Chivalry is Dead?

[Darkpig]

11 minutes ago, Kendo 2 said:

LOL that you're pretending Liberal antics have nothing to do with the abandonment of traditional values, like chivalry.  And people don't need an 'excuse' to laugh about the state of politics in the Western World; the totalitarian Left provides all the ammunition required.  They're comedy gold without even trying.

*slowly nods head*

[Pork Type]

I understand the concept of "benevolent sexism," but not every time a man offers a social courtesy to a woman, is he attempting to insert "kindness coins" in expectation of some reward.

 

I think blue collar guys, especially, understand the concept of simple courtesies as a means towards making each other's work days a bit less aggravating. Some women may misinterpret these routine courtesies as unwelcome advances, or condescending, when it's nothing of the sort.

 

We're treating them just like fellow guys, but they're trained/wired up to interpret the input differently.

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, Pork Type said:

Some women may misinterpret these routine courtesies as unwelcome advances, or condescending, when it's nothing of the sort.

I think that statement is quite true based on some of my experiences,that's why i only do it for pregnant young women/ with prams or disabled

[2dk2c.2]

6 hours ago, KoolHndLuke said:

So what happens in a society that does not follow the Code of Chivalry or something like it? Unchivalrous is defined as being impolite, ill mannered, disrespectful, dishonorable, selfish, arrogant, inconsiderate, unsympathetic, cowardly, etc. Instead of opening a door for you, people will slam it in your face because you're not worthy of respect or consideration any more as a fellow human being. You are a potential mark.

 

But, almost all heroes or heroines from every book or movie I have ever read or viewed follows the chivalric code. They protect the old and the weak and children. Of course they get fucked sometimes by unscrupulous villains because of this code, but they keep their dignity.

 

Now maybe girls don't want to be princesses any more and boys don't want to be heroes. Maybe boys want to be princesses and girls want to be heroes. Maybe they want to be each other or neither. Maybe they want to be everyone or no one at all. It doesn't matter because there will always be some code of conduct. It just won't be as idealistic and naive as chivalry perhaps is. But it will be much colder and less humanitarian I think.

It's a PITA being judged so quickly. Maybe the person in front was preoccupied and by the time they remembered to hold the door it was too late.

And where (forgive me) do you get off calling it "chivalric"? Being polite deserves no reward, and being *impolite* has special little social labels

(jerk, asshole, etc)

And if they knew your political affiliation, your age, color race or creed, (o nevermind)

 

My chair (btw) is huge and heavy and has a clutch, and releasing it on a hill would cause injury and an instant lawsuit,

If I try telling you that in a crowd, and I sound less than tranquil, because I'm distracted trying to go up the (fucking) hill, apologies in advance.

(This happened, also nevermind)

Or, if I'm trying to get on a subway, and I forget (because the train is signalling that it's about to leave but can't because I'm blocking the door), and I forget I've got a clutch, don't take it personally, my memory really sucks at the best of times.

Follow thy code, do not denigrate others for not knowing holding a door is chivalrous, I just thought you were being nice.

You *are* nice, right?

Not some spaced-out Ronin?

 

(I'm missing a heartwarming conclusion)

 

 

 

uh,

(ahem) but since this is a game forum, and skyrim is the biggest game, and most of the mods are twisted sadistic misogynistic (I'll edit this later)

 

 

[porkybork]

4 hours ago, Kendo 2 said:

LOL that you're pretending Liberal antics have nothing to do with the abandonment of traditional values, like chivalry.  And people don't need an 'excuse' to laugh about the state of politics in the Western World; the totalitarian Left provides all the ammunition required.  They're comedy gold without even trying.

See, you say that all this is funny to you, but the way you ramble about how liberals and feminists and young women with blue hair (lol) are the cause of all the world's problems makes it pretty obvious that this upsets you.

Oh, and crying about how your romanticized idea of chivalry is dead is neither new nor is it remarkable. Chivalry died along with feudalism. It wasn't mercilessly killed off by the PC Brigade or the feminazis or whatever, it just stopped being a thing when the medieval knights became officers instead of aristocratic soldiers. Why? Because chivalry was nothing more than a loosely strung together set of informal codes of conduct for the behavior of knights in a feudal economic structure. There was never a concrete chivalric code beyond the romanticized portrayals written in the op-eds of cultural commentators since the 18th century onward. These pieces, such as those written by Edmund Burke and Lord Byron, included them melodramatically mourning the "death of Europe's glory" and bemoaned the supposed rise of "indecency in women and the youth" and the "destruction of masculinity" and a bunch of other whiny bullshit that doesn't match up with reality.

This ideal was eventually morphed into the modern use of the word "chivalry," which is that men should treat women a certain way just because they're women. While these actions may be intended as just politeness, it can easily be interpreted as unintentionally reinforcing the idea that women are defenseless damsels that need men in order to get through their daily lives. Not always, but it can be. And yes, there are men out there who think that doing "chivalric" things for women means that they're owed sex afterwords.

Anyway, what you call "chivalry" is nothing more than a sensationalized bastardization of an unofficial set of rules meant for a small portion of the population within a combat setting. I hate to break it to you, but you're not a knight, and neither is anyone else in this thread. Also, if your go-to argument for liberals being the ultimate evil is "muh traditional values," then you really have no rational arguments worth attention, especially since that's just an appeal to emotion. Not that traditional values are necessarily bad, but they are not in and of themselves an actual argument for anything, and it fails to answer the "so what?" question. Like, if you had to convince someone that it was a good idea to take care of their children, just saying that "caring for your kids is good because it's a traditional value" wouldn't be nearly as convincing as telling them that "caring for your kids is good because it makes them more likely to be well-adjusted adults who contribute to society."

 

Now, for the OP, chivalry may be long dead, but that doesn't mean that manners are also dead. There is no shortage of kind people in the world, it's just that we're wired to pay more attention to the things and people that negatively affect us. Negativity sucks, so it sticks out to us more than the positive things in life. There's a quote from Mafia III that I really like that goes something like this, "if you look for evil in the world, that's all you'll ever find." Try not to get caught up in all the negativity, because then you'll just screw yourself out of enjoying all the nicer things in life.

Now, I'd like to offer a better alternative to "chivalry": Do unto others as they'd like done unto them. That is the Platinum Rule. I think I mentioned the Golden Rule before, and while both are superior to chivalry, I'd say that the PR is the best of them all. The PR is the GR plus empathy and understanding, treating people how they would like to be treated without imposing your own will onto them in a misguided attempt at kindness. Let's use the doors situation as an example. While I may like it when another person holds the door open for me, Alice may prefer to open the doors for herself. Rather than telling Alice to shut up and let me open the door for her, I abide by the PR and let her open her own doors when she wants to. This goes both ways. The Platinum Rule is all about mutual respect and understanding, whereas chivalry is ultimately about making yourself look like a hero. The imagery of knights in shining armor isn't an accident. Seriously, holding a door open for someone doesn't make you a fucking gentleman.

 

Oof, this ended up being longer than I intended, but hopefully I got my point across to someone. I'd rather not get into serious debates or discussions online – I came here for lolz, dammit! – so I probably won't say anything else unless I really feel like it. If ya'll need me, you can find me at www.anonymousassfuxxx.net/datporkyboi ? ? ? Byyyyeeeeeee.

 

TL;DR Chivalry sucks. Platinum Rule ftw, baby!

[Pork Type]

39 minutes ago, porkybork said:

See, you say that all this is funny to you, but the way you ramble about how liberals and feminists and young women with blue hair (lol) are the cause of all the world's problems makes it pretty obvious that this upsets you.

Oh, and crying about how your romanticized idea of chivalry is dead is neither new nor is it remarkable. Chivalry died along with feudalism. It wasn't mercilessly killed off by the PC Brigade or the feminazis or whatever, it just stopped being a thing when the medieval knights became officers instead of aristocratic soldiers. Why? Because chivalry was nothing more than a loosely strung together set of informal codes of conduct for the behavior of knights in a feudal economic structure. There was never a concrete chivalric code beyond the romanticized portrayals written in the op-eds of cultural commentators since the 18th century onward. These pieces, such as those written by Edmund Burke and Lord Byron, included them melodramatically mourning the "death of Europe's glory" and bemoaned the supposed rise of "indecency in women and the youth" and the "destruction of masculinity" and a bunch of other whiny bullshit that doesn't match up with reality.

This ideal was eventually morphed into the modern use of the word "chivalry," which is that men should treat women a certain way just because they're women. While these actions may be intended as just politeness, it can easily be interpreted as unintentionally reinforcing the idea that women are defenseless damsels that need men in order to get through their daily lives. Not always, but it can be. And yes, there are men out there who think that doing "chivalric" things for women means that they're owed sex afterwords.

Anyway, what you call "chivalry" is nothing more than a sensationalized bastardization of an unofficial set of rules meant for a small portion of the population within a combat setting. I hate to break it to you, but you're not a knight, and neither is anyone else in this thread. Also, if your go-to argument for liberals being the ultimate evil is "muh traditional values," then you really have no rational arguments worth attention, especially since that's just an appeal to emotion. Not that traditional values are necessarily bad, but they are not in and of themselves an actual argument for anything, and it fails to answer the "so what?" question. Like, if you had to convince someone that it was a good idea to take care of their children, just saying that "caring for your kids is good because it's a traditional value" wouldn't be nearly as convincing as telling them that "caring for your kids is good because it makes them more likely to be well-adjusted adults who contribute to society."

 

Now, for the OP, chivalry may be long dead, but that doesn't mean that manners are also dead. There is no shortage of kind people in the world, it's just that we're wired to pay more attention to the things and people that negatively affect us. Negativity sucks, so it sticks out to us more than the positive things in life. There's a quote from Mafia III that I really like that goes something like this, "if you look for evil in the world, that's all you'll ever find." Try not to get caught up in all the negativity, because then you'll just screw yourself out of enjoying all the nicer things in life.

Now, I'd like to offer a better alternative to "chivalry": Do unto others as they'd like done unto them. That is the Platinum Rule. I think I mentioned the Golden Rule before, and while both are superior to chivalry, I'd say that the PR is the best of them all. The PR is the GR plus empathy and understanding, treating people how they would like to be treated without imposing your own will onto them in a misguided attempt at kindness. Let's use the doors situation as an example. While I may like it when another person holds the door open for me, Alice may prefer to open the doors for herself. Rather than telling Alice to shut up and let me open the door for her, I abide by the PR and let her open her own doors when she wants to. This goes both ways. The Platinum Rule is all about mutual respect and understanding, whereas chivalry is ultimately about making yourself look like a hero. The imagery of knights in shining armor isn't an accident. Seriously, holding a door open for someone doesn't make you a fucking gentleman.

 

Oof, this ended up being longer than I intended, but hopefully I got my point across to someone. I'd rather not get into serious debates or discussions online – I came here for lolz, dammit! – so I probably won't say anything else unless I really feel like it. If ya'll need me, you can find me at www.anonymousassfuxxx.net/datporkyboi ? ? ? Byyyyeeeeeee.

 

TL;DR Chivalry sucks. Platinum Rule ftw, baby!

This is a blog post.

 

"Oof, this ended up being longer than I intended, but hopefully I got my point across to someone. I'd rather not get into serious debates or discussions online – I came here for lolz, dammit!"

 

Stay within your self declared boundaries, then? That's what I try to do.

[nonusnomeni]

if it is not dead i will kill it

because todays women do not deserve special treatment

 

[Pork Type]

12 minutes ago, nonusnomeni said:

because todays Western women do not deserve special treatment

 

FTFY

[gregathit]

13 hours ago, porkybork said:

See, you say that all this is funny to you, but the way you ramble about how liberals and feminists and young women with blue hair (lol) are the cause of all the world's problems makes it pretty obvious that this upsets you.

I obviously can't speak for Kendo2, but I do agree with his outlook on this and I can honestly say it doesn't upset me in the least.  It DOES make me laugh hard enough to nearly cause internal organ damage.  Some of the things they say are just so outrageous that you can't possibly get upset at someone so simple minded.

 

13 hours ago, porkybork said:

Oh, and crying about how your romanticized idea of chivalry is dead is neither new nor is it remarkable. Chivalry died along with feudalism. It wasn't mercilessly killed off by the PC Brigade or the feminazis or whatever, it just stopped being a thing when the medieval knights became officers instead of aristocratic soldiers. Why? Because chivalry was nothing more than a loosely strung together set of informal codes of conduct for the behavior of knights in a feudal economic structure. There was never a concrete chivalric code beyond the romanticized portrayals written in the op-eds of cultural commentators since the 18th century onward. These pieces, such as those written by Edmund Burke and Lord Byron, included them melodramatically mourning the "death of Europe's glory" and bemoaned the supposed rise of "indecency in women and the youth" and the "destruction of masculinity" and a bunch of other whiny bullshit that doesn't match up with reality.

This ideal was eventually morphed into the modern use of the word "chivalry," which is that men should treat women a certain way just because they're women. While these actions may be intended as just politeness, it can easily be interpreted as unintentionally reinforcing the idea that women are defenseless damsels that need men in order to get through their daily lives. Not always, but it can be. And yes, there are men out there who think that doing "chivalric" things for women means that they're owed sex afterwords.

Anyway, what you call "chivalry" is nothing more than a sensationalized bastardization of an unofficial set of rules meant for a small portion of the population within a combat setting. I hate to break it to you, but you're not a knight, and neither is anyone else in this thread. Also, if your go-to argument for liberals being the ultimate evil is "muh traditional values," then you really have no rational arguments worth attention, especially since that's just an appeal to emotion. Not that traditional values are necessarily bad, but they are not in and of themselves an actual argument for anything, and it fails to answer the "so what?" question. Like, if you had to convince someone that it was a good idea to take care of their children, just saying that "caring for your kids is good because it's a traditional value" wouldn't be nearly as convincing as telling them that "caring for your kids is good because it makes them more likely to be well-adjusted adults who contribute to society."

And now the PC grammar police with their jack boots come stomping in to tell everyone else what their interpretation of a word is.  Correction, not their interpretation, what YOUR interpretation should be.  And this is why I absolutely refuse to buy off on ANY of these new so called ideals or words/phrases.  Because all of them are nothing more than speech/thought policing.  Won't work on folks like me.  Sorry.  

 

Who says I can't be a knight?  Who are you to make that decision?  Who are you to tell me what my interpretation of chivalric code is?  We all know that this isn't the 16th or 18th century and that word meanings can change, right?  When I talk about the chivalric code, I mean protecting the weak/poor and following the golden rule.  I think most folks interpret this similarly.  I think we can both agree that very few folks have read Edmund Burke (I sure as hell haven't) so we can rule that out on making some massive global impact.

 

Bottom line, speech policing is bad.  Instead, find out what folks are really trying to say.  I think we can all agree that following the golden rule is ideal.

 

Oh, I especially enjoyed the snide attack on traditional values.  Priceless.  Too bad the same yardstick isn't used on all of all of the liberal philosophies out there.  Not one single thing they have to say would meet the "so what" test.  I'm so using that from now on when I argue with any feminist, liberal or like minded individual.  Thank you.  This should entertain me for the rest of my life as I tell them their thoughts/policies/arguments don't pass the  "so what" test and watch them freak out.  

 

13 hours ago, porkybork said:

Now, for the OP, chivalry may be long dead, but that doesn't mean that manners are also dead. There is no shortage of kind people in the world, it's just that we're wired to pay more attention to the things and people that negatively affect us. Negativity sucks, so it sticks out to us more than the positive things in life. There's a quote from Mafia III that I really like that goes something like this, "if you look for evil in the world, that's all you'll ever find." Try not to get caught up in all the negativity, because then you'll just screw yourself out of enjoying all the nicer things in life.

Now, I'd like to offer a better alternative to "chivalry": Do unto others as they'd like done unto them. That is the Platinum Rule. I think I mentioned the Golden Rule before, and while both are superior to chivalry, I'd say that the PR is the best of them all. The PR is the GR plus empathy and understanding, treating people how they would like to be treated without imposing your own will onto them in a misguided attempt at kindness. Let's use the doors situation as an example. While I may like it when another person holds the door open for me, Alice may prefer to open the doors for herself. Rather than telling Alice to shut up and let me open the door for her, I abide by the PR and let her open her own doors when she wants to. This goes both ways. The Platinum Rule is all about mutual respect and understanding, whereas chivalry is ultimately about making yourself look like a hero. The imagery of knights in shining armor isn't an accident. Seriously, holding a door open for someone doesn't make you a fucking gentleman.

I reject your interpretation of Chivalry and I also utterly reject your platinum rule.  Why do I reject your platinum rule?  Because it is pure and utter nonsense.  Seriously.  How in the wide fucking world of sports am I supposed to know how someone wants to be treated?  That is precisely the mind numbingly stupid diatribe that Kendo2 was saying is hilarious.  Fabulously hilarious in fact.  So since I can't possibly know what you are thinking, do I just guess?  Wow.  Just Wow.  Talk about massive confusion!  I guess we can throw manners out the window and just wing it.  So......let's follow this logically:  do I open the door for a woman, grab her by the pussy, spit on her, say hi, ignore her, look at her hair, look at her shoes, turn my back to her, try to act natural, salute, take a selfie of my wiener..................?  I'm so fucking confused.  Maybe you can make one of those deals you shake and it gives you the proper response.  Can't you just see everyone walking around with one of those things, furiously shaking them to see what they should do every time the encounter someone else.? That's your platinum rule right there:  total chaos.  Brilliant.  I predict the suicide rate will climb by 30 percent as folks loose all hope of ever guessing what the proper response to other people is.  It has zero to do with mutual respect or understanding.  Those things aren't realistically possible with total strangers now are they?  Of course, there is no denying some good things might actually come about with this, like facebook and twitter dying out completely.  ROFL!!!!

 

That is why the golden rule is about YOU.  YOU treat others the way you want to be treated.  See how simple that is?  You are giving folks a clear roadmap that even a total stranger can follow on how you want to be treated.  No missed cues, no shaking some answers ball and hoping for the best.  You take responsibility for YOUR actions.   This is why all the far left and far right and special interest groups diatribe is nonsense.  Because they want to demand that everyone else say/think/do what THEY want.  The answer is no.  It will always be no.  It is about time they learn to deal with it.

 

[Corsayr]

So moderators are breaking forum rules now?

 

In an effort to keep the site & community inviting and friendly we do not allow several categories of conversation. This is not intended as censorship or endorsement of any particular view, but rather a move to keep this site neutral and open. The categories of conversation that are not welcome include those discussing politics and religion. Too often these discussions descend into pointless bickering and lead to offending one party or the other (if not both). This sends the wrong message of what this site is all about. There are plenty of forums, blogs and other online outlets available for these types of conversations, this site is not one of them.

[2dk2c.2]

49 minutes ago, gregathit said:

 

 

 

I obviously can't speak for Kendo2, but I do agree with his outlook on this and I can honestly say it doesn't upset me in the least.  It DOES make me laugh hard enough to nearly cause internal organ damage.  Some of the things they say are just so outrageous that you can't possibly get upset at someone so simple minded.

 

And now the PC grammar police with their jack boots come stomping in to tell everyone else what their interpretation of a word is.  Correction, not their interpretation, what YOUR interpretation should be.  And this is why I absolutely refuse to buy off on ANY of these new so called ideals or words/phrases.  Because all of them are nothing more than speech/thought policing.  Won't work on folks like me.  Sorry.  

 

Who says I can't be a knight?  Who are you to make that decision?  Who are you to tell me what my interpretation of chivalric code is?  We all know that this isn't the 16th or 18th century and that word meanings can change, right?  When I talk about the chivalric code, I mean protecting the weak/poor and following the golden rule.  I think most folks interpret this similarly.  I think we can both agree that very few folks have read Edmund Burke (I sure as hell haven't) so we can rule that out on making some massive global impact.

 

Bottom line, speech policing is bad.  Instead, find out what folks are really trying to say.  I think we can all agree that following the golden rule is ideal.
 

 

Oh, I especially enjoyed the snide attack on traditional values.  Priceless.  Too bad the same yardstick isn't used on all of all of the liberal philosophies out there.

 

Not one single thing they have to say would meet the "so what" test.  I'm so using that from now on when I argue with any feminist, liberal or like minded individual.  Thank you.  This should entertain me for the rest of my life as I tell them their thoughts/policies/arguments don't pass the  "so what" test and watch them freak out.  

 

 

I reject your interpretation of Chivalry and I also utterly reject your platinum rule.  Why do I reject your platinum rule?  Because it is pure and utter nonsense.  Seriously.  How in the wide fucking world of sports am I supposed to know how someone wants to be treated?  That is precisely the mind numbingly stupid diatribe that Kendo2 was saying is hilarious.  Fabulously hilarious in fact.  So since I can't possibly know what you are thinking, do I just guess?  Wow.  Just Wow.  Talk about massive confusion!  I guess we can throw manners out the window and just wing it.  So......let's follow this logically:  do I open the door for a woman, grab her by the pussy, spit on her, say hi, ignore her, look at her hair, look at her shoes, turn my back to her, try to act natural, salute, take a selfie of my wiener..................?  I'm so fucking confused.  Maybe you can make one of those deals you shake and it gives you the proper response.  Can't you just see everyone walking around with one of those things, furiously shaking them to see what they should do every time the encounter someone else.? That's your platinum rule right there:  total chaos.  Brilliant.  I predict the suicide rate will climb by 30 percent as folks loose all hope of ever guessing what the proper response to other people is.  It has zero to do with mutual respect or understanding.  Those things aren't realistically possible with total strangers now are they?  Of course, there is no denying some good things might actually come about with this, like facebook and twitter dying out completely.

 

  ROFL!!!!

 

 

 

That is why the golden rule is about YOU.  YOU treat others the way you want to be treated.  See how simple that is?  You are giving folks a clear roadmap that even a total stranger can follow on how you want to be treated.  No missed cues, no shaking some answers ball and hoping for the best.  You take responsibility for YOUR actions.   This is why all the far left and far right and special interest groups diatribe is nonsense.  Because they want to demand that everyone else say/think/do what THEY want.  The answer is no.  It will always be no.  It is about time they learn to deal with it.

 

 

 Yes it's true the good book agrees with you

But...

if you (if anyone) were a masochist or an ex-con accustomed to having people punch them to greet them, 

or if they were raised badly and thought

stranger-teen-women really wanted to know how hot their ass looked while crossing the street at noon on a wednesday,

Or if, recovering from benders-untold, they suddenly decided everyone (everyone) needed a hug, 

(I had more examples but it would look like ranting)

Beeeesiides, I only wondered about a really old song with the line "You tip your hat to that Lady, son", in a sort of mississippi-sheriff accent.
I'll try to find a link

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=952h-AJ3Bcg

 

 

 

 

 

[FauxFurry]

35 minutes ago, gregathit said:

That is why the golden rule is about YOU.  YOU treat others the way you want to be treated.  See how simple that is?  You are giving folks a clear roadmap that even a total stranger can follow on how you want to be treated.  No missed cues, no shaking some answers ball and hoping for the best.  You take responsibility for YOUR actions.   This is why all the far left and far right and special interest groups diatribe is nonsense.  Because they want to demand that everyone else say/think/do what THEY want.  The answer is no.  It will always be no.  It is about time they learn to deal with it.

 

I prefer Confucius' old saying which translates to "Don't do unto others what you don't want done to you." to the Golden Rule.

As such, I wouldn't repeat the Platinum Rule to anyone non-ironically outside of a strictly descriptive context. 

[DoctaSax]

I'll hold a door open for anyone, after I've gone through it, ie staying to keep it open rather than rushing ahead, opening it and then waiting for them to pass before you go through yourself. The former's easy enough and no trouble, the latter's trying too hard. I don't think anyone with decently healthy legs and a sense of equilibrium needs anyone to slide a chair under their butt or help getting them out of a car. Still, if people can use some help there, I can do that, not a problem.

 

The trouble with holding doors open can be that there's another person following that one and the one you held it open for walks on by, leaving you standing there as the designated door holder. Awkward. So in simple repayment for this kindness and the possible awkwardness, I expect something like a nod or a simple 'thanks'. It's only natural. Anyone making a fuss saying that this somehow enforces some stereotype of weakness on them can turn right around and go back outside before I slam it shut. If they're too busy ogling their phones to acknowledge me when I hold that door open, I make a mental note not to do it for that person anymore. That's only natural too.

 

There's a natural erosion going on when it comes to these small kindnesses, on top of any agenda, which I think doesn't nearly affect them as much. People in the city are less likely to keep adhering to them, perhaps due to a lower sense of community sense or maybe you just notice it more because there are more people. Technology and increased stress in general also cause distraction, alienation, and more self-centeredness. As always, all you can do is continue to do what you do.

 

 

 

[Corsayr]

As for Golden Rules and Platinum Rules, they are fine things for bumper stickers and tee shirts. But as thinking reasoning human being you should not need them to perform the simple task of being a decent human being. The human brain is more than up to the task of assessing each individual instance on those instances merits. 

 

You see someone approaching a door carrying a bunch of bags, what do you do? Open the door! 

 

You see a woman in athletic gear approaching a door obviously finishing her morning exercise routine, what do you do? She can probably handle the door herself. 

 

Things like that. 

 

5 minutes ago, DoctaSax said:

People in the city are less likely to keep adhering to them

As someone who works in a city, I can say that holding doors has been phased out more due to technology and practicality than any consideration of personal interactions.  

 

Many buildings use revolving doors for economic reasons, and most buildings have automatic doors for handicapped access reasons. 

 

The "offering a seat" thing is a bigger issue due to the higher focus on public transportation as a result of parking constraints. 

 

8 minutes ago, DoctaSax said:

leaving you standing there as the designated door holder. Awkward.

A definite hazard, on a busy enough day you can get stuck there for a while. ?

 

 

[Kendo 2]

Far Left Rag MOCKS Failures Of Young Men as HILARIOUS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAIcKS7wVGk

So is there any wonder that men are rejecting chivalry?  BTW, Tim Pool is a progressive.

 

EDIT: and I can't believe I agree with gregathit.  I need to do some soul-searching. ?

[2dk2c.2]

21 minutes ago, DoctaSax said:

I'll hold a door open for anyone, after I've gone through it, ie staying to keep it open rather than rushing ahead, opening it and then waiting for them to pass before you go through yourself. The former's easy enough and no trouble, the latter's trying too hard. I don't think anyone with decently healthy legs and a sense of equilibrium needs anyone to slide a chair under their butt or help getting them out of a car. Still, if people can use some help there, I can do that, not a problem.

 

The trouble with holding doors open can be that there's another person following that one and the one you held it open for walks on by, leaving you standing there as the designated door holder. Awkward. So in simple repayment for this kindness and the possible awkwardness, I expect something like a nod or a simple 'thanks'. It's only natural. Anyone making a fuss saying that this somehow enforces some stereotype of weakness on them can turn right around and go back outside before I slam it shut. If they're too busy ogling their phones to acknowledge me when I hold that door open, I make a mental note not to do it for that person anymore. That's only natural too.

 

There's a natural erosion going on when it comes to these small kindnesses, on top of any agenda, which I think doesn't nearly affect them as much. People in the city are less likely to keep adhering to them, perhaps due to a lower sense of community sense or maybe you just notice it more because there are more people. Technology and increased stress in general also cause distraction, alienation, and more self-centeredness. As always, all you can do is continue to do what you do.

 

 

 

I like this. *Thank you*.

Except I wouldn't want to feel *obligated* to thank you, just as you (prolly) don't want to feel obligated to hold open doors.

So hanging back waiting for a person to finally close the door or to turn left onto a highway from a driveway-sidewalk, presents problems for me.

(and turning right into crosswalks).

 

The saintly individual with powers of comprehension far beyond those of mortals, knows that I cannot cross the street as fast as they can turn right, even if they *are* the second or third-car in a line of cars and everyone else wants to go straight, so they'll go ahead, making me feel tons more at ease.

 But most don't, and I wait precious seconds to touch my toe to the street,

when suddenly a right turner just in front of me decides to cut me off and sit there in the crosswalk!!

I don't care about their political affiliations, some things are law no matter what

Don't use my crosswalk to park

Touch not, lest ye be arrested.

Do not rant, it is unseemly

They didn't say "Jerk", be happy.

 

And worry not what color my shirt is, and I'll ignore the gargantuan size of your empty shiny-truck.

 

[spoonsinger]

courtesy

/ˈkəːtɪsi/

noun

noun: courtesy; plural noun: courtesies

1. 1.

   the showing of politeness in one's attitude and behaviour towards others.

[Corsayr]

9 minutes ago, Kendo 2 said:

Far Left Rag MOCKS Failures Of Young Men as HILARIOUS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAIcKS7wVGk

So is there any wonder that men are rejecting chivalry?  BTW, Tim Pool is a progressive.

 

EDIT: and I can't believe I agree with gregathit.  I need to do some soul-searching. ?

It's good to know some dude on youtube is the reason chivalry is dead, maybe people will stop blaming me. ?

[gregathit]

1 hour ago, 2dk2c.2 said:

 Yes it's true the good book agrees with you

But...

if you (if anyone) were a masochist or an ex-con accustomed to having people punch them to greet them, 

or if they were raised badly and thought

stranger-teen-women really wanted to know how hot their ass looked while crossing the street at noon on a wednesday,

Or if, recovering from benders-untold, they suddenly decided everyone (everyone) needed a hug, 

(I had more examples but it would look like ranting)

Beeeesiides, I only wondered about a really old song with the line "You tip your hat to that Lady, son", in a sort of mississippi-sheriff accent.
I'll try to find a link

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=952h-AJ3Bcg

Just more circular logic.  Most folks aren't masochists or mass murders, so your point is? In some cultures hugging might be the norm, so not doing so would cause offense.  You can always poke holes in general statements.  That is was not the point of this exercise........or if it was, then I'm the one that missed the boat (or did I just refuse to get in............hummmmmm......).  LOL!

[gregathit]

30 minutes ago, Kendo 2 said:

Far Left Rag MOCKS Failures Of Young Men as HILARIOUS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAIcKS7wVGk

So is there any wonder that men are rejecting chivalry?  BTW, Tim Pool is a progressive.

 

EDIT: and I can't believe I agree with gregathit.  I need to do some soul-searching. ?

LOL!  I think you'd find we tend to agree more than you might think.  I think the difference is more in how we express things.  My fire (and fight) burned out a while ago......yours is still going strong.  Which I do have respect for.

[gregathit]

1 hour ago, Corsayr said:

So moderators are breaking forum rules now?

 

In an effort to keep the site & community inviting and friendly we do not allow several categories of conversation. This is not intended as censorship or endorsement of any particular view, but rather a move to keep this site neutral and open. The categories of conversation that are not welcome include those discussing politics and religion. Too often these discussions descend into pointless bickering and lead to offending one party or the other (if not both). This sends the wrong message of what this site is all about. There are plenty of forums, blogs and other online outlets available for these types of conversations, this site is not one of them.

I don't recall mentioning democrats or republicans, nor any religious group, so maybe you aught to actually read my posts instead of interjecting what you thought I said.  I'd appreciate it.

[Corsayr]

1 hour ago, gregathit said:

I'm so using that from now on when I argue with any feminist, liberal or like minded individual.

 

1 hour ago, gregathit said:

PC grammar police with their jack boots come stomping

 

1 hour ago, gregathit said:

This is why all the far left and far right and special interest groups diatribe is nonsense. 

 

[gregathit]

1 hour ago, Corsayr said:

snip..........

None of the above are political parties or religious groups, at least not in the US anyway.

[RitualClarity]

Damn... didn't know I needed to worry about this shit...

 

Fuck, yep.... still don't give a flying fuck.

 

Why are people worried about what somebody is thinking of you when you do something kind, nice, or polite?  If you are truly doing it for good (not trying to get into someone pants or gain some advantage) those that know you will very soon learn that and start to appreciate it.. even if they don't agree with it. Those very few that don't... well in my opinion can go fuck themselves.  They aren't worth my concern.

 

[Resdayn]

What a shitstorm is this thread jeez. ?

 

This hole thing died out in my country regardless politics or whatever ya blame of, and we in east eu not have the US levels of politics, nor weirdo blue haired persons who hates the other gender or hardcore feminist who forget their own ideals?‍♀️.

 

Just conservatives who forget how biology and economy works or why young folks won't create kids, but thats different story.

 

How do you explain that thing?

 

And now here holding door count as a generic politeness rather a chilvarious action, here even a women opens the door for ya regardless your gender and age.