I disagree that strangers as a potential threat is one of the driving motivators for this practice. It may be a rationalization for it, but it is not a natural position to take.
In sparsely populated areas, where strangers are less frequent, strangers are often assumed to be friendly. People are still wary, of course, because there is always the possibility that a stranger is dangerous, but this is not a particularly strong reason to avoid them completely. The occasions where this seems to not be true are when individuals want nothing to do with anybody new, regardless of who they are or where they come from or what potential threat they might be (i.e. the old man with the “trespassers shot on sight” signs posted doesn’t want anything to do with anybody).
In sparsely populated areas people will often take random strangers in need into their home for a night or two, far more than any small request the average stranger in a city might make, yet the people in the sparsely populated areas don’t seem particularly put off by this.
Your second point I think hits closer to the mark. People believe it is rude to say no, and so seek to avoid situations where they can be trapped into small requests like you mentioned. Instead of learning to say “no, sorry”, or “I’m sorry but this is a private conversation”, we ostracize those who are friendly (a really sad state of affairs common to any large-ish city).
But I simply hang up. I say “no thanks”, and the telemarketer goes on to the corresponding point in his script, and I simply hang up on him while he’s in the middle of a sentence. That’s rude.
This I disagree that this is rude. It is not rude for you to hang up on him after you decline his offer outright and he disregards you. That is extremely rude of him to do so. He is required to continue based on the nature of his job, but it is still rude. Taking his rudeness onto yourself is wrong.
It may be polite to oblige small requests, but it is not particularly impolite to decline them. You are not beholden to strangers, and there is nothing in the rules of etiquette to make you so.
This I think is also one of the major problems with people using a cell phone in inappropriate places. People seem to think it is rude to not answer the phone, even when it would be incredibly rude to those around you to do so. It’s a conflict and most people seem to choose the caller on the cell phone for some bizarre reason, even when it isn’t likely to be any kind of emergency.
You are talking about what ought to be. I am describing what is—how people think and behave. What we can observe is that many people have a great deal of difficulty getting off the phone when a telemarketer calls. The reason, I think, is clear: they are reluctant to end the conversation unless the other person lets them go, because this is conversational etiquette. That’s why it’s difficult. You saying that it ought not be difficult isn’t a description, it’s an exhortation. You’re talking in exhortatory/advisory mode when saying “I disagree that this is rude”. I’m talking in descriptive mode: ending a conversation when the other party has not let go violates the etiquette that many people have thoroughly internalized. It doesn’t matter that some alternative etiquette would be superior if analyzed from a utilitarian standpoint. The one people have internalized is the one that produces the behavior.
Another entity who takes (unintentional) advantage of our reluctance to disengage until we allowed to is the bore, the tedious person who won’t shut up. I see the same behavior relative to bores that I see relative to telemarketers. Though people want nothing better than for the bore to shut up and let them get on with their day, they stay and pretend to listen to the bore until the bore is done talking, which may not be for a long time. Again, it doesn’t matter that, analyzed from a utilitarian standpoint, the optimal behavior is to disengage. I’m describing, not advising. My advice is to cut them short, but that is neither here nor there.
Another entity who takes (unintentional) advantage of our reluctance to disengage until we allowed to is the bore, the tedious person who won’t shut up. I see the same behavior relative to bores that I see relative to telemarketers.
Of course that is true, and it is not at all what I was advocating. And you’re right that suggesting people learn to say “no” is an exhortation. It was also quite beside the original point (though I did bring it up first, certainly).
The point is that politely interrupting a conversation that does not appear to be particularly private or personal, for the purpose of contributing to that conversation, is not rude. Neither is asking a question. It can certainly become so if you ignore the hints to stop, but it does not start out that way.
I also doubt the bore enjoys boring people, so getting irritated at him when you aren’t willing to tell him to stop seems pretty inconsiderate to me.
politely interrupting a conversation that does not appear to be particularly private or personal, for the purpose of contributing to that conversation, is not rude
I’m sure they like to think they’re entertaining. Which, ironically, incentivises their investing very little in finding out they actually are. I honestly would expect someone to react pretty badly to being told or hinted at that they’re abusing your patience—and I think that’s why people get pissed off with such people. There’s little option to exit the conversation properly.
IME, bores tend to just find themselves with fewer and fewer friends as time goes on - often without ever finding out why. Because how can you tell them? Costs you social points for dubious gain.
I agree that the usual politeness rules don’t apply with telemarketers. I go with “No” or “No, thank you” and hang up.
This is actually relatively polite, not just compared to yelling at them, but also in comparison to keeping the conversation going (some people do this deliberately) when the telemarketer is certainly not going to make a sale.
This reminds me of a story I heard of a comedian who really put the screws to a telemarketer.
The comedian pretended to be a detective investigating a homicide when the telemarketer called, and started grilling him about his relationship with the deceased (i.e. the comedian). He even went so far as to find out what city and office building the guy worked at, and told him not to move because local police would soon be on their way to pick him up for questioning.
It was hilarious, but incredibly mean. I wouldn’t be too surprised if the telemarketer found himself a new job as soon as possible after that.
I disagree that strangers as a potential threat is one of the driving motivators for this practice. It may be a rationalization for it, but it is not a natural position to take.
In sparsely populated areas, where strangers are less frequent, strangers are often assumed to be friendly. People are still wary, of course, because there is always the possibility that a stranger is dangerous, but this is not a particularly strong reason to avoid them completely. The occasions where this seems to not be true are when individuals want nothing to do with anybody new, regardless of who they are or where they come from or what potential threat they might be (i.e. the old man with the “trespassers shot on sight” signs posted doesn’t want anything to do with anybody).
In sparsely populated areas people will often take random strangers in need into their home for a night or two, far more than any small request the average stranger in a city might make, yet the people in the sparsely populated areas don’t seem particularly put off by this.
Your second point I think hits closer to the mark. People believe it is rude to say no, and so seek to avoid situations where they can be trapped into small requests like you mentioned. Instead of learning to say “no, sorry”, or “I’m sorry but this is a private conversation”, we ostracize those who are friendly (a really sad state of affairs common to any large-ish city).
This I disagree that this is rude. It is not rude for you to hang up on him after you decline his offer outright and he disregards you. That is extremely rude of him to do so. He is required to continue based on the nature of his job, but it is still rude. Taking his rudeness onto yourself is wrong.
It may be polite to oblige small requests, but it is not particularly impolite to decline them. You are not beholden to strangers, and there is nothing in the rules of etiquette to make you so.
This I think is also one of the major problems with people using a cell phone in inappropriate places. People seem to think it is rude to not answer the phone, even when it would be incredibly rude to those around you to do so. It’s a conflict and most people seem to choose the caller on the cell phone for some bizarre reason, even when it isn’t likely to be any kind of emergency.
You are talking about what ought to be. I am describing what is—how people think and behave. What we can observe is that many people have a great deal of difficulty getting off the phone when a telemarketer calls. The reason, I think, is clear: they are reluctant to end the conversation unless the other person lets them go, because this is conversational etiquette. That’s why it’s difficult. You saying that it ought not be difficult isn’t a description, it’s an exhortation. You’re talking in exhortatory/advisory mode when saying “I disagree that this is rude”. I’m talking in descriptive mode: ending a conversation when the other party has not let go violates the etiquette that many people have thoroughly internalized. It doesn’t matter that some alternative etiquette would be superior if analyzed from a utilitarian standpoint. The one people have internalized is the one that produces the behavior.
Another entity who takes (unintentional) advantage of our reluctance to disengage until we allowed to is the bore, the tedious person who won’t shut up. I see the same behavior relative to bores that I see relative to telemarketers. Though people want nothing better than for the bore to shut up and let them get on with their day, they stay and pretend to listen to the bore until the bore is done talking, which may not be for a long time. Again, it doesn’t matter that, analyzed from a utilitarian standpoint, the optimal behavior is to disengage. I’m describing, not advising. My advice is to cut them short, but that is neither here nor there.
Of course that is true, and it is not at all what I was advocating. And you’re right that suggesting people learn to say “no” is an exhortation. It was also quite beside the original point (though I did bring it up first, certainly).
The point is that politely interrupting a conversation that does not appear to be particularly private or personal, for the purpose of contributing to that conversation, is not rude. Neither is asking a question. It can certainly become so if you ignore the hints to stop, but it does not start out that way.
I also doubt the bore enjoys boring people, so getting irritated at him when you aren’t willing to tell him to stop seems pretty inconsiderate to me.
Also, tautologies are tautological.
Indeed, I meant only to suggest there is a polite and impolite way to do it, and that interrupting in and of itself was not rude.
I could have phrased it better.
I’m sure they like to think they’re entertaining. Which, ironically, incentivises their investing very little in finding out they actually are. I honestly would expect someone to react pretty badly to being told or hinted at that they’re abusing your patience—and I think that’s why people get pissed off with such people. There’s little option to exit the conversation properly.
IME, bores tend to just find themselves with fewer and fewer friends as time goes on - often without ever finding out why. Because how can you tell them? Costs you social points for dubious gain.
I agree that the usual politeness rules don’t apply with telemarketers. I go with “No” or “No, thank you” and hang up.
This is actually relatively polite, not just compared to yelling at them, but also in comparison to keeping the conversation going (some people do this deliberately) when the telemarketer is certainly not going to make a sale.
This reminds me of a story I heard of a comedian who really put the screws to a telemarketer.
The comedian pretended to be a detective investigating a homicide when the telemarketer called, and started grilling him about his relationship with the deceased (i.e. the comedian). He even went so far as to find out what city and office building the guy worked at, and told him not to move because local police would soon be on their way to pick him up for questioning.
It was hilarious, but incredibly mean. I wouldn’t be too surprised if the telemarketer found himself a new job as soon as possible after that.
http://www.tommabe.com/videos-find/video_murder_scene.htm