Saying something isn’t rude because it was an honest statement, or that making a blunt statement about someone isn’t rude because that person can take it seems to misunderstand the basic concept of politeness and rudeness.
Rudeness isn’t about honesty or dishonesty, it’s about tact. It is rude to point out someone’s shortcomings in their presence. It’s not rude to have an opinion about the physical attractiveness of someone, but it’s rude to state it unless you are in the very rare case that someone is legitimately asking you for bluntly honest feedback. Note that despite its appearance on first glance, “does this dress make me look fat?” and other such questions are not invitations to critique.
If your host asks if you enjoyed the meal, and you answer with “the soup was oversalted and the bread was burnt”, the relative veracity of those statements is immaterial to their rudeness. If it was so fucking inedible that you think you have to go get your stomach pumped, the polite response is: “I’m so sorry, I’m not feeling well, so I don’t think I enjoyed it as much as I could have”.
It’s clearly unintentional though.
I’m curious about the people who said it was intentionally rude. As stated, she spoke before thinking about John’s teeth. How could that be intentional?
I hope you’ll take me at my word when I tell you I have no ulterior motive. It’s standard practice for me to include a poll anytime I post on a topic I feel is going to be polarizing.
I am just curious where I stand with the rest of my fellow Dopers. I have no intention as using this thread as a “I told ya so!”.
Sure. You can see the distinction more clearly if you change Jane’s statement to “I would never date a disgusting sweaty fatso. No offense, Jon.”
“No offense” actually makes the insult (in a snarky backhanded way). Not identifying Jon as a member of the undesirable class is clearly the non-rude thing. If Jon gets all huffy about the “bad teeth” bit without having been explicitly labeled with it, that’s on Jon.
I think the hurt potential is a quite high by describing someone’s teeth as bad. Jon might not be especially sensitive about this teeth, but it still seems like a dickish thing to point out.
Considering that they are standing around pointing out feature they dislike in others, it was only a matter of time before someone got butthurt. Jane’s little “No offense Jon” called attention to the toes that were stepped on, so that was kinda rude but whatever jerk started the conversation is the rude one.
I voted “other” because it could be intentionally or unintentionally rude, depdending on the speaker. Some people like to find opportunities to insult, with the cover of “no offense” or “it’s a joke” to protect them.
If it wasn’t meant as a jab, then it’s unintentionally rude.
I think it’s actually kinda nice, because I’ve had it happen to me. I was talking with a girl who I had no romantic interest in, and she mentioned something about how she could never find an honest man to talk to. Then she added “oh, except you.” Even though I knew she meant boyfriend by “man,” it just felt a bit better that she stopped to think of how it might have come across.
I can, of course, imagine a version where Jon is open to the idea of dating Jane and might be hurt. And I can imagine a tone of voice where Jane came off as an asshole. But, in general, I side with it being okay, based on similar personal experience.
I went with “unintentionally rude” for this situation.
It’s a blunder to disparage a trait of someone in present company to begin with, and it’s rude to then highlight it by saying “no offence” if it’s something that person is likely to be self-conscious about.
If it were something that the person is not likely to be embarrassed about, then I don’t think it would be a problem.
Jane: *“I could never date someone who likes country music. No offence Jon.” *
Jon: “Ha-ha. No problem. Your loss.”
It is poor form to single out a person for a particular quality and then declare that quality bad in front of others. That is essentially what she did, albeit a bit indirectly.
I noticed all the other people in the scenario didn’t apply negative value judgments to the qualities on their dealbreaker list. Tall women are tall. Redheads are red-headed. But Jane deviated from this by saying bad teeth and then referencing John. That’s rude. Dude might’ve convinced himself that his missing chompers were barely noticeable; thanks to her, it’s now impossible for him to carry on with this ego-sparing delusion.
What you have here is 2 people who are so ignorant and shallow that they exclude people from their dating pool due to some arbitrary physical appearance trait because it might be awkward or they believe some over-generalized negative stereotype.
My take, as well. Until she singled Jon out, it was perfectly possible to believe she had no thoughts about Jon’s teeth. Sometimes our friends have flaws we don’t notice because we’re not viewing them in a romantic light. So the initial statement was fine.
The fact that she made a point of putting Jon in that category in her follow-up is what pushed it into rude territory, though I voted “unintentionally.” I view it as an attempt to be sensitive that went horribly wrong.
Yes, but Jon is a dick. Constantly barging in on other’s conversations, always calling shotgun before they even leave the building, never follows through on picking up the tab even after everyone else has done it 2 or 3 times. Jon’s not getting laid anytime soon anyway.
