I hate when people complain about rudeness or etiquette. What is etiquette but an undemocratic set of rules that we are supposed to adhere to?

We already have a set of rules that we all agree on, and it's called the law.

Seriously, can someone explain to me the actual experienced difference between 2 people having a conversation, and 1 person having a conversation on loudspeaker?

Why is one obviously okay, and the other one so hated?

▲

stryan 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Seriously, can someone explain to me the actual experienced difference between 2 people having a conversation, and 1 person having a conversation on loudspeaker?

Loudspeaker/speaker phone is a harsh, artificial sound which can be grating to hear. Two people having a conversation while physically present can also automatically adjust their volume, tone, and subject matter depending on the area around them. This often happens unconsciously and is affected by cultural and social norms i.e. some cultures (famously "latin" ones) are louder than others.

If the conversation is happening over loud speaker, the above does not occur. The person on the phone can not adjust their volume/conversation topics to react to the surroundings of the conversation, is solely dependent on the person holding the phone to modulate their volume or change subject matter. The person speaking also can not modulate their volume properly since they need to talk in a certain way to be intelligible over the phone.

I'd assume most people would get annoyed at 2 people loudly talking and arguing in an area where it's expected to be quieter, or even in public at all since the human brain is good at picking out speech among other sounds, since it would be distracting if not second hand embarrassing. But this happens significantly less frequently then the loudspeaker problem due to the aforementioned automatic speech adjustments.

▲

JohnFen 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Nothing is more democratic than the emergence of social mores. They are literally determined by people interacting with each other, not by some rule-making committee.

> We already have a set of rules that we all agree on, and it's called the law.

Laws address an entirely different thing than social mores do, though. They, by themselves, are insufficient in terms of maintaining a functioning society. Social mores are also required (and that's why they spontaneously emerge).

▲

legacynl 7 hours ago | parent [-]

I think you're misinterpreting my post. I'm not advocating against social norms, but rather specifically about 'etiquette' like how people aren't supposed to wear hats indoors, or that you should end all your sentences with sir or ma'am to be considered polite.

As you said the social norms inherently emerge and change. And because everybody's experience (and therefore what they consider normal) is different, the existence of situations where people with mismatching norms clash is perfectly normal and proper.

But there's also an enormous overlap in those different norms, and that's because there's norms in there that are actually based on something. Like a young person who doesn't mind standing giving up their seat to an old lady who has to provide a much bigger effort.

But I don't think the ones that are based in something are the ones that are changing. But rather the ones that we are quickly losing are the ones we do "just because" that's what we were thaught/ that's what's normal/ thats how everybody else does it/etc.

	▲	JohnFen 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> I'm not advocating against social norms, but rather specifically about 'etiquette' like how people aren't supposed to wear hats indoors, or that you should end all your sentences with sir or ma'am to be considered polite. But those etiquette things are also emergent social norms, no different than the others. And they absolutely do change over time. Very few people consider wearing a hat indoors or not ending all your sentences with "sir" or "ma'am" rude anymore, for instance.

▲

gdulli 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The law is not intended to be the final say on socially positive behavior, it just defines behavior so bad the the state has been given the power to punish it.

Think of the law as only a foundation upon which to build the real society we ultimately want, where people are good to each other above and beyond the bare minimum required.

A given act can seem arbitrarily labeled as good etiquette if violations of it don't bother you. But surely you'd agree that there are some norms our society is widely agreed to be better off for practicing, despite no legal requirement for doing so. It's not necessarily going to be all the same norms you'd care about. We're all different people and won't agree about all of them. But we can make life easier for each other and ourselves by making an effort to adhere to them where possible and practical.

▲

legacynl 7 hours ago | parent [-]

I'm not advocating against social norms. But just those that don't make sense and only exist because they already exist.

My personal design for 'the society we ultimately want' would be social norms based in proper values (i.e. being nice to eachother, allowing people the freedom to do whatever, not being bothersome, etc.). From that would follow the norm to give up your seat to an old person, and the norm to help your elderly neighbor carry something heavy.

From that would not follow that we can't wear our hats indoors, or that we need to say sir and madam, or that we're not allowed to play music on speakers in public, or that we can't have a call on speaker phone.

If someone is being obnoxiously loud is a different matter.

	▲	gdulli 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I went to a baseball game the other day and kept my hat on during the national anthem. We can ignore whichever ones we want, we just have to accept the consequences for our actions. Other times I'll go along with a social norm I don't see the logic of because it's not doing harm and no inconvenience to me and it's easier than dealing with the alternative. I guess that's why they persist.