first name basis

[Kron3007]

So those change agents do not get to simply assert: 'we have changed, deal with it'.  Nor get offended when the traditionalists say: 'tough patooties, we ain't changin'.'

Yeah, buddy, I'm afraid they do on both counts.  It's in the Constitution.  Numerical numbers have nothing really to do with it----and I don't think my position is terribly avant garde at all.  I think the numericals are actually the inverse of what you are suggesting.

And of course there is the related question of how to figure out how to deal with any given person, in the sense that if you decide that I have the right to be addressed as I wish, and you as you wish, how does either one of us know what the other's preferences here are?   

You have to hash it out.  I used to ask my students if they had a particular way they wanted to be addressed----nicknames, diminutives (ex. "Freddy" for "Frederick"), etc.----and I apologized when I got it wrong.

But I don't think personal address is a "right," simply a common courtesy that most people will voluntarily observe.

This of course is another piece of evidence suggestive of some sort of overarching cultural standard that would allow each of us to assume a priori how to address the other, unless specific instructions/ evidence to the contrary are given.

There is a cultural standard.  It is shifting.

I am also still going to push back on the idea that anyone realistically is going to say he does not mind if someone wears a 'f*ck you sh*thead' shirt in public.   You may well say you would not care, would not differentiate your response to this person upon such a sight, but, despite your doubtlessly motivated by progressive sympathies notion, methinks that, ultimately, you are lying to yourself.

I was only speaking for myself.  Other people would indeed be offended by an obscene insult on a T-shirt. I might be offended by a T-shirt degrading women or a racist or fascist T-shirt.

I am just not sure there is very much I could do about it except complain to management if I were someplace like a mall or a Barnes & Nobels.  I suppose I could punch someone, but they would probably punch me back and/or I would be arrested.

Sometimes we have to accept what other people do, say, and think, even if we hates it, hates it, hates it.

I'm really sorry to hear about your health concerns.  I am dealing seriously for the first time in my life with potentially dangerous hypertension.  Getting old sucks.  You will be in my thoughts and prayers.  And I will celebrate when you get better!!!

The irony is that people wearing an obviously offensive shirt are doi g so to get a rise out of people, and taking offense to it simply accomplishes their goal.  As they say, don't feed the troll.

As mentioned, we all have the right to dress and communicate as we see fit, just as we all have the right to take offense to what others wear and how they act.

There really isn't a right or wrong, at least withing the limits of freedom of expression etc.  This is obviously quite gray, but also clear that using formal address or not, does not violate it.

In the end, you only have control over how you act and how you respond to others. You can take offense to other people's life choices, or not. Living in a world of constant offense seems stressful.



 

[bio-nonymous]

I like to think we are allowed to express ourselves, dress, act and speak in whatever manner we so choose in this country (USA), with the caveat that you will need to deal with the consequences. Social mores determine what is appropriate in given situations, and yes they are constantly evolving. It is certainly up to you if you want to wear a "F*$# You" t-shirt to your arraignment hearing, but the CONSEQUENCES of that action are also on you.

In my personal life I try my best to ignore "boorish" or ignorant behavior by others and not get distracted and uptight over stuff--I leaned long ago that I am not the world's policeman and do not need to right all wrongs and address all slights... This doesn't always succeed when, for one example, I am trapped behind someone going 15 mph under the speed limit!

In my part of the country it is still customary for younger people to refer to older adult males as "Sir" and females as "Ma'am". When I first started getting called sir I was a bit flustered, since it meant I was "OLD" now. But now I have come to accept it as just another part of life that doesn't really matter much in the long run.

[dismalist]

Sir??? People do address me as Sir from time to time. I usually ask them to desist, otherwise I would start believing it!

[kaysixteen]

I get the idea of being willing to accept the social, etc., consequences of poor personal expression choices, but this should not be the be-all and end-all of the discussion.   Put simply, as I have mentioned here before, all rights do not devolve on individuals-- society has some rights.  Consider the following:

1) I am a middle aged fat white Gentile dude.   What if, otoh, I were a 30yo black or Jewish female professor, and Joe Punkass Undergrad shows up with a swastika shirt?   Would I then have the right to assert that his doing so created an unbearably hostile work environment for me?

2) Regardless of ethnicity or religion of onlookers, could the campus, retail store, etc, simply decide that there were certain forms of personal expression too dangerous or offensive to allow?   If Dumbass Troll shows up with a 'Kill all the Jews' t-shirt, must his presence therewith be accepted?

3) There remains a role for societal norms and conventions.  We are not tribal people in the jungle.   Sumo wrestlers, further, however much they are cultural icons in Japan, do not wear their sumo suits on the Tokyo subway. 

4) In all cases, further, the onus is absolutely on those who would try to induce folks in society to accept radical changes in mores, etc., to demonstrate why they should be able to do so, and, failing that, to allow, without whining or self-righteous boasting, the traditionalists to continue to do as they have always done, always been taught to do.  This is especially the case when the changers are young, puffed up with their own post-adolescent 'wisdom' and self-importance.

[Wahoo Redux]

I get the idea of being willing to accept the social, etc., consequences of poor personal expression choices, but this should not be the be-all and end-all of the discussion.  Put simply, as I have mentioned here before, all rights do not devolve on individuals-- society has some rights.  Consider the following:

1) I am a middle aged fat white Gentile dude.  What if, otoh, I were a 30yo black or Jewish female professor, and Joe Punkass Undergrad shows up with a swastika shirt?  Would I then have the right to assert that his doing so created an unbearably hostile work environment for me?

Yes, I think we have agreed on this.  To begin with, a workplace has rules of conduct.

2) Regardless of ethnicity or religion of onlookers, could the campus, retail store, etc, simply decide that there were certain forms of personal expression too dangerous or offensive to allow?  If Dumbass Troll shows up with a 'Kill all the Jews' t-shirt, must his presence therewith be accepted?

Yes.  Again, workplace.

3) There remains a role for societal norms and conventions.  We are not tribal people in the jungle.  Sumo wrestlers, further, however much they are cultural icons in Japan, do not wear their sumo suits on the Tokyo subway.

I believe I said "in context of the sport." But if sumo wrestlers wore their athletic accoutrements on the subway, would anyone object? 

4) In all cases, further, the onus is absolutely on those who would try to induce folks in society to accept radical changes in mores, etc., to demonstrate why they should be able to do so, and, failing that, to allow, without whining or self-righteous boasting, the traditionalists to continue to do as they have always done, always been taught to do. 

There is an essential disconnect, failure of comprehension, or refusal to comprehend here. 

The traditionalists may do as they like within the boundaries of the law. If you were taught to behave a particular way, go for it. That has never been in contention.  The traditionalists need not accept anything.  The traditionalists can be mad about anything they like.  Note that they can't force the non-trads to be traditionalists without the voluntary buy-in of the non-trads.  But live the way you want to live. 

The non-trads do not have to live the way the traditionalists live, however.  And if this bothers the traditionalists, that is the bad luck of the traditionalists.  The world does not revolve around traditionalists, no matter how firmly they believe it should.

This is especially the case when the changers are young, puffed up with their own post-adolescent 'wisdom' and self-importance.

You kids get off my lawn!!!

Are you not getting the respect you think you deserve, Dr. K?

Sorry, man, the changers can do whatever they want, even if that drives you nuts.

If you are waiting for the changers to ask for your permission, you're gonna be waiting a long, long while, my friend, and there is nothing you can do about it.

[Hegemony]

I think it's worth asking what satisfaction you get from disapproving of the way people do things. If you're not getting satisfaction from feeling this way, you could try not minding, and that would make you feel better. But if you already like feeling this way, then it's all good.

[kaysixteen]

I do not take pleasure in this, and nothing I have said should reasonably be interpreted this way.  But I do believe what I say, and think society loses many things when it adopts this 'slobification'/ no respect for elders, etc., attitude.   And I believe my views are biblical.

Some years back, on the old fora, we had a long-running 'mother-in-law' thread, largely started by youngish academic women who did not like that their MILS disapproved of various aspects of their lifestyle and viewpoints.  Culture clashes, generation gaps, significant differences on attitudes towards religion, higher ed, etc., notwithstanding, I did try to suggest to some of these youngish DILs that, esp if they had a son, they would likely one day be MILs of DILs themselves, and, well...

[Kron3007]

I do not take pleasure in this, and nothing I have said should reasonably be interpreted this way.  But I do believe what I say, and think society loses many things when it adopts this 'slobification'/ no respect for elders, etc., attitude.   And I believe my views are biblical.

Some years back, on the old fora, we had a long-running 'mother-in-law' thread, largely started by youngish academic women who did not like that their MILS disapproved of various aspects of their lifestyle and viewpoints.  Culture clashes, generation gaps, significant differences on attitudes towards religion, higher ed, etc., notwithstanding, I did try to suggest to some of these youngish DILs that, esp if they had a son, they would likely one day be MILs of DILs themselves, and, well...

The hubris of using Christianity to judge others, the irony is palpable.  Isn't that the opposite of biblical, it did I read a different bible?

This is a trick question since I have not read the Bible, but it definitely seems contrary to the crib notes.

[ciao_yall]

I do not take pleasure in this, and nothing I have said should reasonably be interpreted this way.  But I do believe what I say, and think society loses many things when it adopts this 'slobification'/ no respect for elders, etc., attitude.  And I believe my views are biblical.

Some years back, on the old fora, we had a long-running 'mother-in-law' thread, largely started by youngish academic women who did not like that their MILS disapproved of various aspects of their lifestyle and viewpoints.  Culture clashes, generation gaps, significant differences on attitudes towards religion, higher ed, etc., notwithstanding, I did try to suggest to some of these youngish DILs that, esp if they had a son, they would likely one day be MILs of DILs themselves, and, well...

"Respecting your elders" means treating people with respect and being thoughtful and mindful in one's actions. It means when your childlike impulses cause you to act out, the adults in the room are there to help you behave yourself, even when you don't feel like it... because that's what being a civilized human being is all about. It means remembering that there are other points of view and lessons learned in life, and maybe other people have something to say even if they aren't your cool friends.

Still, some "elders" aren't behaving respectably - should we tolerate that behavior? Other "elders" use that phrase as an excuse to be abusive and weaponize standing up for oneself and setting boundaries.

[apl68]

I do not take pleasure in this, and nothing I have said should reasonably be interpreted this way.  But I do believe what I say, and think society loses many things when it adopts this 'slobification'/ no respect for elders, etc., attitude.  And I believe my views are biblical.

Some years back, on the old fora, we had a long-running 'mother-in-law' thread, largely started by youngish academic women who did not like that their MILS disapproved of various aspects of their lifestyle and viewpoints.  Culture clashes, generation gaps, significant differences on attitudes towards religion, higher ed, etc., notwithstanding, I did try to suggest to some of these youngish DILs that, esp if they had a son, they would likely one day be MILs of DILs themselves, and, well...

The hubris of using Christianity to judge others, the irony is palpable.  Isn't that the opposite of biblical, it did I read a different bible?

This is a trick question since I have not read the Bible, but it definitely seems contrary to the crib notes.

Jesus spoke of not judging others in the sense of presuming to sit in judgement over them.  Only God has that right.  However, Christians are encouraged in the New Testament to compare the behavior of themselves and others against the standards set forth in scripture.  It's a way of keeping ourselves honest, and of helping to keep others honest. 

If we see things in our own lives that don't measure up, we know that this is something to work on.  If we see such things in the life of a professing fellow Christian, we have a responsibility--in a humble and caring manner--to point those out to help the other to work on them.  Jesus' often-misquoted "take the log out of your own eye before you take the speck of dust out of your brother's eye" is about having this attitude, not a prohibition against ever having anything to say about somebody else's conduct.

All that said--we all, religious or otherwise, can fall, if we aren't careful, into the temptation to regard uncongenial behaviors, styles, customs, etc. as moral issues when they really aren't as important as all that.

[Kron3007]

I do not take pleasure in this, and nothing I have said should reasonably be interpreted this way.  But I do believe what I say, and think society loses many things when it adopts this 'slobification'/ no respect for elders, etc., attitude.  And I believe my views are biblical.

Some years back, on the old fora, we had a long-running 'mother-in-law' thread, largely started by youngish academic women who did not like that their MILS disapproved of various aspects of their lifestyle and viewpoints.  Culture clashes, generation gaps, significant differences on attitudes towards religion, higher ed, etc., notwithstanding, I did try to suggest to some of these youngish DILs that, esp if they had a son, they would likely one day be MILs of DILs themselves, and, well...

The hubris of using Christianity to judge others, the irony is palpable.  Isn't that the opposite of biblical, it did I read a different bible?

This is a trick question since I have not read the Bible, but it definitely seems contrary to the crib notes.

Jesus spoke of not judging others in the sense of presuming to sit in judgement over them.  Only God has that right.  However, Christians are encouraged in the New Testament to compare the behavior of themselves and others against the standards set forth in scripture.  It's a way of keeping ourselves honest, and of helping to keep others honest. 

If we see things in our own lives that don't measure up, we know that this is something to work on.  If we see such things in the life of a professing fellow Christian, we have a responsibility--in a humble and caring manner--to point those out to help the other to work on them.  Jesus' often-misquoted "take the log out of your own eye before you take the speck of dust out of your brother's eye" is about having this attitude, not a prohibition against ever having anything to say about somebody else's conduct.

All that said--we all, religious or otherwise, can fall, if we aren't careful, into the temptation to regard uncongenial behaviors, styles, customs, etc. as moral issues when they really aren't as important as all that.

I am not going to debate the intricacies of a book I have not read, and that is often twisted by experts to support a variety of opposing conclusions, but from what I know of Jesus' message I don't think judging people based on their use of honorifics and taking offense when they dont was his intention.

Kay has also gone on about tattoos, etc., and I am pretty sure the bible explicitly states not to judge based on appearances.  Again, it can probably be twisted to mean the opposite of what it actually says, but this one seems like a stretch.   

[bacardiandlime]

The Bible does forbid tattoos though (in Leviticus; therefore it's also a rule in Jewish law).

I don't recall any discussion of calling people by their first name though. In fact, most figures in the Bible have only one name.

[Kron3007]

a

[Kron3007]

The Bible does forbid tattoos though (in Leviticus; therefore it's also a rule in Jewish law).

I don't recall any discussion of calling people by their first name though. In fact, most figures in the Bible have only one name.

It forbids a lot of things that no one listens to no?

Are we also judging those wearing clothes made from two materials, or just cherry picking to fit our personal opinions?

[AmLitHist]

Kron reminded me of this scene relevant to proof-texting. (And I'm still waiting for a real-life Jed Bartlett.)