• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Which social rules do you think don't make sense?

DiscoBiscuit

Meat Tornado
Joined
Apr 13, 2009
Messages
14,794
Enneagram
8w9
Gays can have kids nowadays, just not by accident. I think that's pretty delightful.

And how much does that cost? I suppose well off gays can have kids, but not everyone can drop a down payment on a house to have kids.
 

chubber

failed poetry slam career
Joined
Oct 18, 2013
Messages
4,413
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Gays can have kids nowadays, just not by accident. I think that's pretty delightful.

If you think in monogamous type relationships yes. But if they were in a open/poly relationship it might also be natural?
 
G

Ginkgo

Guest
Sooner or later, manners become counterproductive if they're not heartfelt, so they are useful only as far as they are relative to the culture they're carried out in. That said, this thread demonstrates that there's a notable amount of people who reject certain social niceties, so I see no apparent reason why they can't just be animals with each other so long as the sentiments are mutually understood.
 

Nicodemus

New member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
9,756
Over the years civilizations figure out what their people like and what maximizes social benefits to the populace. This is why I'm somewhat traditional, because I'm not willing to throw out centuries of trial and error and cultural evolution because some johhny come lately thinks he's the first person who ever had a good idea.
But some traditions and manners are like the C64, well adapted to the circumstances of their origin and useful for a time. But circumstances change, and today a C64 can barely order a meal at Burger King.
 

Eruca

78% me
Joined
Nov 14, 2008
Messages
939
MBTI Type
INxx
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
OK I'll justify it. When we are nice to each other, like kids saying yes sir and no ma'am to adults, opening doors, saying thanks and just generally being respectful makes life more enjoyable. Enough people where I'm from agree with this assertion that manners have been normalized in society.

Hi I'm not going to reply to the matters more related to gay marriage as, of course, that is highly likely to result in thread derailment. The point was Nico's also, so it's up to him if he wants to follow up on it.

I think you are misrepresenting cause and effect here. Those today who agree with the assertion that politeness norms make life more enjoyable were also those who were taught those norms from birth. In other words, these norms don't govern because the population of the moment think they are justified. Rather, the population thinks they are justified because they are the norms that govern. When you ask someone; "why do address your father as sir?" they will give justifications but not the actual cause of their behavior--that they were taught to.

Now, I will have to point out a few things so my position won't be misunderstood here. Firstly, I'm not saying codes of courtesy cannot be justified--only that the justification used should be sufficient in itself to warrant the code, with no credence given to tradition in itself, and with a full awareness that, initially, and with no small persistence, one's intuition will move to defend what one has been taught thoughtlessly. Secondly, just because I am saying that justifications usually given for norms are insufficient, or that norms can be unjustifiable generally, I am not saying that norms were never justified at one point or another. As you say, they usually had a benefit to society (note, not necessarily a benefit to individuals, truth, or other societies) that justified their existence in the first place.

Over the years civilizations figure out what their people like and what maximizes social benefits to the populace. This is why I'm somewhat traditional, because I'm not willing to throw out centuries of trial and error and cultural evolution because some johhny come lately thinks he's the first person who ever had a good idea.

And of course my previous leads on to discussion of this point. I do indeed recognize the process of cultural/social evolution that has occurred and which will continue to occur. Two points.

1 Somewhat tritely I'd like to point out since extensive, particularly free self-examination and questioning of cultural holy cows is a relatively new phenomena, it hardly seems fair to call its proponents "johnny come lately's". They and their sort had much smaller scope for such activity historically, and a such their influence over society was less. They were late to the party mostly because nobody wants to turn up at their own funeral early.

2 Here is my more interesting point. We both agree that something similar to a cultural evolution has taken place over the multiple centuries in which societies, cultures, civilizations have had the chance to evolve and compete amongst one another but it seems after this we have a division in view. I think you've mistaken the object (which is to say the beneficiary) of societal evolution. It is not the happiness or wealth of individuals nor, directly or consistently, even the majority of the population that society would propagate. Society benefits itself. A "fit" society is one that continues to exist or expands. Napoleonic France, surrounded by royalist enemies, survived and expanded because its culture allowed and encouraged revolutionary new methods of conscription, not because it made its people happy. The British Empire controlled huge areas of the world yet did so through the suffering of the majority--the working classes under the horrific new working conditions of the industrial revolution. Oppression, fear, bigotry, ignorance, lies, delusions, persecution, slavery-- these are all so much more useful for a society to enlarge or continue its existence than for its people to be happy or have their wishes met. And evolution is about survival. Norms are the genes of society; they have developed because they help a society survive and spread itself--"goodness" is going to be secondary (which is not to say they wont be good).


Which makes it no surprise that many norms were horrible, and that other norms are unjustifiable now that notions such as freedom and truth have taken hold. Maybe--controversial opinion--norms from the ages of say, racism and slavery are worth interrogating. Again, I feel the need to point out that I am not actually claiming that our common codes of conduct don't have good justification under modern lighting, only that a thorough examination (the first stage of which might well be seemingly trite complaints going on in this thread!) is a worthy objective.
 

DiscoBiscuit

Meat Tornado
Joined
Apr 13, 2009
Messages
14,794
Enneagram
8w9
Now, I will have to point out a few things so my position won't be misunderstood here. Firstly, I'm not saying codes of courtesy cannot be justified--only that the justification used should be sufficient in itself.

I've already justified it as much as I'm going to.

Regardless of what arguments I came up with, you would not find them sufficient. The arguments I've made are sufficient for many, but to someone predisposed against tradition nothing would ever be sufficient. This is one of the reasons I have a tendency to state my position and just leave it there. I could spend hours constructing and argument and citing appropriate links, but I'm a busy working person and have better shit to do than argue culture with someone I've never met on the internet.

self-examination and questioning of cultural holy cows is a relatively new phenomena, it hardly seems fair to call its proponents "johnny come lately's".

Hence Johnny come lately. It's the new hip thing that has not yet been accurately measured against tradition. Fads come in for a time, then they get played out, and people turn back to tradition. Like I said in another thread, I think we are reaching what I like to call peak progressive right now. Its been the mainstream thing for about the last eight years. But the more mainstream it is the less cool it is. The cultural market in my opinion is about as saturated with progressivism as its going to get. We will see tradition come back into vogue before too long. Now it won't be the exact same tradition that we had the last time tradition was in vogue, but it will be an evolved improved version of it.

People have been questioning things for years, but the current form of it is new and is "johnny come lately". Luckily its not nearly as cool to be progressive as it was in '08. Shits getting played out.

Libertarianism is the new hip thing.

2 Here is my more interesting point. We both agree that something similar to a cultural evolution has taken place over the multiple centuries in which societies, cultures, civilizations have had the chance to evolve and compete amongst one another but it seems after this we have a division in view. I think you've mistaken the object (which is to say the beneficiary) of societal evolution. It is not the happiness or wealth of individuals nor, directly or consistently, even the majority of the population that society would propagate. Society benefits itself. A "fit" society is one that continues to exist or expands. Napoleonic France, surrounded by royalist enemies, survived and expanded because its culture allowed and encouraged revolutionary new methods of conscription, not because it made its people happy. The British Empire controlled huge areas of the world yet did so through the suffering of the majority--the working classes under the horrific new working conditions of the industrial revolution. Oppression, fear, bigotry, ignorance, lies, delusions, persecution, slavery-- these are all so much more useful for a society to enlarge or continue its existence than for its people to be happy or have their wishes met. And evolution is about survival. Norms are the genes of society; they have developed because they help a society survive and spread itself--"goodness" is going to be secondary (which is not to say they wont be good).

Ugh I don't really have time to unpack and debunk all this, but just for a moment let me ask you something.

Who was better off, the serf in a fiefdom sworn to his lord and king and for all intents and purposes a slave, or the factory worker in the industrial revolution?
 

Eruca

78% me
Joined
Nov 14, 2008
Messages
939
MBTI Type
INxx
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Who was better off, the serf in a fiefdom sworn to his lord and king and for all intents and purposes a slave, or the factory worker in the industrial revolution?

I'm happy how our exchange has gone so I'll be leaving things there, but I do have to wander where you are going with your question here, so I'll answer you.

I would say the factory worker in the industrial revolution had it worse, though both were very awful so in a way it is a hard call. When we looks at the life expectancies it is hard to say-- the average expectancy in liverpool (center of industry) was 26 during the industrial revolution, while the average in London was 37. Conversely, the average expectancy of a serf was 35. I can get you the sources if you require.
 

DiscoBiscuit

Meat Tornado
Joined
Apr 13, 2009
Messages
14,794
Enneagram
8w9
I'm happy how our exchange has gone so I'll be leaving things there, but I do have to wander where you are going with your question here, so I'll answer you.

I would say the factory worker in the industrial revolution had it worse, though both were very awful so in a way it is a hard call. When we looks at the life expectancies it is hard to say-- the average expectancy in liverpool (center of industry) was 26 during the industrial revolution, while the average in London was 37. Conversely, the average expectancy of a serf was 35. I can get you the sources if you require.

So the whole freedom to do what you want under industrialism doesn't come into play?

Also, lets not forget the freedom to rise above your station.

I can see how having a lord look after you would be attractive to one who's comfortable with state control.

Luckily freedom is kind of a big deal in the States.
 

Eruca

78% me
Joined
Nov 14, 2008
Messages
939
MBTI Type
INxx
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
So the whole freedom to do what you want under industrialism doesn't come into play?

Also, lets not forget the freedom to rise above your station.

I can see how having a lord look after you would be attractive to one who's comfortable with state control.

Luckily freedom is kind of a big deal in the States.

The freedom of a working class industrial laborer was highly minimal. For one thing, opportunity to rise above their station was extremely low. Only the middle classes had a real chance of rising up, those lucky enough to have an education. This is not your bog-standard agricultural laborer who has came into the city to find work. (Likely driven off the land due to agricultural laws that favored larger farm owners) They had nothing but the clothes on there back, so to speak. Now if you had asked which i'd prefer; a, say, priest or baron in the middle ages or a middle class clerk of fair education in the industrial era I would very much prefer the latter.

What you seem to be saying is that better a bad life of freedom than a good life of slavery; but describing industrial laborers as free is a bit of a stretch. They were free to some extent, but mostly free to get paid just enough to eat and die in their droves from overwork and horrific living conditions. Real freedom only came about due to unionization (and I can bet what you think of those!).
 

DiscoBiscuit

Meat Tornado
Joined
Apr 13, 2009
Messages
14,794
Enneagram
8w9
The freedom of a working class industrial laborer was highly minimal. For one thing, opportunity to rise above their station was extremely low. Only the middle classes had a real chance of rising up, those lucky enough to have an education. This is not your bog-standard agricultural laborer who has come into the city to find work. They had nothing but the clothes on there back, so to speak. Now if you had asked which i'd prefer; a, say, priest or baron in the middle ages or a middle class clerk of fair education in the industrial era I would very much prefer the latter.

What you seem to be saying is that better a bad life of freedom than a good life of slavery; but describing industrial laborers as free is a bit of a stretch. They were free to some extent, but mostly free to get paid just enough to eat and die in their droves from overwork and horrific living conditions. Real freedom only came about due to unionization (and I can bet what you think of those!).

I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees.

But then again I have the talents and disposition to compete favorably in a capitalist system.

Not everyone can say the same.
 

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,230
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
OK I'll justify it. When we are nice to each other, like kids saying yes sir and no ma'am to adults, opening doors, saying thanks and just generally being respectful makes life more enjoyable. Enough people where I'm from agree with this assertion that manners have been normalized in society. Now up north people are kind of jerks all the time, and consequently, I haven't liked most of the people from NYC I've met.
The underlying "manners" or perhaps better, courtesy, is for instance to be respectful to one's elders. What makes "yes, sir" respectful, though? Simple convention. Some languages don't even have words for sir and ma'am. In some cultures and contexts, everyone goes by first name, and respect is shown through actions and manner of speaking (e.g. not yelling at someone). In this sense, the specific actions or words used to convey respect are arbitrary. And we haven't even considered individual differences.

The reason hetero marriage is "normal" is that kids come from that style of relationship. And kids are kind of important to the continuation of the species. Now that we have more people on the planet, the need to procreate is less urgent (but not by a lot). This lessening of the need to procreate has allowed alternative relationship to become (relatively) mainstream, and has somewhat decreased to emphasis we put on procreative relationships.

The reason (once the whole culture war thing has died down [if it ever does]) hetero relationships will always be more normal with regard to the public at large is that kids will always be a fundamental need.
Hetero relationships, just like right handedness, will probably always be more commonplace, but that is not the same thing as normal. There has always also been a minority of hetero relationships that do not produce children. These are just as normal, though also uncommon. Some societies have much better traditions of fostering, adoption, or otherwise matching up childless adults with parentless children. This is just one way gay couples can become parents.

Over the years civilizations figure out what their people like and what maximizes social benefits to the populace. This is why I'm somewhat traditional, because I'm not willing to throw out centuries of trial and error and cultural evolution because some johhny come lately thinks he's the first person who ever had a good idea.
Over the years, groups in power impose their way of doing things on everyone else. This can be simply for their own comfort, or to control and manipulate everyone else. No tradition is valuable simply for being a tradition, except as a history lesson. It is one thing to retain traditions that still have practical use. The rest is just constricting deadwood.
 

greenfairy

philosopher wood nymph
Joined
May 25, 2012
Messages
4,024
MBTI Type
iNfj
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
As an offshoot of the topic of rape culture, I think it doesn't really benefit anyone that there is a social convention of not saying no. If someone invites you to do something and you just don't feel like it it shouldn't be considered rude to say so. You shouldn't have to lie. If you don't like someone you shouldn't have to act like you do, but if you are friends with someone it should be understood that you do like that person and that if you say you don't feel like it it doesn't mean you don't like the person. I think whatever a person wants and feels should be legitimate and people should understand it. An explanation should be given in some cases, and people should try to be nice and polite and all that, but feelings aren't bad things. I don't like it if someone says no without explanation, but if they really don't feel like it I don't hold it against them and i don;'t expect them to say yes anyway. And I don't expect someone to say they want to hang out with me if they don't intend to do it. That makes me kind of mad actually. There was this one friend I used to have who I eventually felt I had nothing in common with, and I just told her so. I felt she deserved an explanation for me ending our friendship.

Anyway I think a lot of social conventions are kind of useless and silly. I've come to understand the point of most of them.
 

Elfboy

Certified Sausage Smoker
Joined
Nov 26, 2008
Messages
9,625
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
As an offshoot of the topic of rape culture, I think it doesn't really benefit anyone that there is a social convention of not saying no. If someone invites you to do something and you just don't feel like it it shouldn't be considered rude to say so. You shouldn't have to lie. If you don't like someone you shouldn't have to act like you do, but if you are friends with someone it should be understood that you do like that person and that if you say you don't feel like it it doesn't mean you don't like the person. I think whatever a person wants and feels should be legitimate and people should understand it. An explanation should be given in some cases, and people should try to be nice and polite and all that, but feelings aren't bad things. I don't like it if someone says no without explanation, but if they really don't feel like it I don't hold it against them and i don;'t expect them to say yes anyway. And I don't expect someone to say they want to hang out with me if they don't intend to do it. That makes me kind of mad actually. There was this one friend I used to have who I eventually felt I had nothing in common with, and I just told her so. I felt she deserved an explanation for me ending our friendship.
Anyway I think a lot of social conventions are kind of useless and silly. I've come to understand the point of most of them.

the sad part is, America is one of the cultures in the world where people are most comfortable saying no
 

DiscoBiscuit

Meat Tornado
Joined
Apr 13, 2009
Messages
14,794
Enneagram
8w9
Hetero relationships, just like right handedness, will probably always be more commonplace, but that is not the same thing as normal.

That is the definition of normal....

nor·mal
ˈnôrməl/
adjective
adjective: normal

1. conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected.

EDIT: I'll stick with Winston Churchill on this one...

Winston-Churchill-Wisdom-Quotes71.jpg
 

Edgar

Nerd King Usurper
Joined
Oct 25, 2008
Messages
4,266
MBTI Type
INTJ
Instinctual Variant
sx
That is the definition of normal....

I think what she was going at (and correct me if I'm wrong [MENTION=9811]Coriolis[/MENTION]) is the social definition of the word, i.e. the acceptability of "normal" and the shunning of the "abnormal". For example, you don't call someone with brown eyes "normal" and someone with green eyes "abnormal". You just say "she has brown eyes" and and "he has green eyes."
 

Qre:us

New member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
4,890
There was a thread before about the difference between manners and etiquette. I wonder if most things people are listing here, falls under etiquette versus manners.
 

11Maiden

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 9, 2014
Messages
7
MBTI Type
ENFJ
Enneagram
1w9
I don't know why people at work never tell the supervisor why he doesn't tell people what they're next appointment is meant for in my business hour.

It's because my supervisor told my coworker that he wasn't good enough for the newest team member on my cell phone business's shift.

He told my boss that he wasn't strong for doing her dirty business scam. "I told you my secret", said the mailman coworker.
 

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,230
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I think what she was going at (and correct me if I'm wrong [MENTION=9811]Coriolis[/MENTION]) is the social definition of the word, i.e. the acceptability of "normal" and the shunning of the "abnormal". For example, you don't call someone with brown eyes "normal" and someone with green eyes "abnormal". You just say "she has brown eyes" and and "he has green eyes."
Mainly I was pointing out the difference between stating a fact and making a value judgment. It may be a fact that certain characteristics or behaviors are in the minority. This does not presuppose, however, that they are worse or less desirable than the more commonplace attributes. Sometimes these are far more desirable.

By DB's quoted definition, then, left-handed folks are abnormal because they don't correspond to the standard of right-handedness. Fortunately we don't put much stock in handedness standards any longer. It's taking us awhile to reach the same point with sexual orientation.
 

DiscoBiscuit

Meat Tornado
Joined
Apr 13, 2009
Messages
14,794
Enneagram
8w9
I think what she was going at (and correct me if I'm wrong [MENTION=9811]Coriolis[/MENTION]) is the social definition of the word, i.e. the acceptability of "normal" and the shunning of the "abnormal". For example, you don't call someone with brown eyes "normal" and someone with green eyes "abnormal". You just say "she has brown eyes" and and "he has green eyes."

One thing being normal doesn't necessitate another thing being shunned. It could be just less common, less normal.
 
Top