The Cut sparks debate with ‘deranged’ list of new etiquette rules

‘Who is the audience for this?’ one reader asks

A new list of social guidelines and rules created by New York Magazine’s The Cut has sparked an intense debate about the etiquette we’re expected to follow in our personal and professional lives.

The updated societal guidelines were recently shared by the outlet in a feature titled “Do you know how to behave? Are you sure? How to text, tip, ghost, host, and generally exist in polite society today”, and included suggestions for everything from dating to dinner parties.

According to The Cut’s employees, the list was created through a series of experiments, which began by asking people what “specific kinds of interactions or situations really made them anxious, afraid, uncertain, ashamed”. “From there, we created rigid, but not entirely inflexible, rules,” they explained.

The rules were then implemented into the authors’ own lives, before they were fine-tuned with the help of “friends, entertaining experts, and service workers”.

“We sparked office arguments and made messes and ended up with a guide that we hope will stand the test of at least a bit of time - until the next great exciting social upheaval,” the article reads.

However, rather than a list of indisputable societal norms, the guide has proven controversial many times over with its 140 entries.

On Twitter, one of the most contentious points from the etiquette guide appears to be The Cut’s advice for the way those with food allergies should navigate dinner parties.

According to the outlet, individuals who avoid certain foods, either by choice or necessity, should not burden the host of a dinner party with their restrictive diet. “If I were on a very restricted diet or if I were gluten free, or vegan, or anything, I would not say a word to my host,” the point reads. “At a dinner party, it’s about what the host wants to do. Just pick at what you can, then eat when you get home.”

However, many have taken issue with the “offensive” suggestion, including one person who suggested ignoring a guest’s allergy makes them a terrible host.

“Counterpoint: you’re a terrible host if you throw a dinner party without asking your friends if they have any allergies or dietary restrictions so you can accommodate,” they wrote. “They’re supposed to just get sick or go hungry for your ego? That would be the last time I ever hung out with you.”

Another person said: “Look. I’m sure @TheCut is getting lots of feedback on their etiquette list but this is so offensive. The situation described here isn’t a person with an allergy. And a person with a severe allergy cannot just be all chill and not inform people making them dinner of said allergy.”

“Actually, if you’re throwing a dinner party it’s good manners to not put your guests’ lives in danger. Maybe ask people if they have a dangerous allergy and try to avoid having to call 911,” someone else tweeted sarcastically.

The etiquette rule wasn’t the only one to spark backlash on social media, as others criticised the suggestion that the bill must always be split “evenly” when out for group dinners with friends.

According to The Cut, this is because it is “the cleanest, easiest, most moral method for restaurant dining” and eliminates most problems you encounter when everyone looks at what they paid.

“Like all aspects of adult life, it is briefly annoying and then it is totally fine,” the outlet alleged.

However, many disagreed with the suggestion on social media, where one individual described it as a “super classist” take.

“I mostly dug The Cut’s etiquette piece, but hard no on this one. I’ve had points in my life where I’ll only order an app and a beer at a group dinner so I can still hang with friends when I’m broke. Assuming everyone has the luxury to split the bill evenly is super classist,” they wrote, while another person said: “I feel like only folks who have never been properly broke say this sh*t.”

In addition to disagreements over The Cut’s advice for dining out or in with friends, the article also sparked a debate with its work advice, especially its suggestion that “it’s okay to email, text, or DM anyone at any hour”.

According to the outlet, sending messages at any time is acceptable social behaviour because “we’re responsible for which flashing lights and noises we let into our lives”.

“There’s nothing worse than being woken up at 2.30am with a dumb text or a Slack notification. So why did you do that to yourself? Phones and computers have great tools now to manage your time away, including setting working hours and muting types of notifications,” the point reads. “We’re responsible for which flashing lights and noises we let into our lives. Because of that, anyone should feel free to text a friend or message a co-worker at any hour. We can’t successfully move into the future unless we recognise that the onus is on the receiver, not the sender.”

The rule wasn’t universally accepted by readers, however, as many suggested that, not only is it not acceptable to send a message late at night, but it’s also “rude”.

“This is absolutely the worst advice ever. It’s not ok to ‘email, text, or DM anyone at any hour.’  It’s rude. And if it’s work related, it’s an appalling imposition. People don’t want to wake up to DMs from their boss sent at 2am when she couldn’t sleep,” one person tweeted.

In addition to the contentious points, others on the list, such as the suggestion that “superstars” must always be seated facing the room, were simply mocked.

“Who is the audience for this?” one reader asked, while another joked they would be hosting a dinner party just so they could “invite a superstar and have them face the wall”.

Someone else said: “A lot of ‘that seems like more of a You issue’ rules in that etiquette list but the weirdest has to be ‘never seat a celebrity facing a wall at a dinner party’. Like, okay you can face the fridge instead, how big do you think my house is?”

According to someone else, The Cut’s etiquette rules are “deranged” yet entertaining.

“This etiquette article is so long and deranged, I was entertained and exasperated by it,” they wrote.