[huggyface]

Your post is very charged.

If I am at dinner and I decide that I want to keep on top of my device (I have four children and a very busy professional life), those with me have to deal with it. Most of the time my phone is more important than the discardable conversation happening over a meal.

It doesn't make me more important than them, though maybe it means that I have different values.

I generally veer away from these sorts of conversations because they tend to be dominated by angry people who are essentially trying to control other people ("you should do this and you should do that and I will forever be judging and disapproving or approving". You don't hear people living in the real world declaring that everyone must check their phone constantly)

[nagrom]

Your post is similarly charged and you get more confrontational during this thread I think, although I think it may be a cultural thing. In the UK, swearing isn't a big deal, but table manners can be.

Part of basic courtesy (for me) is to pay attention to the person that you're eating with; if you don't want to be here, then don't accept or offer an invitation. There's nothing wrong with that, but if we're out at a restaurant together then it's because I want to be there with you...not because I need to consume a meal. I won't watch television, read a book or do routine paperwork during dinner with someone. I consider messing with texts, checking email or taking a phone call to be similar activities.

For what it's worth, with close friends over a snack, I really don't mind. But with new acquaintances, I do expect a certain level of formality and table manners. There is a large swathe of people who would not watch TV, read a book or do paperwork at a table over dinner but they would mess with a phone.

I'd have absolutely no problems whatsoever with geebee's behaviour as described in this thread; (s)he seems polite, considerate and like someone it'd be nice to share a meal with. Noticing that you've got a potentially important message and leaving the table to check would be fine to me! Fiddling with facebook, taking routine calls or texts would seem inconsiderate. Having the phone on the table, but firmly ignored, isn't all that bad, I guess...but I'd rather leave it in a jacket pocket and not have the potential distraction personally.

If that comes over as controlling, well fair enough. Horses for courses, etc. But if my behaviour comes across as controlling and judging, I must say that yours comes across as self-absorbed and somewhat arrogant. But like I said at the start, that may just be a cultural thing.

[baddox]

What is considered "basic courtesy" changes, from person to person, region to region, and time period to time period. It's unwise to allow yourself to be offended or bothered by people with different ideas about what constitutes "basic courtesy." Unless you want to be perpetually unhappy, either choose to not be offended, or choose to avoid encounters with people of another ilk than yourself. Personally, I recommend the former.

[Encosia]

There's nothing inherently angry or controlling about what nagrom posted. I feel the same way nagrom does, and I don't waste any of my time trying to change others and it doesn't make me mad if they need Facebook open to make it through dinner. I just avoid going out with them as much as possible, in exactly the same way that I avoid eating with people who don't close their mouth when they chew.

[sp4rki]

I agree with huggyface. The parent post was ridden with angry sentiments by the original poster. In my case, I consider good manners towards all the patrons to keep your phone in silence/vibrate in a restaurant/movie theater/bar because it might impact the ambient slash "moment" of other people that surround you. That doesn't mean I'm not taking a call if I deem it important, and depending on the place I might go outside to take said call. I might even need to keep my phone on the table to actually notice the call because of the noise inherent on some types of businesses.

Browsing Facebook while having dinner with someone is very offensive, I agree. It is also offensive to get "angry" because I took a call from my neighbor telling me that my grandma fell on the stairs, my work because the servers imploded and we're loosing thousands of dollars a minute, or my brother calling to tell me his girlfriend said yes to his marriage proposal.

My family, livelihood, and friends are all going to be more important to me than someone's arbitrary definition of table/movie-theater manners. I'll take steps to minimize the amount of inconvenience caused by having to be reachable during such events, but I will not apologize (actually I will as a courtesy, apples to oranges I guess) to having to interrupt whatever small talk I'm having because I got a call I deem more important.

It's your prerogative to not go out with people like me I suppose, but guess what, it would be mine to not go out with people that believe they're so much more important than other people's needs and wants.

[huggyface]

"but I'm really hoping for a distraction."...."socially acceptable to fuck around with phones"..."I guess that rewards for not being a dick are more popular than explicit punishments for being a dick?"

Their post was littered with resentment and anger.

I just avoid going out with them as much as possible

Good for you. Those are the choices you get to make, controlling yourself instead of controlling others. It's probably a welcome gesture by the other party, given that they've clearly indicated that you are less important to them regardless.

[Encosia]

> It doesn't make me more important than them, though maybe it means that I have different values.

> It's probably a welcome gesture by the other party, given that they've clearly indicated that you are less important to them regardless.

So, which is it (way to keep it classy, by the way)?

[huggyface]

Do you think those are contrasting points? There is a subtle wording difference that means the world.

If I'm at dinner with a casual friend or workplace peer, my family and even critical professional activities are more important than them to me. That doesn't make me more important than them, though, which is what enrages so many people, sure that they need to put people in their place.

[Encosia]

I do think those are contrasting points.

No matter what subtleties you wrap the difference in, relative importance is what you're communicating to everyone else at the table whether you intend to or not. If that's your priority then so be it, but don't be surprised if people who prioritized being present at dinner aren't fond of your choice.

I'm not trying to change you though. Like I said before, I just wouldn't want to eat dinner with you if you couldn't leave the phone alone.

[Dylan16807]

While having a phone out can be rude, I agree with huggyface that it's a statement about the importance of the conversation, not the person.

[glodime]

"If I'm at dinner with a casual friend or workplace peer, my family and even critical professional activities are more important than them to me. That doesn't make me more important than them, though, which is what enrages so many people, sure that they need to put people in their place."

I think it is a confusion of expectations that creates the conflict. You expect it to be understood that this is how you prioritize. Others may not have expected the same priorities.

[ErrantX]

I've always thought its kind of a shame that mobiles mean we have to be on the job all the time. Every day.

I love putting my phone away at meals, it's a good time to be social and set aside the demands of professional life.

[glodime]

"maybe it means that I have different values."

Id say it means that you generally don't value the time spent with the person you are in the physical presence of. There are always exceptions, but if you agree to meet me for lunch or dinner it is because I value that interaction. If you blow me off for some routine call or SMS/MMS, expect me not to invite you or accept an invitation in the future.

[sp4rki]

I'd argue that even though I might value your time and inherent effort of meeting me somewhere, I also would also establish that there are things more important than anyone's company and small talk over dinner. I would feel like a total jackass if I complain (even to myself, without voicing my distaste verbally/publicly) about you taking a call or message, and then you telling me that you have to leave because your father is in the hospital.

Sure I agree it's distasteful to answer a random sms while we're having a beer, and I would never do such a thing - but it's also very distasteful to voice concerns/annoyance about the value of any current interaction versus whatever inherent need a person has to be reachable for communication.

If you tell me that a I'm a jerk for answering a random call and interrupting for 5 minutes while talking to my girlfriend about trivial or banal stuff, I would totally agree. But that kind of sentiment should generally be saved for when you realize someone is being a jerk, not to immediately label a person for having his phone reachable or before an explanation of the reason for taking a call or message.

[zevyoura]

I didn't get the impression he was responding to routine calls, rather that he was making sure he was aware of any urgent calls that may come in.

[geebee]

I'll give it to you that you aren't a hypocrite - you have no problem with cell phone conversations at the table, and you'd grant other people the right to do this in exchange for your own right to do it.

It doesn't work, though. What you're proposing essentially allows the lowest common denominator to impose a low standard of basic courtesy on everyone else.

Can you think of anything you wouldn't want someone else doing at the table, even in exchange for your own right to do it?

[huggyface]

you have no problem with cell phone conversations at the table

It isn't the lowest common denominator. It is the evolution of society, empowered by new communication methods. I need to know if the nanny has an issue, just as I need to react to critical professional demands, as quickly as possible. Modern technology has made that possible. If someone is personally offended because I keep my smartphone with me and check if I receive priority messages, that's rather quaint and traditionalist, but it doesn't blend with the real world.

[geebee]

I said earlier that I never field a call at the table. That isn't completely true. I (discretely, I hope) noticed that the green light was flashing, and I went outside to listen to the message, because it was from an unlisted number and like you I have kids, one in school, one in daycare.

I guess the big difference is that I don't say "deal with it". I actually felt I owed my colleagues a quick explanation and apology.

Think of how different the reaction would have been if instead of writing this:

"If I am at dinner and I decide that I want to keep on top of my device (I have four children and a very busy professional life), those with me have to deal with it. Most of the time my phone is more important than the discardable conversation happening over a meal."

you'd written something like this instead:

"Because I have four children and I want to be reachable in an emergency, I do keep an eye on my phone and occasionally take a call outside. But I try to do this in a way that minimizes the disruption to the people at the table. I hope that people can understand the distinction between putting your phone on the table and fielding casual conversations."

People are generally pretty nice and understanding if you're respectful rather than telling them to deal with it.

[rokhayakebe]

I need to know if the nanny has an issue, just as I need to react to critical professional demands

How often has this situation happen?

[slantyyz]

My experience with people who like to cite edge cases for their habits is that those cases are either extremely rare, or that issues of less importance are "artificially escalated" to high importance to support their case.

[baddox]

Presumably not very often, but that should make it even more acceptable to keep a phone with you during a dinner.

[huggyface]

This is exactly it. This submission is about a restaurant removing the smartphone from one's person, and the post I replied to took significant issue with people putting their smartphone on the table (which they usually do if they have a notification LED and want to essentially forget about it -- it is actually the least interrupting mechanism of using a phone). So many seem to have taken my reply as some blanket endorsement of endless smartphone use, presenting it as a extremes when it is nothing of the sort.

[reneherse]

The issue isn't about angry people controlling others, or about the balance of who regards who as "more important", a point that I think you've mistakenly identified as the crux of the issue. It's about manners and social courtesy.

If the people you dine with are "getting angry" and trying to "control" your actions, the likely reason is that you're being offensively rude, and are missing the social signals of people's frustration and displeasure.

There's a time and place for everything, and much like farts and taking a piss, using your phone should only follow an "Excuse me" as you leave the dinner table.

Ever turn your phone off for the duration of a movie, concert, or show? You only use your phone in the lobby, or at the more casual bookends of an event. This isn't rocket science.

Folks who dine with someone who is constantly dropping the conversation of a shared meal to look down at their phone will indeed "deal with it". They'll simply think of you as overwhelmed and rude, and will hesitate to invite you again.

[huggyface]

It's very strange how you think you're setting me straight. I wonder if you really think you're enlightening me here.

I am very aware of social nuances and cues. I have no lack of people who want to repeatedly go to dinner with me. I also have a busy life, however, so simplified caricatures of the utility of modern conveniences give me a little chuckle, hence my original post. This story is a restaurant capitalizing on the resentment of the few.