The more I see this thread the more I just find myself thinking "what a stupid first world problem"
The more I see this thread the more I just find myself thinking "what a stupid first world problem"
Civility is a first word problem mostly, but other than wealth it's pretty much what separates it from the third world, so I wouldn't dismiss its importance so quickly.
The more I read of the thread the more I realize how vindicated I am in my opinions of millennials, and the more I also realize that millennials make up about 90% of the user base here.
Discouraging.
I don't see at all how saying no problem over something else is a lack of civility. It's unnecessary nitpicking for no good reason other than people want something to bitch about. Reminds me of "Old Man Yells At Cloud." It's still a way of being civil, just not the exact specific way entitled people feel they deserve - like, boo hoo.
When you mention 'appeasing neighbors', it is worth noting that there is a significant change in society because in the past people lived their entire lives with the same neighbors. All of the linguistic colloquialisms were mutually understood, and so communication was simpler. Now people move around among all parts of the country and even between countries. Very few people lives their lives in the same spot, and as a result we are continually confronted with new linguistic assumptions.Mostly it's indicative of deeper divides and diminished neighborliness. If it was no big deal as suggested, then it would be no big deal to simply drop 'no problem' for what us old people would rather hear- since appeasing neighbors in small ways is one of the fundamentals of community. But since it is indicative of deeper issues, it's a bigger deal than it seems, hence all the digging in of heels and attempts at justification. Then when that is deconstructed, hand-waving dismissal as 'no big deal' is used. Then when that's deconstructed..........
The more I see this thread the more I just find myself thinking "what a stupid first world problem"
So on whom is the onus to do the appeasing - the speaker or the listener? Conversation, and courtesy, are a two-way street. As [MENTION=14857]labyrinthine[/MENTION] explained quite carefully, increased mobility in the modern age means we are less likely to know what others prefer to hear, and what forms of politeness they were raised to use. If we wish to show genuine rather than simpy pro-forma courtesy, we will remember when we speak that others might not be used to the expressions we use; and when we listen, that others may express courtesy differently from us. I don't see what is so hard about that. If anything, it may lead us actually to think about what we are saying in these simple encounters, rather than mindlessly rattling off a script, and thinking of others is the essence of courtesy anyway.Mostly it's indicative of deeper divides and diminished neighborliness. If it was no big deal as suggested, then it would be no big deal to simply drop 'no problem' for what us old people would rather hear- since appeasing neighbors in small ways is one of the fundamentals of community. But since it is indicative of deeper issues, it's a bigger deal than it seems, hence all the digging in of heels and attempts at justification. Then when that is deconstructed, hand-waving dismissal as 'no big deal' is used. Then when that's deconstructed..........
Because it's not in anyone's interest, especially yours.
Because it acknowledges without diminishment, which is the purpose of 'you're welcome' rather than 'no problem.'
Civility is a first word problem mostly, but other than wealth it's pretty much what separates it from the third world, so I wouldn't dismiss its importance so quickly.
Civility is a first word problem mostly, but other than wealth it's pretty much what separates it from the third world, so I wouldn't dismiss its importance so quickly.
The more I read of the thread the more I realize how vindicated I am in my opinions of millennials, and the more I also realize that millennials make up about 90% of the user base here.
Discouraging.
If it was no big deal as suggested, then it would be no big deal to simply drop 'no problem' for what us old people would rather hear- since appeasing neighbors in small ways is one of the fundamentals of community.
If anything, it may lead us actually to think about what we are saying in these simple encounters, rather than mindlessly rattling off a script, and thinking of others is the essence of courtesy anyway.
Oh, I see. You're one of those presumptuous individuals who thinks they know what's in others' interests.
I personally do not want to be a cashier. It would be a painful job for me. It would be a problem for me because I don't think the majority of people in the world are kind, but rather I think the majority are actually quite mean. Because of this, when I encounter a cashier, a waiter, or anyone else in customer service I'm glad to hear if I was 'no problem' because I assume they deal with a lot of problem people. I hold the assumption that it could typically be a problem to have an interaction with another human being because I've dealt with my share of problem people. They aren't my servant, but my equal deserving of equal respect, so I hope neither of us causes the other a problem. It's also why I try to be especially nice to people in restaurants even if they make a mistake. I don't want to demean a person who has a really hard job. I actually hate it that society requires that people spend all the hours of their day doing something that isn't entirely of their choosing for the sake of some large company. When I see a customer service person, I wish they could be in the park, playing in the sunshine, drinking a beer, or playing their guitar.Ok I figured out the flaw in the no problem argument here. Unless it's deliberately stating the obvious, which is illogical and unlikely, "no problem" comes off like a correction to the expectation that the deed for which the individual was thanked was a problem for them- or that the fact that they were compelled to do something for someone else was a problem. It's like creating a glass is half empty expectation for the exchange by alluding to the notion that helping people is inherently a problem, and then brings it up to uninspiring mediocre par by simply stating that it wasn't in fact (this time).
I personally do not want to be a cashier. It would be a painful job for me. It would be a problem for me because I don't think the majority of people in the world are kind, but rather I think the majority are actually quite mean. Because of this, when I encounter a cashier, a waiter, or anyone else in customer service I'm glad to hear if I was 'no problem' because I assume they deal with a lot of problem people. I hold the assumption that it could typically be a problem to have an interaction with another human being because I've dealt with my share of problem people. They aren't my servant, but my equal deserving of equal respect, so I hope neither of us causes the other a problem. It's also why I try to be especially nice to people in restaurants even if they make a mistake. I don't want to demean a person who has a really hard job. I actually hate it that society requires that people spend all the hours of their day doing something that isn't entirely of their choosing for the sake of some large company. When I see a customer service person, I wish they could be in the park, playing in the sunshine, drinking a beer, or playing their guitar.
To be neighborly now, we need to be able to take the gist of the linguistic colloquialisms we encounter and give people the benefit of the doubt instead of ratcheting down more and more specific meanings. We need to read more non-verbal cues of intent, rather than locking into to assumed universal definitions. That is what is going to cause increased confusion, offense, and disintegration of neighborhood.
So on whom is the onus to do the appeasing - the speaker or the listener? Conversation, and courtesy, are a two-way street.
Oh, I see. You're one of those presumptuous individuals who thinks they know what's in others' interests. Care to prove it?
The best way to decrease confusion is to give other people the benefit of the doubt. We cannot force universal definitions where they do not exist.Right. Because the best way to decrease confusion is to rely on assumption, doubt, and multi-interpretive gestures. Literal semantics? That's for the poets...
Not really. If you think using 'no problem' after a thank you is doing you favors, knock yourself out. For myself, I'll pass on using it- and on being looked at with restrained contempt, and instead enjoy the rewards of making good micro-impressions.
Which typically lead to more amenable clients, greater flexibility, trust, and at the end of the day more money.
I'm actually fairly appreciative of how good millennials make me look; an impression that I hear time and time again from people I work for and with.