Things you really wish people wouldn't say

Is that your circle of real life friends or on-line friends?

I know one person that I met in real life who met her spouse on-line.  I know dozens of people who I met on-line who met their spouses on-line.

Both.  It's a group of people who got together via a message board based around a webcomic, and hold annual "conventions" (and see each other outside of cons).  It's actually how Tim and I originally met back in 2005!

NOT counting UKY or the LDR group I post on, I probably know a good dozen or more people who are in LDRs.  Not necessarily international, though.

Here's one for the thread -

"Alright, then?" or just "Alright?" instead of Hello.  It always leaves me trying to figure out if I should respond that I'm fine, or if I should say hello!

Here's one for the thread -

"Alright, then?" or just "Alright?" instead of Hello.  It always leaves me trying to figure out if I should respond that I'm fine, or if I should say hello!

I could say the same about 'How are you?' in the US (it's essentially the same thing - when you're generally expected to reply with 'How are you?' instead of giving a proper answer) . When I arrived in the US as an international exchange student in 2003, we had an orientation session on 'Being an alien in the US' (great title, huh?) and one of the things it covered was how to respond when someone said 'How are you?', lol.

you're generally expected to reply with 'How are you?' instead of giving a proper answer

Same applied to "How do you do?" among posher English folk. They could always tell who was common because they would answer "Very well thank you".

People are probably going to take this personally or think I am not integrating with British culture, but contrex's post reminds me of pretty much one of my top five pet peeves.  I hate the word "common" as an accusation.  While I don't mingle with nobility to know if they use it, I can't help but see it as an example of self-loathing when a "commoner" use it against another "commoner".

I can't help but see it as an example of self-loathing when a "commoner" use it against another "commoner".

I don't think your not integrating but more projecting your own cultural baggage on to a term that doesn't carry the same for British people.

Americans use the term "low class", are they all self loathing too?

People are probably going to take this personally or think I am not integrating with British culture, but contrex's post reminds me of pretty much one of my top five pet peeves.  I hate the word "common" as an accusation.  While I don't mingle with nobility to know if they use it, I can't help but see it as an example of self-loathing when a "commoner" use it against another "commoner".

I hope you didn't get peeved by my own use of the term in my post above, because if so, I suggest you check the settings on your irony detector; (if you have one installed - certain markets don't fit them) this may avoid similar problems in future...

Having got that out of the way, my own experience of the word "common" comes from it being one of the words that my mother used most often. It sprang from a disagreeable trait my parents had, namely the kind of violent snobbery shown by those who are just one step higher up the ladder than those they despise.

What I mean by this is that my parents wanted me to go to grammar school so that I would not drop aitches, say "ain't", eat peas with a knife, etc. My mother was proud that she dyed her hair chestnut, not peroxide like the "common" woman down the road. Common women wore curlers to the shops and talked with cigarettes in their mouths. She was born in Camberwell but aspired to Purley.

Real "posh" people, dukes and so on, don't seem to have that sort of attitude, although they do use the word "oik" about yokelly types I believe.

I don't think your not integrating but more projecting your own cultural baggage on to a term that doesn't carry the same for British people.

Americans use the term "low class", are they all self loathing too?

If I thought that every American who used the term was self loathing, then your assessment of why I find the term so horrible would have merit.  Some Americans who use the term are definitely self-loathing, particularly those who were born into the lower classes and are no longer seen as a part of them.  Class mobility might be easier in the US than here, but a class system, whether we recognise it or not, is definitely a part of the American culture.

When British people use it, whether it is to denote someone who lacks social graces or to put down someone who actually is a part of a lower socio-economic class, unless they are nobility or royalty are insulting themselves when they use it and re-enforcing a repressive, asinine system.  Of course, the very upper classes who use the term are being horrible in a totally different way.

When British people use it, whether it is to denote someone who lacks social graces or to put down someone who actually is a part of a lower socio-economic class, unless they are nobility or royalty are insulting themselves when they use it and re-enforcing a repressive, asinine system.  Of course, the very upper classes who use the term are being horrible in a totally different way.

I disagree.  I think many Americans massively over estimate the presence of the "British Class System" based on preconceptions and what they expect to find.  There really isn't the deeper meaning you are attributing to the term because the  "class system" doesn't have the relevance that you appear to think it has.

I think a lot has to do with national myths.  If you come to the UK expecting to see a class ridden society you will find evidence every where.  Even in a tounge-in-cheek turn of phrase.  Social Sciences are notably inexact but every study I've seen show that the US has lower social mobility than the UK (although we do fare badly compared to the rest of the EU) yet the myth of the American egalitarian meritocracy still abounds.

I don't believe I said that America was egalitarian or a meritocracy.  In fact, I think I said the opposite.  I don't even think I compared the two except to say that I think that a class system exists in the States.  I think there might be a strawman in the room.

ETA: I guess I did compare the two in that I said that class mobility is easier in the US.  I agree that is an assumption on my part, but I don't even know why we're comparing the two in the first place.  I rarely hear it used ironically here, and no amount of downplaying of a class system here will convince me that "commoners" calling other "commoners" common isn't saying that there is something wrong with being "common".

I don't believe I said that America was egalitarian or a meritocracy.  In fact, I think I said the opposite.  I don't even think I compared the two except to say that I think that a class system exists in the States.  I think there might be a strawman in the room.

ETA: I guess I did compare the two in that I said that class mobility is easier in the US.  I agree that is an assumption on my part, but I don't even know why we're comparing the two in the first place.

Because my point was about seeing expectations.

If you expect to see a self-loathing, class-ridden society then you'll see evidence even when it doesn't exist.

I used the US to illustrate the same thing, people assume that the US has more class mobility based not on evidence but on expectation and stereotype.  And again with the use of the term "low class" - the same situations exist in both places yet you read different things into them.

I think the straw man is busy shedding bits of himself all over the carpet. We'll have to get that common little workman around to use his vacuum cleaner soon.

Because my point was about seeing expectations.

If you expect to see a self-loathing, class-ridden society then you'll see evidence even when it doesn't exist.

I used the US to illustrate the same thing, people assume that the US has more class mobility based not on evidence but on expectation and stereotype.  And again with the use of the term "low class" - the same situations exist in both places yet you read different things into them.

I actually didn't come here expecting anything in terms of the class system.  If anything, I was expecting it to be something of a bygone era and was a bit shocked by the preoccupation that the media has with it, even if it's not overtly.

But yeah, "common" as an insult is still as repugnant to me as before I took part in this discussion.  I really don't see that changing.

ETA:  And the only different thing I read into "low class" and "common" is that "low class" covers a narrower strata of society.  Common is meant to cover everyone who isn't royalty or nobility.  I don't use either term in a derogatory way.

I could say the same about 'How are you?' in the US (it's essentially the same thing - when you're generally expected to reply with 'How are you?' instead of giving a proper answer) . When I arrived in the US as an international exchange student in 2003, we had an orientation session on 'Being an alien in the US' (great title, huh?) and one of the things it covered was how to respond when someone said 'How are you?', lol.

Ooh, I don't agree.  It's perfectly fine to reply 'Fine, how are you?' or just 'I'm fine, thanks' when someone says 'How are you?'  which actually are proper answers to the question.  Whereas contrex is saying:

Same applied to "How do you do?" among posher English folk. They could always tell who was common because they would answer "Very well thank you".

I still don't know what I'm meant to say when some says 'Alright?' to me.  To me it always sounds like the person asking thinks something is wrong with me and is trying to ascertain whether or not that's the case!

...even if it's not overtly.

And there's the rub, you're reading subtexts and interpreting things based on your own point of view.

I'll stick to my point that your reading connotations into the term that don't really exist for most British people.

Obviously there are no hard and fast "right answers" when dealing with subtleties of meaning and sometimes outsiders can see more clearly when looking into a culture.  That being said I'd guess that contex doesn't see himself a self-loathing prisoner of a "repressive, asinine system," and I know I don't.

Edited to add:

Back to the point of the thread, I totally agree that it's not a nice thing to call someone and we would all be better if no-one used it.  I just disagree with why.