"Extremely disrespectful to show me up like that in the first inning after hitting a home run. Standing there, watching it, taking your sweet time getting down to first base...."

"I just find that extremely disrespectful, and I felt that I needed to let him know about that."

Said the Colorado Rockies pitcher Kyle Freeland, quoted in "Rafael Devers’ homer sparks wild, ejection-filled Giants-Rockies brawl" (NY Post).

The video focuses on the flight of the ball — the typical theater of a home run with the announcer waiting forever to call it "Gone!" and the fans in the bleachers scrambling for their souvenir — so we join the showing of "disrespect" in progress. We don't see the "standing there, watching it" and what must have been the most annoying part of "taking your sweet time":

BENCHES CLEAR IN COLORADO! 😳

Rafael Devers crushes a home run and doesn't even get to second base before everyone is on the field. pic.twitter.com/1DbNxFR5er

— Foul Territory (@FoulTerritoryTV) September 3, 2025

The Rockies are by far the worst team in baseball. They've lost 100 games and are 12 games behind the next worst team. I guess taunting them is experienced as especially mean — downright cruel.

ADDED: Here's more complete video that goes back and replay the full showing of "disrespect":

Eh. I blame Freeland.

"Theater is just not the place for crisps — or chips, for my American cousins. Unless you wanna suck them until they are soft like baby food..."

"... and then you can chew them down. The crunching, the crackling — it’s just the worst thing in the world."

Said Zoë Roberts, a writer and star of 'Operation Mincemeat," quoted in rule #6 — about keeping quiet — in "The 37 Definitive Rules of Going to the Theater/Everything you need to know about seats, coats, eating, drinking, clapping, peeing, compliments, autographs and not being a jerk to those around you" (WaPo)

Rule #6 is "You’ve heard of quiet luxury? Try quiet essentials." We're told you can bring in "water bottles, and even your own candy," but "try emptying candy or snacks into a cup, where you can pluck them out with minimal ruckus."

But Rule #23 creates a big loophole: "Pick your time to sip or bite." It quotes a sound designer who says: "In a musical there are certainly louder scenes where you can probably get away with a little more." Just decide the show is being noisy enough and apparently it's okay to crunch chips.

I feel sorry for the actors on stage. They can see us, the audience. It's not a movie, people. I feel sorry for actors who not only have to tolerate the unreality of a theater full of humans who do not belong in the scene but also have to see us shoveling in food, sucking on straws, chewing, and tipping water bottles up in the air. But the theater people are afraid to call for traditional decorum. They need to fill the seats, and they know we are needy, entitled louts. 

"It’s essential to normalize 'no' and understand that no one should be forced to justify something they simply don’t want to do."

"We live in a society where 'no' is often seen as rude or selfish, but this needs to change. Each person has their own reasons, preferences, and limits, and all of this must be respected without judgment."

Said Jeniffer Castro, who has filed a lawsuit, quoted in "Flyer who went viral after refusing to give seat to crying child sues airline, passenger who filmed her" (NY Post).

It's important to remember that you do not need to articulate your reasons or even understand that you have any reasons. You can say "no" and nothing more. 

"We recently had a job candidate come in to give a presentation as part of the interview process and bring family members with them — their spouse and several children."

"This included a 1-year-old who the candidate carried around and interacted with, repeatedly interrupting their own presentation. The candidate also kicked off their shoes and walked around barefoot during the presentation...."

From "Wait, People Are Bringing Their Whole Family to Job Interviews? And kicking off their shoes?" (NYT).

"These kids never learned the proper way to be a barfly."

Said an L.A. bartender, quoted in "Gen Z Doesn’t Want to Start a Bar Tab/To the chagrin of bartenders, many 20-something bargoers prefer to close out and pay after every single drink, no matter how many they might order during an outing" (NYT).

[B]artenders have tried gently nudging them to consider opening tabs.... Others opt for something more overt.... If a group of friends closes out separate tabs multiple times at Seattle’s Central Saloon, Tiarra Horn will call them out from behind the bar: "'You guys all know each other? You guys not friends? You can’t get this round?' They haven’t even thought about it.... Someone has to bully these people. Respectfully."

"From the beginning, those voices were highly regulated and controlled so as not to provoke certain outrage..."

"... as if it were a given that a woman virtually freed of her uterus and visual sexual signifiers would obviously pose some considerable threat. Consider the guidelines of a pamphlet for operators published by the Chicago Telephone Company in the early 20th century and called 'First Lessons in Telephone Operating.' The book was used to train some of the first generations of disembodied female voices — belonging to women who were given entree into a new line of work only because the young men who preceded them found the job so annoying that they were, in fact, uncontrollably rude. 'The training of the voice to become soft, low, melodious and to carry well is the most difficult lesson an operator has to learn,' the guide reads.... The voice of novel technological communication has been, almost from the beginning, a female voice, which is to say the voice of a helper, a perfect helper, pleasant, unflappable, immune to insults, come-ons and bossiness. It’s a short path from the telephone operator to Apple’s Siri and Amazon’s Alexa, both forever placating, always even-keeled, impervious...."

Writes Susan Dominus, in "Has the Internet Changed How Women Sound? Technology’s many automated female voices are nothing if not helpful" (NYT).

"Will Hutchins, who had a comically genteel starring role during the craze for television westerns in the 1950s, playing a sheriff who favored cherry soda..."

"... over whiskey on 'Sugarfoot,' died on April 21 in Manhasset, N.Y., on the North Shore of Long Island. He was 94.... Mr. Hutchins’s character, Tom Brewster, was the sugarfoot in question: an Eastern law student seeking his fortune as a sheriff who sidles up to the saloon bar to order a sarsaparilla (Wild West root beer) 'with a dash of cherry.' He abhors violence, tries to stop women from throwing themselves at him and lovingly gives up his share of drinking water for his horse. Mr. Hutchins played the role for comedy, following up a villain’s insult with a dramatic pause, only to critique the man for not being 'sociable.'... [H]e was likely to end a fight not with a killing but rather a comment like, 'All right now, how about that apology?'... [Hutchins said] the best advice he had received about comic performance was to act as if you were doing something no less severe than 'Hamlet.' "In order to make people laugh, you have to act seriously,' he said. 'Chaplin was just as sad as he was funny. Buster Keaton never smiled.'"

From "Will Hutchins, Gentle TV Cowboy Lawman in ‘Sugarfoot,’ Dies at 94/He starred in one of the westerns that dominated TV in the late 1950s. After losing traction in Hollywood, he became a traveling clown" (NYT).

Here's a snippet that shows the beginning of the second episode, "Reluctant Hero." I like how our law student character is reading what looks like a casebook as he rides his horse into town:

Watch the whole first episode — the pilot — here. Look for Dennis Hopper as Billy the Kid and Slim Pickens as Shorty.

And here's a clip from an episode of "Bronco" where Will Hutchins — as the Sugarfoot character — has a conversation with Theodore Roosevelt!

"It’s a chatbot that encourages people to tap, tap, tap on hand-held small screens as they watch films on a big one."

"Users gain access to exclusive trivia and witticisms in real time (synced with what’s happening in the movie). Meta, the owner of Facebook and Instagram, has positioned Movie Mate as a way 'to get audiences back in theaters.' Nearly 20 percent of moviegoers ages 6 to 17 already send text messages during movies even though it’s against the rules.... Why not try to channel that instinct, Blumhouse argues, toward what is happening on the theater screen?"

I'm reading "Chatting in Movie Theaters Is a No-No. But What About Chatbots? Blumhouse, the horror movie studio, has teamed up with Meta on a chatbot that encourages people to use their phones while watching a movie" (NYT).

In the last moments of the film "Sunset Boulevard," the delusional actress says, "There's nothing else — just us — and the cameras — and those wonderful people out there in the dark." But the phones have taken away the dark. The "wonderful people" are interposing lighted screens between each others' eyes and that screen that used to control the flow of light.

The delusion is over.

"Every time I see people that disagree with anything that's happening, any gigantic world events, it's one of these retarded shows... There's the word again...."

"We were just talking about that.... The word 'retarded' is back, and it's one of the great culture victories that I think is spurred on, probably, by podcast. But these things are always... you know, where everyone's screaming over each other.... There's never just rational conversations where you discuss things...."

Said Joe Rogan, at the beginning of his new podcast.

I'd been noticing — and not just on Joe Rogan's podcast — that some people seem to want to feel free to say "retarded" again.

You don't really need that word, though, do you? You can always say "stupid." That makes me wonder why "stupid" survived when "retarded" was banished. But the answer is that "stupid" is a very old word that lived in ordinary speech and was applied broadly, and "retarded" was an innovation in the clinical setting that was designed to refer specifically to persons with a disability. It was supposed to be polite. 

For the annals of Things I Asked Grok: Why is it that when something starts out good and turns bad it seems worse that something that was bad all along?

"There are cultural norms... Takashima said. A thunderous sneeze is a learned behavior..."

"... and 'you hardly ever hear anybody sneezing boisterously in Japan,' where [otolaryngologist] Takashima was born. 'It’s frowned upon to create such a loud noise, to bother the public' Takashima said... 'There’s nothing wrong with a loud sneeze,' [some guy] said. 'People’s perception that I, or anyone else, is a loud sneezer is entirely subjective.' But Rob Blatt, 43, the co-owner of a bar in Peekskill, New York, said he would like to be able to control his sneeze when he’s driving because he knows someone who got in a fender bender after sneezing behind the wheel. Blatt said he sneezes 'like the Tasmanian devil.... It’s a full-body experience, for better or worse.... It’s like a gunshot going off.'"

"Sneeze smarter, not louder: The science of a quieter sneeze" (WaPo).

Maybe you enjoy the kind of freely expressive sneezing that's frowned on in Japan. You have to want to change, but if you do, the advice is:

"The average American leaves 53 pounds, or $329 worth, of food on the plate at restaurants every year...."

"Changes to that number over time are hard to track.... But anecdotal evidence suggests such a change in diners’ perception of leftovers.... 'There are some people who have a thing against them.... 'People who just say, "I don’t eat leftovers," as a matter of principle.' But for others, she said, leftovers are a question of logistics. How much food is left? How many boxes are needed to take it home? How much time do I have to eat it? What am I doing after I leave?... Members of Generation Z grew up with the ability to order whatever they want, whenever they want, from their phones. Why bring home food from one restaurant when you can easily order something fresh the next day?... 'I think maybe it’s embarrassing, like you don’t want to be the equivalent of going to an all-you-can-eat buffet and putting rolls in your dinner jacket'...."

From "Is the Doggy Bag Dead? Restaurateurs in big cities have noticed a somewhat surprising shift in diner behavior" (NYT).

The article doesn't mention it, but the term "doggy bag" originates in the presumed embarrassment of taking home leftovers. It's for the dog, not for me.

The OED traces the "doggy" euphemism to a 1952 issue of American Restaurant: "It's a pleasure to hand this beautiful Doggie Pak to your patrons To Take Home Bones For Their Dog... Printed in three colors... It's class."

Then there's this line from "The Cat Who Ate Danish Modern" (1967): "'Doggie hungry. You take doggie bag,' said the caterer, and he pushed a foil-wrapped package into Qwilleran's hand." I was completely unfamiliar with the "Cat Who" series, but it looks like a big deal in the world of mysteries and prompts me to observe that nobody leaves a restaurant with a "cat bag." But then, nobody says "Who let the dog out of the bag?"

"How do I politely tell people I don’t like having anyone visit me in my home? My home is my safe haven."

"The energy of the outside world drains me, and I don’t want that feeling inside my home. This includes family members, friends, neighbors, church family and anyone else who might come knocking on my door. I have anxiety and some unresolved trauma I’m working through that contributes to this. I’m happy to meet in a public place or visit someone in their home if we are both comfortable with it. My family cannot understand why I’m like this. They think they have a right to my space simply because they are family. I don’t mind anyone thinking I’m weird, but how do I respond without feeling like I have to explain myself?"

An interesting point of view, articulated in the form of a letter to the entity known as "Dear Abby."

If you don't mind anyone thinking you're weird, just say what you feel. And if you don't want to feel that you have to explain yourself, why are you asking how to respond?

Where do people get the idea they can invite themselves into someone else's house? 

"My quest is to become the first person to cross Saudi Arabia north to south on foot, an expedition I’m completing in two parts..."

"It has really only just become possible for me to do this kind of trip, now that Saudi Arabia is opening up for tourism and welcoming non-Muslim tourists....  [A]t the border with Jordan... [w]e were planning to camp in the desert but when the farmer Abu Saqqar heard what we were doing he exclaimed, 'What God wills, what God wills, I must slaughter a sheep for you!'... This was my first taste of the Saudi hospitality that was such a delight on this journey. All the district notables were invited and we sat on the floor together to eat. I was the only woman so asked the men if they minded if I ate with them. They all politely invited me even though it may have been uncomfortable for them.... [T]he flat plains of pastel desert... were deeply soothing to the spirit.... The final stage will be a totally different experience as I head to the cool, misty mountains of the south, where the men wear flowers in their hair.... [T]he Saudis I have met on the way have been universally excited by the quest and desperate to show hospitality.... 'May God make you strong, may he bring you success, may you reach your goal if he wills it' are the words that will linger in my mind...."

Writes Alice Morrison, in "What I discovered on my journey to be the first to cross Saudi Arabia on foot/The explorer Alice Morrison describes the first stage of her 1,500 mile journey across volcanic fields and pastel deserts — and what she learnt along the way" (London Times).

ADDED: Here are some nice photos of those "Flower Men." The area is called the Asir province.

Why is it so hard to be adult? With things like this, we should act as if nothing happened. We all know that.

"We will fart hard--- fight hard for the freedom to vote" -Hakeem Jeffriespic.twitter.com/Yl3011Iflv

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) January 3, 2025

I've been noticing a lot of men displaying elegant table manners, wielding the knife and fork with delicacy, such that it seems like something new is happening.

Is there any reason for this new development in American society (assuming I am spotting a real trend)?

That's a question for you. If you want to see how Grok answered my question go here.

My follow-up question was: What perception distortions might be involved in my observation? Grok identified 10 possible forms of perception distortion, beginning with confirmation bias, here.

"[I]n 2020, Mr. Trump refused to concede the election and never invited Mr. Biden for the traditional meeting in the White House."

"It is unlikely that Mr. Biden has forgotten that snub (though it is not clear that he wanted to meet with Mr. Trump in 2020). But Mr. Biden is an institutionalist who has long expressed respect for the trappings and traditions of the White House and the Senate.... That is most likely what motivated him to offer Mr. Trump the invitation that he did not receive himself."

The NYT reports on today's meeting, which I'm trying to picture. I thought of this:

I don't answer the doorbell unless I know who it is and want to see them...

 ... but I really don't answer the doorbell today in Madison, Wisconsin — the Saturday before Election Day.

Maybe I need to make a little sign that says we've already voted.

"And what I realized was that this was a moment that could only happen on Donahue. It was a moment that I don't think ever would've happened..."

"... if it were just Donahue and Ayn Rand sitting on stage talking to one another. I don't think Rand would've been that rude to this powerful TV host. She would only act that way toward an ordinary person. So what you get because of this complicated ecosystem that Donahue has created is this totally unfiltered version of this intellectual titan. And it's pretty ugly. And while you're watching this happen, you start to wonder what truly animates Ayn Rand? Is it this ruthless, uncompromising philosophy at the center of her bestselling books? Or is it maybe that she just doesn't like other people? Whatever was really going on here, it is revealing, it is messy, it is unexpected, and it is fantastic television. And all of it was orchestrated by the guy Philip John Donahue, whose biography in no way prepares you for this kaleidoscopic boundary pushing national conversation that he invited the country to have day after day for 30 years."

Says Michael Barbaro, on today's episode of the "Daily" podcast, "What Phil Donahue Meant to Me" (link goes to the Podscribe transcript, which includes the audio).

Barbaro is 44, and he tells us he listened to "The Phil Donahue Show" when he was a kid and was very influenced by it. The episode with Ayn Rand was on in 1979, so he wasn't watching that episode (unless it was a rerun).

How rude was Ayn Rand to the woman in the audience? Rand was "rude" in that she announced that the audience member was "rude" and refused to answer a question from her because she was rude. Is it rude to call somebody else rude? The standard tactic is to maintain your demeanor and show strength by answering the question on its substance, but clearly that was not Rand's approach. Donahue and Barbaro trash her for for not being more kindly toward the female human who was a mere audience member. I'm just guessing that Ayn Rand chose to treat her exactly as she deserved based on what she said. Here's the entire 1979 show. The "rudeness" incident begins at 27:47:

"Everyone... had a story about explaining basic etiquette to boorish colleagues. No, you can’t microwave fish at lunch."

"Stop cutting your toenails on your desk. Don’t bring a gun to the office.... H.R. knows that employees and managers are annoyed by its memos, by its processes, by just about anything that interrupts life as it was. When an email is sent nudging everyone to take that 45-minute online course in, say, data security, H.R. can almost hear the eye rolls."

From "So, Human Resources Is Making You Miserable?/Get in line behind the H.R. managers themselves, who say that since the pandemic, the job has become an exasperating ordeal. 'People hate us,' one said" (NYT).

"I have never met a nonbinary person who thinks that they/them pronouns are somehow exclusive to nonbinary or trans people."

"They are a way to opt out of the gender binary in third-person reference, and people may choose to do that for many reasons—gender-based, political, philosophical, even religious. One uses the pronouns someone requests because it is the courteous thing to do. It does not stop being the courteous thing to do because one disagrees with the person's reason for requesting them (at least so long as the request is made in good faith rather than as political trolling)."

Says a commenter to the NYT Ethicist column, "My Relative Isn’t Trans or Nonbinary But Wants to Use ‘They/Them’ Pronouns. The magazine’s Ethicist columnist on allyship and forms of solidarity" (NYT).

The Ethicist, Kwame Anthony Appiah, took a different position: "Using pronouns properly is a matter of not misgendering people. It isn’t part of a general policy of calling people whatever they want to be called.... [Y]our relative evidently identifies as cisgender and is motivated simply by allyship.... As the N.A.A.C.P. activist Rachel Dolezal notoriously failed to grasp, solidarity with a group does not grant you membership within it. Many will find the notion that you support people by appropriating their markers of identity to be passing strange."