO), so this dissapears. Probably could write few pages about this, but nobody would care to read.

pndy 7mo ago
I wonder what will become of our honorifics in upcoming decades. Our language changes so much under influence of English, imported sociopolitical trends that surely made some of our bards spin in their graves. On a side note, I find interesting is that Czech language still naturally uses that plural form we abandon due to popularity of pan/pani forms.
apeescape 7mo ago
I'm interested in learning more about this! As a Finn I love Poland and have been there multiple times (most recently just two weeks ago). I don't know the language, but details like honorifics reveal interesting tidbits of the culture and society. I guess I should prompt an LLM about it.
- jech 7mo ago
  >> Poland has honorifics that are probably on par to those in Japan > I'm interested in learning more about this! It's very simple, actually. For strangers, you use the third person and the title « Pan » or « Pani » (Sir or Lady). You avoid pronouns, « The Lady has forgotten the Lady's purse on the table ». For friends, you use the t-form ("ty", thou), and use a diminutive rather than the full name. « Johny, you've forgotten your bag on the table ». For work colleagues, you traditionally use « Pan » or « Pani » with the full form of the first name. « Mister John, the mister's bag is on the table ». This is perceived as old-fashioned, and is increasingly being replaced by the t-form. The v-form has fallen into disuse, as it was promoted by the Communist regime. (The old-fashioned honorifics still exist, but they are only used in administrative correspondence: the only time when you're "the respectable gentleman" is when you need to pay taxes.)