Talking to women wearing headphones

[Esternial]

I wouldn't say that wearing headphones in public is rude in itself, it's more of the belief that wearing headphones in public magically gives you an inviolable right to not have to interact with anyone that's rude.

Belief that you're entitled to interrupt other people's lives for no good reason is rather rude, far more rude than one which doesn't interfere with other people.

If you're interrupting someone whilst he or she is listening to music I would suspect one usually has a good reason, so there's that.

[Crockerland]

Belief that you're entitled to interrupt other people's lives for no good reason is rather rude, far more rude than one which doesn't interfere with other people.

I do wonder how any of you ever meet new people if you can't converse with anyone you haven't conversed with before.

It's fine to converse with strangers, not to interrupt them when they're doing something to hit on them.

[Great Nepal]

Belief that you're entitled to interrupt other people's lives for no good reason is rather rude, far more rude than one which doesn't interfere with other people.

If you're interrupting someone whilst he or she is listening to music I would suspect one usually has a good reason, so there's that.

Yes so would I, would certainly not be impressed if that wasn't the case afterwards though.

Belief that you're entitled to interrupt other people's lives for no good reason is rather rude, far more rude than one which doesn't interfere with other people.

I do wonder how any of you ever meet new people if you can't converse with anyone you haven't conversed with before.

You can converse with people you haven't previously conversed with, so as long as you have good reason to believe they're of similar mindset and/or won't mind you doing so - say a bar, common uni/workplace, mutual friend', shared flat/HMO; and quite crucially not when they're otherwise engaged like in say listening to music.

[Galloism]

I do wonder how any of you ever meet new people if you can't converse with anyone you haven't conversed with before.

You can converse with people you haven't previously conversed with, so as long as you have good reason to believe they're of similar mindset and/or won't mind you doing so - say a bar, common uni/workplace, mutual friend', shared flat/HMO; and quite crucially not when they're otherwise engaged like in say lightning to music, or when they've shown no inclination to chat.

Well clearly if you try to talk to a person and they rebuff you, you should go away. They're being rude, and there's no reason you have to try to get over their rudeness, and would actually be rude in return to try to do so.

However, I contest that headphones are a "DO NOT DISTURB" sign. Mostly, they're a common courtesy to people around you. I'm sure some people incorrectly use it that way, but they're not sending a clear signal, because it doesn't always or even most of the time mean that, in the same way high heels doesn't express you hate elephants except to a few unusual people.

If you want people to not talk to you in public, I recommend this:



There's a message that's clear and unambiguous.

[Imperializt Russia]

Unnecessarily gendered thread.

true.

It's a gendered thread, because it's referring specifically to a gendered issue. It can also apply in the reverse.

But there's an industry around (and it's in general response to a specific article about) men hitting on women and trying to dodge being rebuffed.

[Imperializt Russia]

You can converse with people you haven't previously conversed with, so as long as you have good reason to believe they're of similar mindset and/or won't mind you doing so - say a bar, common uni/workplace, mutual friend', shared flat/HMO; and quite crucially not when they're otherwise engaged like in say lightning to music, or when they've shown no inclination to chat.

Well clearly if you try to talk to a person and they rebuff you, you should go away. They're being rude, and there's no reason you have to try to get over their rudeness, and would actually be rude in return to try to do so.

However, I contest that headphones are a "DO NOT DISTURB" sign. Mostly, they're a common courtesy to people around you. I'm sure some people incorrectly use it that way, but they're not sending a clear signal, because it doesn't always or even most of the time mean that, in the same way high heels doesn't express you hate elephants except to a few unusual people.

If you want people to not talk to you in public, I recommend this:



There's a message that's clear and unambiguous.

If I am wearing headphones, I cannot hear you. I am enjoying music.

If you badger me, I have to stop enjoying my music.
Regardless of whether or not it was more or partly that I don't want to be talked to, you have inherently annoyed me, and I did not want you to do that.

It is a functional DND notice.

[Galloism]

Well clearly if you try to talk to a person and they rebuff you, you should go away. They're being rude, and there's no reason you have to try to get over their rudeness, and would actually be rude in return to try to do so.

However, I contest that headphones are a "DO NOT DISTURB" sign. Mostly, they're a common courtesy to people around you. I'm sure some people incorrectly use it that way, but they're not sending a clear signal, because it doesn't always or even most of the time mean that, in the same way high heels doesn't express you hate elephants except to a few unusual people.

If you want people to not talk to you in public, I recommend this:



There's a message that's clear and unambiguous.

If I am wearing headphones, I cannot hear you. I am enjoying music.

If you badger me, I have to stop enjoying my music.
Regardless of whether or not it was more or partly that I don't want to be talked to, you have inherently annoyed me, and I did not want you to do that.

It is a functional DND notice.

It is not, and there is no need to stop enjoying your music to have a conversation in public with someone. I'm a big fan of the one earbud removal method. No annoyance necessary.

[Imperializt Russia]

It might be because I have some sort of hearing difficulty, but if I'm trying to listen to music, and someone tries to talk to me, I have to pick which I listen to. They can't compete.

[Great Nepal]

You can converse with people you haven't previously conversed with, so as long as you have good reason to believe they're of similar mindset and/or won't mind you doing so - say a bar, common uni/workplace, mutual friend', shared flat/HMO; and quite crucially not when they're otherwise engaged like in say lightning to music, or when they've shown no inclination to chat.

Well clearly if you try to talk to a person and they rebuff you, you should go away. They're being rude, and there's no reason you have to try to get over their rudeness, and would actually be rude in return to try to do so.

However, I contest that headphones are a "DO NOT DISTURB" sign. Mostly, they're a common courtesy to people around you. I'm sure some people incorrectly use it that way, but they're not sending a clear signal, because it doesn't always or even most of the time mean that, in the same way high heels doesn't express you hate elephants except to a few unusual people.

If you want people to not talk to you in public, I recommend this:

There's a message that's clear and unambiguous.

I think you're in minority when it comes to people who view headphones as not being generally universal "dont disturb" sign; you just need to look at this thread and responses.
Comparison with high hills is rather silly, high hills do not in anyways impede upon your ability to view an elephant whereas earphones are quite literally marketed on basis of tuning out external noise. If you were interested in conversing with someone surely you'd be conversing not putting in earphones which by their very nature block the conversation.

[Galloism]

It might be because I have some sort of hearing difficulty, but if I'm trying to listen to music, and someone tries to talk to me, I have to pick which I listen to. They can't compete.

Then a "Pardon me I'm busy" is sufficient. Then you've communicated a clear and unambiguous signal.

[Galloism]

Well clearly if you try to talk to a person and they rebuff you, you should go away. They're being rude, and there's no reason you have to try to get over their rudeness, and would actually be rude in return to try to do so.

However, I contest that headphones are a "DO NOT DISTURB" sign. Mostly, they're a common courtesy to people around you. I'm sure some people incorrectly use it that way, but they're not sending a clear signal, because it doesn't always or even most of the time mean that, in the same way high heels doesn't express you hate elephants except to a few unusual people.

If you want people to not talk to you in public, I recommend this:

There's a message that's clear and unambiguous.

I think you're in minority when it comes to people who view headphones as not being generally universal "dont disturb" sign; you just need to look at this thread and responses.

I've looked at this thread. I've also read a lot of threads on NSG where the popular opinion on NSG doesn't match reality in any way shape or form.

Comparison with high hills is rather silly, high hills do not in anyways impede upon your ability to view an elephant whereas earphones are quite literally marketed on basis of tuning out external noise. If you were interested in conversing with someone surely you'd be conversing not putting in earphones which by their very nature block the conversation.

Yes I would - because otherwise, to enjoy my music, they would have to listen to my music in the checkout aisle, and I readily admit my music choices are not the most popular. I'm being courteous toward them - you're interpreting it as an overt sign of rudeness.

[Great Nepal]

It might be because I have some sort of hearing difficulty, but if I'm trying to listen to music, and someone tries to talk to me, I have to pick which I listen to. They can't compete.

Then a "Pardon me I'm busy" is sufficient. Then you've communicated a clear and unambiguous signal.

Why is the onus on the non interested party, that logic is akin to suggesting every website should pop up with annoying audio video ads and people who aren't interested in that can close it.

[Great Nepal]

I think you're in minority when it comes to people who view headphones as not being generally universal "dont disturb" sign; you just need to look at this thread and responses.

I've looked at this thread. I've also read a lot of threads on NSG where the popular opinion on NSG doesn't match reality in any way shape or form.

Given I don't think there is any explicit bias in favor/ against speaking in public among people joining NSG like there is with say political threads, and there not being survey on the issue (that I could find anyways), I'd say its the best there is.

Comparison with high hills is rather silly, high hills do not in anyways impede upon your ability to view an elephant whereas earphones are quite literally marketed on basis of tuning out external noise. If you were interested in conversing with someone surely you'd be conversing not putting in earphones which by their very nature block the conversation.

Yes I would - because otherwise, to enjoy my music, they would have to listen to my music in the checkout aisle, and I readily admit my music choices are not the most popular. I'm being courteous toward them - you're interpreting it as an overt sign of rudeness.[/quote]
I'm not interpreting it as rudeness, merely unwillingness to talk which makes sense given its impediment to talking.

[Galloism]

Then a "Pardon me I'm busy" is sufficient. Then you've communicated a clear and unambiguous signal.

Why is the onus on the non interested party,

Because humans are an inherently social species that has been conversing in public for thousands of years. Besides, if you can't ever approach someone because they haven't approached you, and they can't ever approach you because you didn't approach them, no one ever meets. It's akin to that Kansas train law: "When two trains approach each other at a crossing, they shall both come to a full stop and neither shall start up until the other has gone."

that logic is akin to suggesting every website should pop up with annoying audio video ads and people who aren't interested in that can close it.

Some do. That's what ad-block is for.

[Galloism]

I've looked at this thread. I've also read a lot of threads on NSG where the popular opinion on NSG doesn't match reality in any way shape or form.

Given I don't think there is any explicit bias in favor/ against speaking in public among people joining NSG like there is with say political threads, and there not being survey on the issue (that I could find anyways), I'd say its the best there is.

A couple years ago, the consensus on NSG was that men couldn't be raped by women. I was there.

Yes I would - because otherwise, to enjoy my music, they would have to listen to my music in the checkout aisle, and I readily admit my music choices are not the most popular. I'm being courteous toward them - you're interpreting it as an overt sign of rudeness.

I'm not interpreting it as rudeness, merely unwillingness to talk which makes sense given its impediment to talking.

It's no serious impediment, any more than not being faced directly at someone is a serious impediment.

[Alvecia]

I know I meet new people when I specifically go out socialising.
Not when I'm on the bus or the train, or simply walking from A to B. Which coincidentally is when I use headphones, because I have places to be and have no time to stop and get to know someone.

[Katganistan]

Only scenario where you should talk to someone on their headphones is if they drop something, there's a massive fire and you don't have phone to call 999, or there's a dragon roaming the streets and the person hasn't noticed. In other cases just don't.

If there was a dragon roaming the streets I'd just nod once, switch to the Skyrim soundtrack, take a furious bite out of my emergency sweetroll and run like fucking hell.

You wouldn't scream FUS RO DAH!!!?

This is what's on people's agenda these days?

It's called the internet, you may have heard of it, people talk about all sorts of things. I'm really considering suggesting that this kind of post and "Don't you people have anything better to talk about?!??!" and such be declared spam. Really, I am.

I concur.

That doesn't mean I owe my time to any randomer who wanders up and fancies a chat.

No, but being a decent person, you should give them your time.

Why? You don't owe them anything.

You COULD if you wished, but there is no SHOULD about it.

Fair enough, if someone asks me a question I will answer - I was under the impression that we were dealing with someone striking up conversation feeling "entitled" to a response from me longer than "Sorry, I'm busy". If that's the case, then no - they are most certainly not entitled to that.

It's possible there's a cultural issue here. Joking aside, acting like this where I live would be considered very rude.

Agreed, there is no obligation to have a conversation with someone, but you have to acknowledge their existence. It's rude here too. But I live in a rude town.

Not acknowledging the existence of someone who is not known to you and is not in need of help is not rude. It's a clear, "Don't want to talk to you" or "I'm uncomfortable, leave me alone."

All this "you owe it" nonsense -- you don't know why the person prefers to put up the barrier. Maybe they're just busy -- or maybe they've been harassed or abused and are trying to avoid confrontation.

Because, you know, it's not like woman haven't been shot in the face for protesting a guy rubbing against them, or murdered for rejecting an advance at a bar, or for not wanting to give a guy her phone number.

So no, if someone doesn't want to talk to you, it doesn't make them a bad person. It makes them unwilling to get into a confrontation with a stranger, who might possibly kill them for daring to say no.

[Galloism]

Agreed, there is no obligation to have a conversation with someone, but you have to acknowledge their existence. It's rude here too. But I live in a rude town.

Not acknowledging the existence of someone who is not known to you and is not in need of help is not rude. It's a clear, "Don't want to talk to you" or "I'm uncomfortable, leave me alone."

All this "you owe it" nonsense -- you don't know why the person prefers to put up the barrier. Maybe they're just busy -- or maybe they've been harassed or abused and are trying to avoid confrontation.

Because, you know, it's not like woman haven't been shot in the face for protesting a guy rubbing against them, or murdered for rejecting an advance at a bar, or for not wanting to give a guy her phone number.

So no, if someone doesn't want to talk to you, it doesn't make them a bad person. It makes them unwilling to get into a confrontation with a stranger, who might possibly kill them for daring to say no.

Women are subject to far far less violence than men. Those situations happened, but they are unusual corner cases.

You're probably more likely to get struck by lightning than for any of those things to happen to you, and your reaction is approximately equivalent to refusing to go outside ever to avoid lightning.

[Katganistan]

So nothing will happen. One person might think I'm rude. Big fucking deal. The world, as you say, is not their safe space.

You might very well get punched out. It is something I have seen more than once in this circumstance.

So someone has the right to attack someone because they don't want to be spoken to?
Faaaaaaantastic.

"Talk to me! Talk to me, dammit! No? Then I'll just violently assault you, person-quietly-minding-their-own-business!"

More like, " treat me like I am not here, I will let you know I am here, you fucking asshole."

......Are you even considering what you're posting here?

"I have a right to assault you because you have no right to expect to be left alone."
That's a pretty frightening attitude, and exactly why people ignore others in public. That's an insane reaction to someone who doesn't want to talk to you.

[Great Nepal]

Why is the onus on the non interested party,

Because humans are an inherently social species that has been conversing in public for thousands of years.

And modern world happened, we can be social without having to stop and chat, and we got places to be and things to do usually to couple of minutes. But for shake of argument lets say this phenomenon was still common, so majority of people want to talk to each other and are willing to inturupt third party to do so, and standard conversation would be "hey", followed by "no thanks", process taking 15 secs:
To go from my room to home, travel which takes ~1:30 hrs:
I need to walk to coach stop, on the 20 min walk i can easily come across 20/30 people; so 13 of them wanna chat: 130 sec.
On the coach there'll be atleast 40 people so 15 people wanna chat so 300s.
On way from coach stop to tube, there are lots of people lets take conservative estimate at 70 so 525s.
On the tube, lets take ths carriage so 100 people, 50 wanna chat so 750s. Of course you'll get people getting on so lets double that so 1500s.
On the way from the station to home, there'll be about 30 people plus vendors so 225s.

So about 45 minutes on hour and half's journey on entirely pointless and uninteresting series of conversations. Focused on areas which would cause delays (ie. not sitting somewhere), that's 15 mins. If this was a thing, I'd be wasting 90 min per week on entirely uninteresting shit, and need to be leaving my house 30 min earlier (round trip) to facilitate it.

Besides, if you can't ever approach someone because they haven't approached you, and they can't ever approach you because you didn't approach them, no one ever meets. It's akin to that Kansas train law: "When two trains approach each other at a crossing, they shall both come to a full stop and neither shall start up until the other has gone."

Except there are places to chat, I'm quite amicable to chatting if I'm in a bar, or Starbucks without laptop/earphones, out with friends (whether I know you or not), uni if you're studying there, the flat - not while traveling (although i grant you some might), and certainly not when with earphones/ laptop/ any other engaging thing (and I doubt there are any significant proportion who are).

that logic is akin to suggesting every website should pop up with annoying audio video ads and people who aren't interested in that can close it.

Some do. That's what ad-block is for.

And there's general agreement that is shitty web design done by absolute assholes or who don't know anything about making a website because unexpectedly interrupting people engaged in other activities is assholish.

[Katganistan]

People absolutely should not have to respond "politely" to people being impolite under threat of physical violence.

People should respond politely out of being polite in a civil society.

Punching people who don't want to talk to you is being polite in a civil society?

[Khadgar]

Fair enough, if someone asks me a question I will answer - I was under the impression that we were dealing with someone striking up conversation feeling "entitled" to a response from me longer than "Sorry, I'm busy". If that's the case, then no - they are most certainly not entitled to that.

It's possible there's a cultural issue here. Joking aside, acting like this where I live would be considered very rude.

Agreed, there is no obligation to have a conversation with someone, but you have to acknowledge their existence. It's rude here too. But I live in a rude town.

If I don't want to talk to you I'll act as if you don't exist and appreciate it if you'd extend me the same courtesy.

[Galloism]

Because humans are an inherently social species that has been conversing in public for thousands of years.

And modern world happened, we can be social without having to stop and chat, and we got places to be and things to do usually to couple of minutes. But for shake of argument lets say this phenomenon was still common, so majority of people want to talk to each other and are willing to inturupt third party to do so, and standard conversation would be "hey", followed by "no thanks", process taking 15 secs:
To go from my room to home, travel which takes ~1:30 hrs:
I need to walk to coach stop, on the 20 min walk i can easily come across 20/30 people; so 13 of them wanna chat: 130 sec.
On the coach there'll be atleast 40 people so 15 people wanna chat so 300s.
On way from coach stop to tube, there are lots of people lets take conservative estimate at 70 so 525s.
On the tube, lets take ths carriage so 100 people, 50 wanna chat so 750s. Of course you'll get people getting on so lets double that so 1500s.
On the way from the station to home, there'll be about 30 people plus vendors so 225s.

So about 45 minutes on hour and half's journey on entirely pointless and uninteresting series of conversations. Focused on areas which would cause delays (ie. not sitting somewhere), that's 15 mins. If this was a thing, I'd be wasting 90 min per week on entirely uninteresting shit, and need to be leaving my house 30 min earlier (round trip) to facilitate it.

You get to the coach stop at precisely the time it arrives every day? You must have the most impressive sense of timing in the world, along with psychic abilities.

I think you're overestimating the time - because mostly people don't talk on the sidewalk where people are walking in a hurry, headphones or no headphones. However, there is a series of interesting conversations to be had on the coach, on the tube, etc, and you won't wind up talking to every person on the tube, but if someone does engage you on the tube, you find there's some interesting people there.

I love it when people talk to me. You find out about their lives, and how other people live, and I've picked up quite a few great tips when it comes to home maintenance and good recipes in random public conversations. You oughtta try it once - it takes no extra time, and you learn a lot.

Besides, if you can't ever approach someone because they haven't approached you, and they can't ever approach you because you didn't approach them, no one ever meets. It's akin to that Kansas train law: "When two trains approach each other at a crossing, they shall both come to a full stop and neither shall start up until the other has gone."

Except there are places to chat, I'm quite amicable to chatting if I'm in a bar, or Starbucks without laptop/earphones, out with friends (whether I know you or not), uni if you're studying there, the flat - not while traveling (although i grant you some might), and certainly not when with earphones/ laptop/ any other engaging thing (and I doubt there are any significant proportion who are).

That's a really narrow group of people to meet.

And there's general agreement that is shitty web design done by absolute assholes or who don't know anything about making a website because unexpectedly interrupting people engaged in other activities is assholish.

Well, video/audio ads are assholish, but it's generally accepted that everyone without exception hates them.

[Galloism]

So nothing will happen. One person might think I'm rude. Big fucking deal. The world, as you say, is not their safe space.

You might very well get punched out. It is something I have seen more than once in this circumstance.

The proper reaction to rudeness is not battery.

[Genivaria]

I really don't get why some people think they're entitled to other people' time.