NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9712982" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Certainly. That's why they're service workers. They are literally there to service you...like that's literally what they are paid to do, attend to whatever it is you want from them. It's also why our culture has pretty strong social norms about what is and isn't appropriate behavior toward your server(s). It's an extremely common trope, for example, to show that a person is actually morally awful, despite appearing to be a good person, because they treat their server(s) badly for no reason. Conversely, a person who has had a morally-dubious presentation is easy to give a "hmm...maybe there's more than there seems to be" moment because they go out of their way to be kind to their server(s) (or other workers, e.g. cleaning staff at their home) when they don't need to be.Like the very idea that a waiter could talk back to a customer who has ordered something? That waiter would get fired VERY quickly. The one and only permissible "talking back" type thing would be a reminder of important concerns, e.g. "just so you know, that dish isn't vegan" or "that comes with an extra surcharge because it contains shrimp" or the like. Indeed, almost the opposite of "pushback" is expected--a very good server should be No. I'm too slow for that <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":P" title="Stick out tongue    :P"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":P" />No. I'm baffled why you'd ask. "Honoring a wish" is radically different from "following instructions". I mean, as merely the very lowest-hanging fruit here, that wish is something you hope will happen. If I just elected to stop participating, what then? The fact that I happened to go along with your wish is a nice thing happening. Again, utterly unlike what it means to carefully follow someone's "clear instructions" and to instantaneously change your behavior the moment they voice any new opinion.There were no instructions. Certainly not "clear" ones. Instructions look dramatically different from conversation, as I should hope you would know from having received instructions in, for example, a classroom.Even if I granted that there were instructions etc. here (which, again, I don't), your example DID involve someone having absolute power all the time. At any moment where non-owner children were interacting with the toy, the non-owner children were obligated to obey not just the "clear instructions" of the toy-owner, but every "opinion" the owner expressed the very moment that it was expressed. I agree that it's ridiculous. I disagree that it is even remotely analogous to what I described.The toy-owner:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Provided "clear instructions". Instructions, outside of the context of teaching, are not part of friendly interaction. They are dictates.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Expected--and received--instantaneous deference to ANY expressed opinion with regard to the relevant subject (here, the toy).</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Expected--and saw--a complete absence of any form of questioning or pushback. Zip zero nada.</li> </ul>Instructions, instantaneous deference, and a complete absence of being able to voice one's alternative opinion is the operative thing here. Yes, I think a server is going to receive instructions from a dining customer. Yes, I think that server should show instantaneous deference to any customer instruction, request, or opinion, so long as the thing in question isn't something illegal, immoral, or in violation of company policy or the like (since those are higher-tier obligations). Yes, I think that diners expect, and usually see, a complete absence of challenge to their dining choices.Hence--with the caveat that the employer in some sense "outranks" the customer--a dining customer at a sit-down restaurant DOES have "absolute power" over their server. Doubly so because, just as with my previous answer of "the toy-owner is using their status, so that the non-toy-owners are desirous of being associated with that status", here there's a very clear "the service employee desires something from the customer who has power over them", namely, gratuity payment. It's inherently transactional. Friendship is not.</blockquote>

Verification