Criticism via rhetorical questions, e.g.: When you�re traveling with someone, whether by foot or automobile, and you start going the wrong direction, and your companion asks, �Where are you going?�, when that person knows damn well where you�re going (answer: the wrong way), and could be more helpful by politely offering the correct directions, rather than calling attention to your already-glaring ineptitude with their smug, self-satisfied rhetorical inquiry, the bastard.

People who, when you ask them what kind of music they enjoy, respond with, �Oh, everything except Rap and Country.� Don�t say that anymore. Not only are you being closed-minded about musical taste, you�re also being vaguely elitist and/or racist. I remember a time when it was okay to make this statement, but that was in eighth grade.

The term "pet peeves".

People who go overboard when it comes to quoting movies/TV shows. It�s perfectly fine to toss one out there every once in a while. I do it occasionally (okay, I do it a lot), and it can actually enhance conversation sometimes. But it�s one thing to interject with, �Oh, and Dude, the preferred nomenclature is Asian-American,� and then have everyone smile or chuckle knowingly and get back to their conversation about nuclear proliferation or Gary Condit or whatever. It�s quite another thing to be the guy who continues with the game and derails the entire discussion in order to quote the entire scene, line for line. Almost worse is the guy who follows up your clever reference/quote by correcting you because didn�t get it verbatim: �Actually, Homer calls him �Boy� that time, not �Bart�.� (Corollary: the highest funny-to-unfunny ratio is that of actual Monty Python scenes to quoted Monty Python scenes.)

People who still say �Not so much.�

People who assume that, everytime a stranger speaks to them, they�re being hit on. I mean, come on�I realize you�re narcissistic enough to consider yourself the most beautiful person in the world, and insecure enough to need that belief reaffirmed every two minutes, but sometimes a guy just needs directions.

People who use actual clinical disorders to describe character flaws, despite the absence of any real diagnosis. It�s an insult to the poor, freakish aberrations of nature who actually do have these conditions. You�re not OCD just because you clean your oven more than most people; the fact that you never listen to anything I say is fucking annoying, but it doesn�t mean you�re ADD. And I don�t have Tourette�s just because I said the word �blowjob� a little too loud in a crowded restaurant.

Describing anyone with whose agenda you disagree as �a total Nazi.� This is lazy and offensive and, in some cases, laughably ironic, like when I was working at Barnes & Noble and one of the managers, who is Jewish, refused to let a customer use the phone behind the counter to make a long-distance phone call, and the customer called him a Nazi. The security guy at the Metro who won�t let you take pictures of the Secret Machines show is not a Nazi, he�s just underpaid and bitter.

By now, everyone knows that the least interesting topics of conversation are dreams, personal injuries, and celebrity encounters. Possible exceptions for each: 1) Your dream was about the person to whom you are speaking, and therefore might be humorous / enlightening / useful, but only to that person: �Last night I totally dreamt that, instead of being platonic friends, you and I were having totally hot sex! So, um ... �; 2) Knowledge of your personal injury is directly germane to the circumstances; i.e., you have a titanium prosthesis and have to go through a metal detector; 3) Your celebrity encounter involves you humiliating yourself really, really severely. Like, you threw up on David Bowie or something. But even then, just tell it once. Don�t be the guy who mentions it every time you�re in the car and �Let�s Dance� comes on the radio.

I stole this one from Neil, but I feel the same way: When you find yourself in a situation where conventional ettiquette mandates a cursory �excuse me� or �sorry��the best example I can think of right now is when you�re at the grocery store, standing in front of a shelf, and you begin to perceive that you are blocking the view/reach of a fellow customer standing behind you�and you move out of the way and say, �Excuse me�, and the recipient of your courtesy says, �Oh, you�re all right� or �You�re okay.� Not �That�s all right.� �You�re all right.� Yeah, I know I�m all right, bitch. That's not the issue here.

When people talk during television events or movies viewed at home. Everyone in the room needs to have the same understanding of what we�re going to get from this viewing experience: Are we all watching this film / episode of �American Idol� / presidential debate / luge race because we're sincerely interested, and want to experience it with our undivided attention? Then it�s probably best to shut up and save your clever pomo commentary for afterwards. Or, are we watching this film because it�s unintentionally hilarious and provides ample fodder for derisive mockery from the room�s occupants (i.e., Gigli)? If so, then let �er rip. Just make sure you hammer things out ahead of time. Once I got yelled at three-quarters of the way through S.W.A.T. because my scorchingly hilarious observations were supposedly ruining someone else�s enjoyment of the film.

People who self-describe as �perfectionists,� but are really just controlling pricks.

When people list their pet peeves.

5 Comments

Back & Forth