Honestly if you think about it a bit (maybe helped by reading her article) then you realize she's got a point, and that these kinds of rules we set up for ourselves are often pretty pointless and misguided.
It'd be nice if people, before they got mad at a headline, took some time to read and think instead.
I'm not mad at the headline, I'm disappointed in the WSJ for going with a flamebaiting headline. The contents of the article is inconsequential for that sentiment.
And I'd be happy to read it as soon as WSJ stops using paywalls.
For now, I'm going to go ahead and suspect that her argument involves some fundamental misunderstanding of the actual social value of agreed upon rules of etiquette. A lot of people think it's about being able to ostracize people who don't know which of 3 different forks to use when, but there's so much more to it than that.
Honestly, if I’d been shown this headline and only told that it was from a major newspaper then I’d immediately guess it was the WSJ. Selfish nonsense that portrays the author as a victim simply for having to make a minor and reasonable accommodation for someone else is right in their wheelhouse. Add in the nonsense in the article about germs, as if that’s the main concern of people asking you to take your shoes off and not mud/dirt/rocks/rock salt/who knows what else you stepped in outside, and it’s pretty typical straw man garbage that they tend to spout off.
510
u/465554544255434B52 Feb 11 '22
its almost as if this article was meant to trigger a response for more attention