Moral Nitpicking

December 17, 2005 10:05 PM

What's worse, manners wise? (Elevator behavior / Train behavior)

So which behavior is less ethical/more misanthropic?

A) 'A' gets in an elevator and pushes the button, moving to the side and looking at the wall. 'A' does this because he doesn't feel like holding the door open in case anyone comes, thereby delaying the elevator door's closing.

Or:

B) 'B' gets on the interurban train. she puts her medium sized bag on the seat next to her and opens the newspaper. The train continues to get increasingly crowded as the train passes through downtown. B reads the paper and doesn't move her bag to share the seat until someone asks her to.

posted by prettyboyfloyd to human relations (54 comments total)

B is more misanthropic. It's always easier to get the next elevator than it is to get the next train.
posted by scarabic at 10:14 PM on December 17, 2005

I don't personally think this is really a matter of ethics, so much as upbringing and misanthropy.

But I'd agree with scarabic, B is more misanthropic. But from experience in big cities, I'm pretty sure someone would soon ask B to move their bags out of the way.
posted by smitt at 10:18 PM on December 17, 2005

I'm not advocating for one side or the other - but just to be clear B's behavior doesn't prevent anyone from actually riding on the train. It only has an effect on a person's sitting down or not.
posted by prettyboyfloyd at 10:19 PM on December 17, 2005

What's misanthropic is sitting your fat, dirty self next to someone who just wants to relax on their train ride home. It's basically common courtesy to walk the length of the train looking for seats before you start sitting next to people, whether or not they put their bags down.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 10:26 PM on December 17, 2005

"B" is really obviously purposely taking up two seats for themselves in a crowded train, everyone nearby can see that, and everyone is waiting for B to take the bag away.
"A" could have just as well not seen that someone ("C") was coming - it's not clear to C whether or not A has seen them coming, so C won't be too bothered if the elevator leaves without them. Bad luck.

So while they're both acting in their own best interest, people will find "B" more annoying, because they expect B to do something. They don't expect A to make the extra effort to hold to elevator, but it would be nice if he did.
posted by easternblot at 10:27 PM on December 17, 2005

It depends on their intention, since both acts are basically the same: someone not going a tiny bit out of their way to make someone else's life a little bit easier.

B could either know there is a problem and think that whatever needs compel her not to move the bag are more important than the convenience of others. Or, she might not be aware of the problem. Keep in mind that she got on when it wasn't crowded, so maybe she just absent-mindedly put her bag next to her. That degree of self-involvement isn't great, but it's less misanthropic than the first possibility.

On the other hand, the intention of A is pretty clear. He's decided categorically that if someone comes along and wants to use the lift, whatever needs compel him not to hold the door open are more important than the convenience of others. What a loser.
posted by teem at 10:34 PM on December 17, 2005

A is passive and B is agressive. I'd rather my assholes be agressive.
posted by smackfu at 10:52 PM on December 17, 2005

A) is ruder/selfish; he's intentionally inconveniencing someone else because he can't be bothered. B) isn't stopping anyone from taking that seat.

Full Disclosure:
I do the two seat bag thing on the bus, because:
a) Should someone deign to sit next to me, 9 times out of 10 it is the very last available spot (Even if I don't have a bag. And no, I don't smell or take up a seat and a half.).
b) People have mouths; if they want to sit, they have every right to that seat. All they have to do is ask me to move my bag, and I will do so, as B) does on the train.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:00 PM on December 17, 2005

I disagree that leaving the bag is aggressive. Telling people "No, you can't sit here" is aggressive. Putting up obstacles and hoping no one asks you to remove them is passive in my book.

Is being an ass different from being indifferent to whether or not you're an ass? That's what this boils down to, right?
posted by jaysus chris at 11:24 PM on December 17, 2005

B is being more offensive because she's being observed. She's willing to be misanthropic in the face of the disapproval of an entire trainful of people (and trust me as a daily subway rider, we are all disapproving of her), so she shows a much greater willingness to be misanthropic than A does.

A is being discreetly impolite. Even the person being inconvenienced doesn't know he's doing it. And would A still do this if the elevator were full? I doubt it.
posted by booksandlibretti at 11:52 PM on December 17, 2005

A: ass? ✓
B: ass? ✓
prettyboy's question makes it clear both behaviors are deliberate, so parsing such assholitude is rather academic.
posted by rob511 at 12:17 AM on December 18, 2005

We're supposed to wait by the buttons in the elevator "in case anyone comes"? First I've heard of it. This is somewhat at odds with my "press the button then move out of the way" strategy.
posted by fleacircus at 1:43 AM on December 18, 2005

Both A and B are equally bad. Misanthropy is not ameliorated by a failure to be observed. You are no less self centered just because no one happens to see you being self centered.

That said, if B regularly rides that train and she knows that the train will get so full that someone will need the chair next to her, then it seems that she is intentionally acting in a way to create a conflict. At least A can claim that he can't be reasonably expected to predict whether someone is going to try to get on the elevator. (Unless, of course, A saw someone coming in which case his actions become as flagrant as B's)
posted by oddman at 1:47 AM on December 18, 2005

I vote for B as worse. I'm actually annoyed when other people don't do 'A' - e.g. some tool decides to hold the elevator door in a multiple elevator bay, pokes his head out to see me coming and gives me a look suggesting that I move faster. Dude, I can wait 12 seconds for the next one.
posted by mullacc at 2:48 AM on December 18, 2005

"A" is being lazy, but a potential elevator rider is basically no worse off than if the elevator had taken off to address a call on another floor. To make things right, "A" would have to pay extra attention to whether someone is coming who would potentially ride the elevator, then help them at the expense of his own progress. This would be common courtesy.

"B", silently aware of her fellow passengers' desire to possibly replace her bag on that seat, is, simultaneously, putting the onus on them to address her verbally in order to acquire the seat. She is being discourteous, and also imposing her own values on them, to a degree, by expecting them to possibly breach their own concept of etiquette by interrupting her reading and bothering her to move her bag. She should move her bag as the train car fills, or actively address a passenger who looks like they might want to sit there (since she expected someone to bother her to move the bag, this would be consistent with her concept of propriety), asking them whether they want her to move her bag.

One is potentially wasting people's time, while the other is wasting their energy (standing or debating whether to ask her to move her shit). I don't really see a way to compare them directly.
posted by evil holiday magic at 3:09 AM on December 18, 2005

Devil's Advocate says...both may be innocent! Due to any number of societal factors which may be at work, both members may be unconsciously aware of any overt malice. Certainly, it can be said that there are truly misanthropic, even spiteful individuals who behave in the fashions described above. But there are those too wrapped up in their internal processes and lack of social/organizational skills to focus upon their "subtle liabilities" toward others. (Hence their "subtle cruelties".) There may well have been times where everyone at one point was guilty of not saying "thank you" loudly or pleasantly enough following a courtesy, or even acknowledging at all. When pressed on the matter, any number of rationalizations may crop up in explaining the offense. Untoward behavior may not always indicate hostility, as either A or B could exhibit sincere remorse over their actions when confronted on the matter.

Barring any contemptable glares, overtly defensive body language, etc., you may have to assess each situation on its own merits/detractions before instantly indicting others over their slights.
posted by Smart Dalek at 3:33 AM on December 18, 2005

Is "A" alone in the elevator? Because if I was "C" in the elevator and trying to get to, say, a seminar with precisely 0 seconds to spare (not exactly a rare scenario for me, unfortunately) and "A" held the lift for another passenger, I'd be mighty pissed he wasn't focusing on his "subtle liability" towards ME. OTOH, I'd have no problem with giving "B" the evil eye, or a quick jab with a cluestick.
posted by Pigpen at 3:37 AM on December 18, 2005

B definitely more evil. Transit you pay for, elevators are free.
posted by scruss at 4:06 AM on December 18, 2005

I'm with the Pen. I can easily see where you'd be holding the elevator for person A, and just as he gets on, person B appears, and as she gets on, person C shows up, etc., until you've held the elevator for a long time. If someone's close, hold the door. Otherwise, let it slide.

If the bag-on-seat person moves the bag when the train fills up, fine. If they wait to be asked, they are a jerk. Hoarding a resource just because you want to, knowing full well that you'll surrender it when someone jumps through a hoop you've set up, is stupid knavery. Even if you tell yourself "Well, I wouldn't have a problem with asking for the seat'" it's still imposing your will on other people who may have such a problem. Unequivocally antisocial.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:17 AM on December 18, 2005

for me, at least, 'A' is normal behaviour (or i don't understand it, beause it honestly doesn't seem wrong to me, so lots of the above doesn't make much sense) and 'B' is rude.
posted by andrew cooke at 4:25 AM on December 18, 2005

Most of you people need to ride the train several times to gain some understanding. Or, for even more understanding, the bus, where it's the same thing but more. The bags on the seat are just a subtle reminder that the polite thing to do is go look for an empty row before you cram yourself next to someone.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 5:18 AM on December 18, 2005

Tim, I've been riding the bus for 30+ years, and putting your bag on an extra seat when the place is filling up is extremely rude. There is no onus to walk to the back of the bus to find a seat. It is, in fact, more important to sit your damned ass down as quickly as possible, so you are out of the way of everyone else, preferably before the bus lurches off.

'A' seems more or less normal to me, though I don't do it myself. I wouldn't feel put out by it. 'B' is an ass.
posted by frykitty at 5:40 AM on December 18, 2005

Clarification to Tim: we're talking about a bus that is filling up--not a vast wonderland of empty rows.
posted by frykitty at 5:43 AM on December 18, 2005

Where I work, it takes less than 5 seconds for an empty elevator to go from the top floor (15) to the ground floor. There are also four banks of four elevators (16 elevators in all, which I think is a huge number for my relatively small building) that either service all of the floors or a subset of 'key' floors. The system is also designed to automatically return empty elevators to the ground floor. Whenever I get to work in the morning, there's almost always three elevators sitting on the ground floor (although, only one has it's doors actually open), so I often find myself in the shoes of 'A', simply because there are two other elevators already waiting, and, I'm sure the Execs who use the corporate elevators that I usually hop on, would prefer their personal space not being violated by the lowly IT peon that I am.

On trains and buses, I never sit down, so, I can't relate to 'B' at all.
posted by yeoz at 6:02 AM on December 18, 2005

Good grief, "A" is perfectly fine as far as I'm concerned. I also think nothing of (politely) asking someone to move a bag for me in a situation where there are few empty seats. Why wouldn't you just ask? Holding the door for someone is polite, moving your bag when you see the bus filling up is polite. For me, failing to do these things is simply neutral - I don't want to live in a world where to be an acceptable citizen means being 100% mindful to the needs of others at all times.
posted by teleskiving at 6:38 AM on December 18, 2005

"B" is the real asshole. And I bet she has a yoga mat sticking out of her oversized bag.
posted by Mayor Curley at 7:34 AM on December 18, 2005

I've asked plenty of people to move their stuff off of empty seats in crowded subways and buses and 9 times out of 10 I get eye-rolling, sighs, and even a sharp "no!". People, as much as you try to justify that action, you're only doing it to keep others away from you. While I agree that some regular commuters are not the best people to come in close contact with, the fact is that you have both paid the same amount to ride that vehicle and you are not entitled to any more than anyone else.

If I have to ask, then you're just being rude. As for A, that can be taken a lot of ways. How busy is the elevator already? How many floors in the building? How frequent are other cars (if any)?
posted by purephase at 7:52 AM on December 18, 2005

As for A, the question said that they had bad intentions. They are acting in the way they do to explicitly spite other people because they are too lazy. That is worse than someone who needs space for their bag.
posted by smackfu at 7:59 AM on December 18, 2005

B is worse.

Cowering inside an elevator and letting the door close is passive. You don't want someone to get the door, but if they do, so be it. Fate is the ultimate determinate.

In your train example, the person is actively blocking a seat. Now you have to ask that person "is that your bag" and then follow up with, "well, can you move it you jerk?" and then sit right next to this obviously morally ungrounded person for the duration of your train ride. And what if that person says, "No, I won't move it." What do you do then? Throw the bag on the floor and sit down? Make a ruckus? Fisticuffs?
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 8:08 AM on December 18, 2005

smackfu writes "As for A, the question said that they had bad intentions."

Not really.

'A' does this because he doesn't feel like holding the door open in case anyone comes

I wouldn't expect every elevator rider to actively seek out other passengers each time they enter the elevator. If you see someone coming (even when you're trying to avoid it) and don't stop the door from closing, then yeah.. you're not the best person in the world. The original description never mentions that A saw anyone coming, they just were not going out of their way to see if that was the case.
posted by purephase at 8:30 AM on December 18, 2005

On the NYC subway, "B" is now a violation (even on an empty train) and may be ticketed.
posted by ExpertWitness at 8:56 AM on December 18, 2005

Whenever I encounter "B" on the subway, I like to ask them to move their things off the seat (if there are no other available seats) simply because it will inconvenience and annoy them. Tit for tat!
posted by Robot Johnny at 9:03 AM on December 18, 2005

"A": not going out of your way to be convenient to someone. "B": not going out of your way to not be an inconsiderate fucking pig.

I vote "B" is worse. And, "B", I will sit down on your fucking bag if you don't move it without my asking. So consider yourself asked and move your fucking bag. Thanks!
posted by TimeFactor at 9:27 AM on December 18, 2005

B is worse. But not as bad as people who ride the elevator to the second or third floor when the stairs are right there. And they are still better than people who take the elevator down from two or three.

ExpertWitness, I'm not sure you're correct. It says, "[It is a violation to] place bags on an empty seat when doing so would interfere with transit operations or the comfort of other customers." If it's empty . . . Or is there an elaboration I missed? Also, they can kiss my ass about walking between cars. I'm not getting mugged for getting off the wrong end of the train to save the MTA from lawsuits.
posted by dame at 10:08 AM on December 18, 2005

As a daily train and bus rider, B is clearly worse to me. B's conduct suggests that he feels entitled to have two seats until all other seats are full and someone has to ask to move the bags. That's crap. It also suggests that he does not want anyone sitting next to him, which as people have already noted creates an awkward situation when someone does sit there.

Also, B creates a false assholery shift by forcing the person who wants the otherwise free seat to ask for it. Now that person feels like she is inconveniencing B but in fact she never should have been made to ask B for his permission.

This may sound antisocial, but I think public transit has a number of rules that, when observed, allow a rider to get to his or her destination without saying a word to anyone else. Most solo transit riders would prefer to tune out and ride in peace. B is forcing people to enter into a social interaction that they don't want to. B knows that and is counting on most people saying "screw it, I'll just stand instead."
posted by AgentRocket at 10:09 AM on December 18, 2005

Once I was on the Montreal metro and two punk girls were occupying three seats, with their feet up on the third. The car was crowded. They were refusing to move. But I'd been a punk myself, and I knew how much of it was bravado. I walked over and pushed their feet off the seat and sat down. (Had an old or disabled person been present I'd have offered the seat to them instead, on principle but also for dramatic purposes, but there was not.)

The girls swore at me, but then several other voices piped up telling them they were wrong and to shut up and behave. It was a good urban moment.

As for the elevator, I'd only consider it a gaffe if you were in an old building with a slow cranky elevator and dooming other people to significant waits. In new buildings with plenty of fast elevators I don't see how it could be a problem.
posted by zadcat at 11:38 AM on December 18, 2005

Thank you all for your very frank answers. (Ouch! not that I have any personal interest here mind you...) I'll sort through and pick out a few best answers tomorrow when the f-ing holiday season gives me some time. I'll try not to do anything too misanthropic while out on the town today. Bah-humbug!
posted by prettyboyfloyd at 11:40 AM on December 18, 2005

Oh, and I like "false assholery shift". That's a very good description for what passive-aggressive behaviour tries to achieve.
posted by zadcat at 11:41 AM on December 18, 2005

I know too many women who've been groped or assaulted by strangers on public transportation to judge a women who doesn't want to sit next to whoever comes along. I mean, seriously.
posted by croutonsupafreak at 11:54 AM on December 18, 2005

People who choose to sit next to someone even though there are empty rows on the train or bus may have a reason. If they're only going one or two stops, they probably don't want to force someone else to get up or move the stuff on their laps when they get there. And if you're tempted to say "if they're only going one stop, let them stand" (or "they can take the stairs") please try to remember that there are people for whom it is painful to stand and walk, even if you can't see it. Cut them some slack.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 1:15 PM on December 18, 2005

please try to remember that there are people for whom it is painful to stand and walk, even if you can't see it. Cut them some slack

... or better yet, give up your seat.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 1:38 PM on December 18, 2005

"B" happens to me all the time, since I regularly take the trains (and buses) around here, although the person in question is typically a junior-high kid with a backpack. I've given up on the expectation of courtesy with the kids, and I just toss their backpacks on their laps and sit down. This usually results in one hell of a shocked look on the kid's face.

So, my vote goes to "A" for being more misanthropic. The 'other' person in the "A" scenario is forced to deal with it (since the elevator doors have presumably closed by the time the 'other' person gets there), but in the "B" scenario, the 'other' person can correct the manners of the other.
posted by gwenzel at 2:11 PM on December 18, 2005

"A" is not rude at all. I don't expect someone to hold the elevator for me if they don't know I'm coming.

"B" wins, but I think it's fine to put your stuff on the seat until the train or bus starts to fill up. I have to disagree with tim on both the existence of and solution to the problem he describes. At least in NYC, it seems to me that there's an unwritten rule that you try to find the seat that's as far away as possible from strangers. But maybe his commute happens to have a bunch of weird people.

What really bugs me are those guys who spread their legs so wide they take up two seats and still fail to make the most minor adjustments even when there are little old ladies who have to stand up. Grrr!
posted by lackutrol at 3:00 PM on December 18, 2005

Oh, me too! I also like to sit in the middle of three seats on many of the New York subways. This seems to upset people like Tim to no end because they, GASP, have to sit next to someone. It's great.

As for this situation, I would say B is more of a no-no than A. Having done both the right thing and the wrong thing in both situations as well as having had both the right thing and the wrong thing done to me in both situations, I'm more bothered by B.

However, neither bothers me terribly much, but they seem to be the sort of things that put people into a huge snit.

RobotJohnny:
Whenever I encounter "B" on the subway, I like to ask them to move their things off the seat (if there are no other available seats) simply because it will inconvenience and annoy them. Tit for tat!
posted by Captaintripps at 3:43 PM on December 18, 2005

please try to remember that there are people for whom it is painful to stand and walk, even if you can't see it. Cut them some slack.

You are a very nice person. However, I'm still gonna assume that ninety percent of the assholes who take the elevator down from 2 can walk just fine. Because most people can.
posted by dame at 6:09 PM on December 18, 2005

I will ask you to move your bag. I will ask you to move your fat ass if someone more frail clearly needs your seat.

But I shouldn't have to ask. People who shield themselves by putting a bag down in the seat next to them need to accept one simple fact: they can't afford their own car/parking. Until you can, be polite about sharing on public transit. You can't take the bus if you want to act like the king of England.

It's unfortunate that public transit seats are so close together, but you really have no business believing that your comfort zone extends beyond your own, individual seat. Discouraging someone from taking the seat next to you by obstructing it with object is rude, lame, and the sign of priss self-obsession. No one should have to ask you to move your shit. That's your job. It's called manners.

If you want to ride in luxury, pay the price.
posted by scarabic at 7:30 PM on December 18, 2005

Sigh. I wish I could take the stairs to my 5th floor job, dame. But the only stairs are fire-escape ones. People on floor 2 are the bane of all the rest of us, but they have no choice in our case. Very sad.
posted by scarabic at 7:32 PM on December 18, 2005

I often catch a 2 hour commuter train. It would be nice to have a seat free next to me for the journey. I can tell lots of people put bags on the seat as in "B" in the hope the other, more courteous passengers will get seatmates and the train will leave before it is totally full, giving them their spare.
I find this doubly odious as it troubles the nice people who refrain from doing this unfairly (they are more likely to get a seat mate).
It also annoys when somebody sits in the aisle seat, leaving the window free to avoid a seat mate. However, at least they can be easily outdone by choosing their saved seat in preference to a vacant aisle.
posted by bystander at 8:32 PM on December 18, 2005

I think there's bias in how the two people were decribed, but I'll say that I am personally much more annoyed by people who rush to close the elevator and get moving before I can catch up to the closing doors than some space hog on a train.

B is taking up too much of a public space for whatever reasons, causing inconvenience to a single, unknown other member of the public, but A is usually making a personal statement of "I don't want to share this public space with YOU, and have fun waiting for the elevator to make it's way back down, too bad your arms are full of grocery bags and you look tired...god forbid I should be inconvenienced for the two seconds of waiting and the couple of minutes not talking in the elevator."

But I guess it depends on the type of elevator you're talking about... obviously mine is in my apartment, and the evil A-people are people who know I also live in this apartment, so it's more of a personal F-U than than a general F-U...

And while I am someone who will give up my seat for those more in need of it, I also feel well within my rights to put my bag next to me when I wish to avoid drunk businessmen who decide they want to try and chat up my breasts. If that causes some healthy young angry people to get their panties in a bunch, tough. I do hold the elevator for the people who are behind me, but I wouldn't in a fancy-pants multi-elevator situation. Courtesy is not something that is one-size-fits-all-in-every-situation-the-same-way-every-time, and it seems this question is more about venting.

Also, it's kind of bizarre to have huge amounts of ire for strangers because they somehow aren't living up to your rules for the world. I just tell myself that maybe they're having a really shitty day, and that little extra space or bit of privacy is something they actually need.
posted by MightyNez at 8:41 PM on December 18, 2005

Scarabic, I take the fire stairs down from eight all the time (because I don't want to wait for the elevator). People can take them down from two.
posted by dame at 10:11 PM on December 18, 2005

The person with their backpack in the seat next to them is one of my big pet peeves, since I take Greyhound a lot. What bothers me most about it is that it's going to work, more often than not--because not only does someone have to verbally ask them to move their crap, you also know that's probably the last person on the bus you want to sit next to anyway, because they're obviously a jerk. And so, they get the seat to themselves. And I, a relatively nice person (at least on the surface, lol), gets squished in by the biggest guy on the bus. And we paid the same for our tickets.
posted by lampoil at 10:19 PM on December 18, 2005

I think that people who put their bags on the seat are okay if the train/bus is relatively empty. As it fills up, as in this scenario, leaving it there is, in my opinion, definitely the worse of the two, because people know that other people would like to take that seat, but will be reluctant to ask because many will feel intimidated, or as if they're being rude or aggressive, or they're just worried about a possible problem if the jerk with the bag on the seat says no. So the person leaving the bag is taking advantage of the non-confrontational nature of others simply to be a selfish prick. (You don't want to sit next to someone, don't take public transit.) You have an obligation not to inconvenience others unnecessarily.

Another way to put this might be that there is an expectation among transit riders that seats will be left for paying passengers. There is no expectation that elevator doors will be held. You have a "right" to a seat that isn't being occupied by someone. You don't have a similar "right" to have an elevator door held for you.

Mostly, though, I just hate fuckfaces who need to be asked to move their goddamn bags on a crowded subway, as if they paid for an extra fucking seat. I will say that if there are other free seats, I don't think it's such a big deal - because then you're just asking people to let you sit alone; maybe you're feeling anti-social; maybe you have Ebola. If the seats are about to fill up, however, everything changes.
posted by Dasein at 10:40 PM on December 18, 2005

I do B, a lot. I am evil, but if the bus is getting really crowded, I'll move my stuff. And in my defense, I'm pretty ample-sized, so it's discomfort for me and the person next to me to be squeezed into the seats.

Now something that is truly evil is when I do this on the greyhound. As a single young woman riding the bus home, and having a paranoid schizophrenic stick deoderant down his pants next to me last time I was polite and moved my stuff, I'm just going to preemptively be a seat-hog.
posted by lychee at 1:34 AM on December 19, 2005

I'm a young woman, too. And knowing that it DOES work, it is tempting (on the Greyhound). But I just can't be that person. It annoys me too much in others.

But there is another side of that coin, too. Just like I assume the person trying to hog seats is a jerk (so I don't want to sit with them), the person who is most likely to ASK me to move my crap if I'm trying to seat-hog probably isn't the most desirable seat partner either. So I'll take my chances with the other shy-polites on the bus. Usually it's just another young person with their headphones and book, just like me. And I make it pretty clear I'm not there to chat, even if it's not. Worse case scenario, it's someone really skeevy, I can move seats--even on a busy travel day there's usually one seat hog whose stuff I could ask to move :)
posted by lampoil at 8:42 AM on December 19, 2005