“Could you say Senator instead of Ma’am?”

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10332
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: “Could you say Senator instead of Ma’am?”

Postby addams » Sat Jan 31, 2015 6:59 am UTC

Has she said, "Where is that Report?" yet?
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: “Could you say Senator instead of Ma’am?”

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Feb 02, 2015 6:25 pm UTC

Quizatzhaderac wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Politeness is about obeying norms. Goals are different from norms, and in fact, the goals of many people may not match social norms at all. Usually, norms are sufficiently flexible to allow for some diversity of goal, as that's an essential part of minimizing conflict, but there must inherently be goals that are outside social norms. As a trivial example, one could list the goals of most explicitly racist organizations as outside of social norms now.
I asked about the goals of politeness. When the means (the norms) fail at their goal (social interaction), is "Politeness" blindly using the predefined means or selecting the appropriate means to the end?

The racist organizations are completely non sequitur as their goals are disjoint from the goals of any reasonable definition of "politeness".


Politeness isn't an entity, it doesn't have goals. People have goals.

Goals can vary immensely, and be pursued via different means. Sometimes different methods for pursuing the same goals differ immensely in politeness. If your goal is extremely impolite, it may be the case that there IS no polite option to pursue your goals. If you find yourself in such a position frequently, it may be time to re-examine your goals.

As for the "bitch" thing, yes...that's a very extreme example. The one listed is a much more mild thing. Epithets are usually quite rude indeed. However, the extreme example can be useful for clarifying, since it illustrates the point extremely well. Thus, I have not criticized the "it's not rude" camp for using this, though I have attempted to make it clear that I think the level of impoliteness is very different.

In a public forum that is accessible to the entire nation, third parties outweight both second parties AND first parties to the point of irrelevance. When two people are talking before the nation(or any other extremely large group), the speaker or the obstensible addressee do not determine politeness. The audience does. Yes, yes, in theory, everyone's opinion affects what is considered correct, but in a group of millions, you're a rounding error. It's so negligible as to be utterly irrelevant. If people at large think something is rude, and you do not...you are wrong.

User avatar
Quizatzhaderac
Posts: 1824
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC
Location: Space Florida

Re: “Could you say Senator instead of Ma’am?”

Postby Quizatzhaderac » Mon Feb 02, 2015 10:45 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Politeness isn't an entity, it doesn't have goals. People have goals.
*facepalm* The goals politeness serves. When someone says 'The goal of a toaster is to make toast" they're not mistaking the toaster for being sapient, they're discussing the goals for which someone would acquire and use a toaster.

Actions serve purposes; sometimes people even categorize actions by the purposes agents intend them to serve. Politeness of an agent's actions can be defined with or without regard to the agent's intentions. If we define politeness without regard to intentions, "politeness" can include actions designed to insult, pick fights, or any arbitrary behavior that isn't intuitively attached to "politeness".

A person who acts according to the rules of etiquette has (in addition to their primary goal) the goal of being polite orinclusive the goal of appearing polite. Appearing to be polite is a fine and necessary goal; that's why one can't use the word "bitch" on the senate floor. Appearances, however, can be deceiving.

Following the rules of etiquette is a great way to appear polite. It's also a decent way to reap the benefits of genuine politeness; the etiquette rules were destined with genuine politeness in mind, after all. But the actuality does not strictly follow from the appearance and the ends do not strictly follow from the means. I would say someone giving an underhanded compliment is impolite, likely following the rules of etiquette, and maintaining an appearance of politeness.

You've repeatedly refused to answer my "is politeness A or B" question enough times I'm going to just assume your definition is goal independent. In which case, since we greatly disagree of what makes something polite we can't really discuss what is polite.
Tyndmyr wrote:If people at large think something is rude, and you do not...you are wrong.
I've been talking about the converse situation here: rude behavior not becoming polite with enough indifferent observers. Not that we can ascribe any incourtesy to the General, but a disregard of the Senator's preferences would be slightly rude; adding zero 300 million times doesn't justify anything.
The thing about recursion problems is that they tend to contain other recursion problems.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: “Could you say Senator instead of Ma’am?”

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Feb 03, 2015 4:41 pm UTC

I have answered already. Your goals do not change what polite behavior is. You can have many different goals, you can pursue them politely or not.

Quizatzhaderac wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:If people at large think something is rude, and you do not...you are wrong.
I've been talking about the converse situation here: rude behavior not becoming polite with enough indifferent observers. Not that we can ascribe any incourtesy to the General, but a disregard of the Senator's preferences would be slightly rude; adding zero 300 million times doesn't justify anything.


He did not disregard her preferences. Thus, his actions were not rude. Nobody has claimed differently.

It is possible for both or neither people to act rudely, it's not a zero sum game. Therefore, this is not in any way a defense against her actions being rude. It isn't rude for her to disregard her own preferences. Obviously.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: “Could you say Senator instead of Ma’am?”

Postby morriswalters » Wed Feb 04, 2015 12:14 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:He did not disregard her preferences. Thus, his actions were not rude. Nobody has claimed differently.
Well, how could he know her preferences unless she told him? Which she did, which we have decided is rude.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10332
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: “Could you say Senator instead of Ma’am?”

Postby addams » Wed Feb 04, 2015 2:52 am UTC

Did he ever submit The Report?
Did she accept it?

Is it all Kissy-Kissy Hugie-Hugie, now?
Between the principle actors?

Are we ok with The Report?
Me, a People, would like to see The Report.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: “Could you say Senator instead of Ma’am?”

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Feb 04, 2015 4:43 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:He did not disregard her preferences. Thus, his actions were not rude. Nobody has claimed differently.
Well, how could he know her preferences unless she told him? Which she did, which we have decided is rude.


Correct.

Not seeing where you're going with this.

User avatar
sevenperforce
Posts: 658
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 8:01 am UTC

Re: “Could you say Senator instead of Ma’am?”

Postby sevenperforce » Wed Feb 04, 2015 8:51 pm UTC

mcd001 wrote:When I was a student in college and I needed to see one of my professors, I would go to his office during visiting hours. The door's open and he's sitting at his desk. I knock on the door frame; he looks up. I say: "Excuse me, sir, do you have a minute?" He say's "Sure, come in, I'll be right with you." No one ever said, "Please call me Professor." If someone had, I would have called him Professor, but I also would have thought he was being a pompous ass.

Similarly, I've been pulled over by a female police officer. She asked to see my license and registration. I said, "Yes ma'am." She did not say, "Please call me Officer." If she had, I would have thought she was being a pompous ass.

You might have thought that, but it wouldn't necessarily make it the case.

Female police officers face an uphill climb to receive respect and recognition. Federal administrative law enforcement agencies are sometimes as high as 40% female, but at the state level the ranks of front-line duty sworn officers comprise only 6-7% women. In a room with 15 male officers and 1 female officer, it is a near certainty that someone (either among the officers or outside) is going to view the woman's input as different, "special", or comparatively less valuable. When this happens, that person will very often dismiss the woman's input by addressing her as "ma'am" or "dear" in contrast to the title "officers" with which they would address the group in general.

So wouldn't be at all pompous or arrogant for a female police officer to be bothered by being addressed as "ma'am". Just because you didn't mean it in a derogatory or dismissive way doesn't mean she shouldn't have the right to ask you to use a different form of address.

I've actually never been pulled over by a female police officer (which anecdotally speaks to the scarcity of female patrol officers), but I didn't address the male officers who have pulled me over as "sir". I called them officers. "Good evening, officer." "Can I help you, officer?" "Just a moment, officer, I'll get my license for you." Not because of gender politic reasons, but because the interaction is between a citizen and a law enforcement officer, not between me and someone I would otherwise address as "sir" or as "ma'am". It's an express acknowledgment of their position and the nature of the interaction: they have an office to fulfill and that's the only reason they are talking to me. I know that, and now the officer knows I know that.

I've been in small-claims court and the judge had no issues when I answered his questions with "yes, sir" and "no, sir". He struck me as the no-nonsense sort. I believe he would have let me know if I was doing something wrong, but he seemed completely okay with it.

Small claims court is one thing. In circuit court, the judge wouldn't even address it; the bailiff would firmly but openly remind you. Same goes for appeals courts and higher.

The question isn't whether you're being intentionally disrespectful; the question is whether your form of address shows you understand the nature of your interaction. Even though I'm sure General Walsh meant no disrespect, Senator Boxer had every right to gently and politely remind him (and everyone else) that he was interacting with her vis-a-vis her position as a senator, especially given that "ma'am" has been used by many people to dismiss her or others in her position.

Djehutynakht wrote:"Sir" and "Ma'am" are general-use honorifics that, honestly, can be applied to absolutely any member of society when one wishes to show them an appearance of formal respect. There is no formal protocol for the use of "sir" or "ma'am" as a whole, although some places (e.g. the Military) might have their use encoded somewhere (such as "Address a superior officer as..._")... but that use isn't exclusive.

I don't think it was out of line for him to call her "Ma'am". It's a common thing. And, to be fair, "Ma'am" is not on some sort of "lower" level than Senator. Addressing someone as "Ma'am" doesn't show a lesser form of respect... Senator is just an honorific referring specifically to one's elected position.

No, it wasn't out of line, but that doesn't mean it was the most accurate form of address.

Consider this. Suppose that on the one hand you have a male judge presiding over a case who consistently addresses male attorneys as "counselor" but addresses female attorneys as "ma'am". On the other hand, you have a female judge presiding over a case who consistently addresses male attorneys as "sir" but addresses female attorneys as "counselor". The latter behavior is odd, but probably not an instance of sexism; the former is almost definitely an instance of sexism.

There are many, many instances where intentionally choosing "ma'am" instead of the proper title can be used to dismiss or denigrate an individual on the basis of gender; there are very few cases where choosing "sir" instead of the proper title would function to dismiss on the basis of gender.

And while, yes, the technical correct response is Senator, that's just nipping at someone for not abiding by the code of formality to the letter. "Ma'am" is a universally respectful term.

Except when it is intentionally used in lieu of the more accurate title in order to call attention to the gender of the individual. Which happens often. Of course this isn't always the case -- that's ridiculous -- but the fact that it can be used this way means we ought to pay attention to it.

I've never quite liked addressing anyone as "Sir" or "Ma'am" inherently. I'd prefer calling them "Senator" (or "Professor", "Doctor", etc.) any day... or at least "Madam" instead of "Ma'am").

"Madam", being markedly more formal than "ma'am", is less likely to be used as a snarky dismissal and is thus less problematic.

Ormurinn wrote:Hang on - there are people who think the use of sir or ma'am is disrespectful?

Is this a quirk of American English? sir/ma'am sounds intensely respectful to me.

It isn't inherently disrespectful, but it can be used disrespectfully.

Suppose I'm a police officer being called to testify before internal affairs, a board of four men and one woman. Some are detectives, some are lieutenants. If I'm answering questions and answer each of the men using their correct title ("Yes, detective" and "No, lieutenant") but reply to the woman with "ma'am" then it will quickly become obvious that I'm using "ma'am" in order to avoid recognizing her rank, which is disrespectful.

Suppose it was all men, but there was one fellow who I particularly disliked, and so I called him "sir" while I called the others "detective" and "lieutenant" as appropriate. Here, too, I would be implicitly disregarding his position and thus slighting him. To avoid any appearance of doing this, then, I should take pains to use only titles, lest I give the wrong impression even accidentally.

A televised senate hearing between a military general and a senate committee is precisely the sort of place that a male general ought to take pains not to give the impression -- even accidentally -- that he is treating a female senator with less respect because of her gender.

Tyndmyr wrote:The "I worked hard for it" is a vacuous reason. Why? Well, it can be said by literally every senator(any many another person holding titles as well!), so it has no explanatory power for why she cares and why another does not. It isn't the real reason.

We needn't pretend for a moment that this wasn't about gender. A woman will, on average, need to work harder to earn the office of senator than a man would, and thus will have proportionally more reason to desire recognition than a male senator might.

Sen Boxer doesn't call out everyone who calls her ma'am. In the senate, even. It can't be THAT big a deal to her. She also uses the term herself when referring to other civil officials, instead of title. I'm gooing to go with "she wanted to be flaunt her power at the time".

And you can't see any reason why interactions between a male military general and a female senator might call for even a slightly different emphasis/awareness than interactions between two civil officials? Not to mention that the male military general in question is from the southern United States, a region where misogynistic attitudes have a slight tendency to dominate?

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: “Could you say Senator instead of Ma’am?”

Postby morriswalters » Wed Feb 04, 2015 9:22 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
morriswalters wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:He did not disregard her preferences. Thus, his actions were not rude. Nobody has claimed differently.
Well, how could he know her preferences unless she told him? Which she did, which we have decided is rude.


Correct.

Not seeing where you're going with this.

Just noting that your version of civility, precludes her ever getting the chance correct him if she so chooses, until the issue is not longer relative.

User avatar
Quizatzhaderac
Posts: 1824
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC
Location: Space Florida

Re: “Could you say Senator instead of Ma’am?”

Postby Quizatzhaderac » Wed Feb 04, 2015 10:05 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
Quizatzhaderac wrote:I've been talking about the converse situation here: rude behavior not becoming polite with enough indifferent observers. Not that we can ascribe any incourtesy to the General, but a disregard of the Senator's preferences would be slightly rude; adding zero 300 million times doesn't justify anything.
He did not disregard her preferences. Thus, his actions were not rude. Nobody has claimed differently.
Please stop stawmanning my argument. I explicitly mentioned in the exact post you quoted I wasn't making that claim.

You argued that disregarding the second party's (Senator Boxer's) preferences is not rude.
You implied disregarding third parties is rude.
I asked you to justify considering some preferences but not others.
You claimed that third parties outweighed second parties by virtue of number.
I asked what was on the third parties' scales in the choice between "Ma'am" and "Senator".
The discussion's focus shifted.
You claimed "If people at large think something is rude, and you do not...you are wrong."
I assumed (because of the reference to scale) this was related to this part of the argument. That statement would not be directly applicable because the indifferent and concerned parties are switched.
I restated my position (nested quote above), adding a caveat to make it clear I didn't consider the general to fit my subjunctive statement.
morriswalters wrote:Just noting that your version of civility, precludes her ever getting the chance correct him if she so chooses, until the issue is not longer relative.
Tyndmyr's definition is functionally very similar to my definition of the appearance of politeness; actually disclosing preferences just makes i harder for people to appear polite.
The thing about recursion problems is that they tend to contain other recursion problems.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: “Could you say Senator instead of Ma’am?”

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:55 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
morriswalters wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:He did not disregard her preferences. Thus, his actions were not rude. Nobody has claimed differently.
Well, how could he know her preferences unless she told him? Which she did, which we have decided is rude.


Correct.

Not seeing where you're going with this.

Just noting that your version of civility, precludes her ever getting the chance correct him if she so chooses, until the issue is not longer relative.


Civility does not demand you always reveal preferences. Quite the reverse. Often, you are expected to downplay your preferences in order to reduce disagreement.

As for strawmanning, I am not. You seem to have some implicit assumption that results in this line of argument being somehow contradictory or something. I do not not know what this is, as you have not expressed it. It should be patently clear that quite a lot of people believe her correction to be rude. This is why a fairly inconsequential exchange became widely reported news, provoked outrage, and we're talking about it years later. If not for rudeness, there is literally no reason to discuss it, right? Social norms are determined by society.

User avatar
Quizatzhaderac
Posts: 1824
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC
Location: Space Florida

Re: “Could you say Senator instead of Ma’am?”

Postby Quizatzhaderac » Fri Feb 06, 2015 7:21 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:As for strawmanning, I am not.
Then what connection does "He did not disregard her preferences." have to do with my post to which you were responding?
You seem to have some implicit assumption that results in this line of argument being somehow contradictory or something.
I'm assuming this is directed at Morris's comment that you quoted.

We don't know what went on in General Walsh's head but there's two possibilities:

Genuine regard: The general learns the senator's preferences. Even without third parties the general considers it worthwhile to address her as "Senator". The general wishes her knew her preferences right away, but that wasn't possible. Information on the Senator's preferences has value to him (while he still potentially objects to the phrasing or interruption).

False regard: The general learns the senator's preferences. The General's reasons to address her as "Senator" are limited to third parties; he wishes to avoid appearing rude or insubordinate. Actually learning her preferences is strictly negative to him.

I assume the best of the General because that's the nice thing to do. You (if you're arguing that any form of stating her preferences after the general said "Ma'am" hurts the General) seem to be assuming a false regard from the General is appropriate.
It should be patently clear that quite a lot of people believe her correction to be rude. This is why a fairly inconsequential exchange became widely reported news, provoked outrage, and we're talking about it years later. If not for rudeness, there is literally no reason to discuss it, right? Social norms are determined by society.
This is a discussion about if the correction is rude, and hence whether or not "a lot of people" were right about her being rude is an open question. With your definitions of polite/rude "a lot of people" are always right, so the question becomes whether the norms are effective/appropriate, including the reactions of the public.
The thing about recursion problems is that they tend to contain other recursion problems.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: “Could you say Senator instead of Ma’am?”

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Feb 06, 2015 8:34 pm UTC

Quizatzhaderac wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:As for strawmanning, I am not.
Then what connection does "He did not disregard her preferences." have to do with my post to which you were responding?


You were talking about the general being rude. I merely clarified that the instance you were speaking of did not occur, and was hypothetical. Not really a source of debate. I still don't understand why you brought up this tangent. It seems a odd example. As no differing opinion appears to exist regarding the generals behavior, I do not understand why it is being brought up repeatedly.

You seem to have some implicit assumption that results in this line of argument being somehow contradictory or something.
I'm assuming this is directed at Morris's comment that you quoted.

We don't know what went on in General Walsh's head but there's two possibilities:

Genuine regard: The general learns the senator's preferences. Even without third parties the general considers it worthwhile to address her as "Senator". The general wishes her knew her preferences right away, but that wasn't possible. Information on the Senator's preferences has value to him (while he still potentially objects to the phrasing or interruption).

False regard: The general learns the senator's preferences. The General's reasons to address her as "Senator" are limited to third parties; he wishes to avoid appearing rude or insubordinate. Actually learning her preferences is strictly negative to him.

I assume the best of the General because that's the nice thing to do. You (if you're arguing that any form of stating her preferences after the general said "Ma'am" hurts the General) seem to be assuming a false regard from the General is appropriate.
It should be patently clear that quite a lot of people believe her correction to be rude. This is why a fairly inconsequential exchange became widely reported news, provoked outrage, and we're talking about it years later. If not for rudeness, there is literally no reason to discuss it, right? Social norms are determined by society.
This is a discussion about if the correction is rude, and hence whether or not "a lot of people" were right about her being rude is an open question. With your definitions of polite/rude "a lot of people" are always right, so the question becomes whether the norms are effective/appropriate, including the reactions of the public.


Social norms are always set by society at large, yes. As for "effective/appropriate", that depends on your goals. Human goals differ wildly. Something that is effective for your goals may not be for someone else's.

Politeness is not moral rightness or anything. You can be correct while still being rude, or polite while being misinformed.

As for "is it appropriate for the public to dislike politicians who appear rude, officious, or obnoxious"? Well, yes. Politicians should answer to the people, and arrogance should be a warning bell in a democracy. Others have rightly pointed out that other politicians have gotten away with rudeness. Sometimes, much more dramatically so. I view THAT as the problem. Do you prefer a society in which politicians feel sufficiently unaccountable as to behave rudely or inappropriately in public, or not?

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10332
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: “Could you say Senator instead of Ma’am?”

Postby addams » Fri Feb 06, 2015 8:41 pm UTC

It's a good question.
How do we feel about our Top Military Brass with a "Fuck You." attitude?

Well...Fuck us.
As long as we don't get the Bright Idea any of the Substance is any of our Business.

Let's play Plato's Cave!
What do you think the shadows of the shadow mean?

oh. You are so Brilliant.
And the Names people call you are meaningless shadows on the wall, too.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
Quizatzhaderac
Posts: 1824
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC
Location: Space Florida

Re: “Could you say Senator instead of Ma’am?”

Postby Quizatzhaderac » Fri Feb 06, 2015 10:45 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:You were talking about the general being rude.
No, I was not, hence my accusation of stawmanning. I explicitly stated "Not that we can ascribe any incourtesy to the General" to avoid confusion on that point. Even without clarification, a careful reading of my statement would show my statement was subjunctive, not realis.

By either my definition of politeness, or yours and the forum norms: you are expected to carefully read things and reply only to what people actually say. If you have any confusion over what I'm trying to say or why I'd bring something up you should fell free to ask and refrain from putting words in people's mouths.

As for why I was bringing it up: A passive disregard is rude in my conception. Very easy to get away with, but still rude. As a gentleman, the General has an obligation to make reasonable efforts to discover people's preferences. Disclosing your reasonable preferences to a gentleman isn't an imposition.
Social norms are always set by society at large, yes. As for "effective/appropriate", that depends on your goals. Human goals differ wildly. Something that is effective for your goals may not be for someone else's.
That's just solipsism. The norms that are used to measure "rudeness" can be reasonably traced to a set of goals that creates and maintains those norms. You yourself did so when I asked you why one should be polite.

With at least vague goals in mind we can determine efficacy these norms.
Politeness is not moral rightness or anything
........
"is it appropriate for the public to dislike politicians who appear rude, officious, or obnoxious"? Well, yes.
That's not at all obvious.

I agree with this only insofar as our definitions of rudeness overlap. When "rudeness" is moral, practical, considerate, and visible as such, I argue that is is not appropriate for the public to dislike them for it.
The thing about recursion problems is that they tend to contain other recursion problems.

User avatar
ObsessoMom
Nespresso Bomb
Posts: 929
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 5:28 pm UTC

Re: “Could you say Senator instead of Ma’am?”

Postby ObsessoMom » Sat Feb 07, 2015 10:35 pm UTC

The YouTube clip documenting this heinous (on either the general's or the senator's part) faux pas is SIXTEEN SECONDS LONG.

It happened ALMOST SIX YEARS AGO.

Maybe we should really be discussing why so many people can't seem to let this seemingly insignificant interlude go after all this time.

Personally, I think it's because this otherwise insignificant interaction has come to represent a proxy war between one or more items in Column A and its/their counterpart(s) in Column B:

Column A .....Column B

Politicians.....Military figures
Liberals.....Conservatives
Democrats...Members of other political parties, preferably Republicans or Libertarians
The rich......People who have achieved success by working their way up
Jews...........Gentiles
Women........Men

My hypothesis: If you detest one or more items in Column A, and/or identify strongly with its/their counterpart(s) in Column B, you're more likely to think the senator was rude and/or the general was not rude. If you tend to champion B items over A items, vice versa. The argument can thus never be won, because the issue really isn't rudeness or lack thereof, per se--it's the moral superiority of A over B (or vice versa).

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: “Could you say Senator instead of Ma’am?”

Postby Lucrece » Sun Feb 08, 2015 11:22 am UTC

I just find that complaint of hers petty. Much like a principal correcting you to call him the principal when you still use a formal address. I guess it's why I prefer referring to presidents as Mr. Last Name. I'm not fond of titles who often come with an implication of difference in status. It feels like a crappy pissing contest.

I've met very few PhD's who will abruptly insist for you to call them Doctor instead of professor or Mr./Ms., and I'm glad for it. Such stark examples of hierarchy are annoying.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7604
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: “Could you say Senator instead of Ma’am?”

Postby Zamfir » Sun Feb 08, 2015 4:08 pm UTC

ObsessoMom wrote:It happened ALMOST SIX YEARS AGO.

QFT

Who is keeping this story alive?

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: “Could you say Senator instead of Ma’am?”

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Feb 09, 2015 8:55 pm UTC

ObsessoMom wrote:The YouTube clip documenting this heinous (on either the general's or the senator's part) faux pas is SIXTEEN SECONDS LONG.

It happened ALMOST SIX YEARS AGO.

Maybe we should really be discussing why so many people can't seem to let this seemingly insignificant interlude go after all this time.


It is dated as hell, yes. And fairly minor to boot. I'm cheerfully discussing it here because someone brought it up, and it seemed controversial, with people championing a view that seemed obviously wrong. As for why we're talking about it now, that's for the OP to answer, I suppose.

I don't think it's still a thing politically. Political issues tend to expire fairly quickly in comparison. Issues blow up, attract outrage, and then vanish. You could argue for some lingering attitudes or perceptions or something, but the issue itself isn't still news.

Column A .....Column B

Politicians.....Military figures
Liberals.....Conservatives
Democrats...Members of other political parties, preferably Republicans or Libertarians
The rich......People who have achieved success by working their way up
Jews...........Gentiles
Women........Men

My hypothesis: If you detest one or more items in Column A, and/or identify strongly with its/their counterpart(s) in Column B, you're more likely to think the senator was rude and/or the general was not rude. If you tend to champion B items over A items, vice versa. The argument can thus never be won, because the issue really isn't rudeness or lack thereof, per se--it's the moral superiority of A over B (or vice versa).


Meh. I frequently snipe at error by any of those figures, and don't identify particularly strongly with pretty much any of these things. I mean, sure, I'm a Libertarian. But nobody involved is a Libertarian or anything. Nor are the Libertarians particularly fussed about titles or what not. Seems like a helluva reach.

User avatar
Quizatzhaderac
Posts: 1824
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC
Location: Space Florida

Re: “Could you say Senator instead of Ma’am?”

Postby Quizatzhaderac » Tue Feb 10, 2015 5:38 pm UTC

ObsessoMom wrote:Maybe we should really be discussing why so many people can't seem to let this seemingly insignificant interlude go after all this time.
For me the interest lies not in the specific event, but in the significant disagreement on what is rude and what makes something rude. While I disagree with most of what Tyndmyr says, that doesn't mean I haven't learnt from the disagreement.

This is a cultural difference, which is of course a lightning rod for us vs. them attitudes, but it seems pretty clear there are genuine differences in what people consider rude at play here.
The thing about recursion problems is that they tend to contain other recursion problems.


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests