I hope I’m posting in the right forum. I seem to remember someone posting to a thread I was reading a few months ago about some type of social interaction from the 1800s where you would look directly at someone but otherwise not acknowledge them, and this was considered a powerful insult towards them. I cant find that thread, does anyone else remember it? Don’t need answer fast. Thanks!
It sounds like a version of cutting them - acting towards them like someone you’d never met. It would normally be expected that if you met a friend or acquaintance in the street you would acknowledge them in some way - tip of the hat for gentlemen, a nod for ladies, at the very least. If you didn’t do those things, that was an “I don’t know you” signal - very powerful if you did in fact know the person.
Yes, you’re definitely looking for cutting, which Wikipedia lists under snub. I’ve done a number of SDMB searches, but can’t seem to find a related thread.
Also … nah, you totally don’t want this to be in ATMB. It’s more of a General Question, really. However, those of us who browse the Dope via the ‘New Posts’ button don’t really care so much.
I’m amusing myself now by trying to figure out how you would implement the Victorian “cut” on a message board. Possibly a big flashing banner “YOU ARE ON XXXX’s IGNORE LIST! HAVE A CRAPPY DAY!” that appears whenever both you and XXXX both post to a thread…
Thanks everyone!
Georgette Heyer described this as “the cut direct”. Not pretending to be looking elsewhere but making it very clear that you no longer considered this person to be part of your circle.
The Amish “shun” people – you lose all your family ties, you have no standing in the community. People don’t acknowledge you. It’s almost like you died.
Jenny
your humble TubaDiva
Administrator
Moved to GQ from ATMB.
You have those acknowledgements switched. Tip hat to ladies, nod to gentlemen.
Yeah, this is the “cut direct” - not going out of your way to avoid someone (which is an acknowledgement of their existence), or going up to insult them (which indicates that you think they are worth talking to), but observing that they exist in some theoretical sense, but are of no interest to you, in any way.
Sometimes, by the way, you see the phrase “cut him dead” or “cut her dead” - that’s just a more dramatic way of referring to the “cut direct” -
For, not to. Ladies hats didn’t come off - they nodded.
Is this the post in question?
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19844340&postcount=47
There were no formal rules, but ‘cutting’ someone by ignoring them was definitely a thing, well into the 20th century. It probably still is - but when manners where more formal it was a bigger deal and more noticeable.
‘Staring’ was something different. To stare fixedly at someone in silence was considered very rude. As it still is today.
From Francis Grose’s Dictionary of Buckish Slang, University Wit, and Pickpocket Eloquence (1811):
NB: This is a light and humorous book, and shouldn’t be taken entirely seriously.
‘Cambridge’ means a term particularly used at Cambridge University.
Somewhat similar term, “the silence”, as in “when he entered the room, everyone dropped what they were doing and gave him ‘the silence.’” Although the only source I can find for the term at present is an old NYT article about a form of ostracism at West Point that does not strictly fit that usage. I am recalling, however, an incident involving George C. Marshall when he was a cadet at VMI. Not for an honor violation, but just because the other cadets felt like being dicks one day at lunch.
As it happens, I’m now reading Bad Blood by John Carreyrou, about an ultimately-doomed Silicon Valley startup whose CEO was notorious for staring at people she disliked but not speaking to them - sometimes when she was speaking to someone else, but saying things which clearly were about the stare-ee.
I was once on the fringes of a court case involving a dad who left the Amish faith and a mom who remained in the church. He was shunned. When he later sought custody of their kids, all the Amish in the courtroom (there to be supportive of the mom) looked anywhere during his testimony *except *at him.
Sought custody of their kids, I meant to add, but got locked out due to #$%^! 504 errors until after five minutes had passed.
And now the correction is there in the original post. Hmmmm…
Despite their rejection of technology, the Amish have learned how to use the Ignore List. :eek:
Regards,
Shodan