Outsiders latching onto inside jokes *clarification post #68*

[wolfie]

I can understand the "trying to hard" as a reason to not like someone. You don't have to be a petty, immature Mean Girl to be put off by this.

But I also think that if you use an "inside joke" term in front of someone more than once, it's perfectly logical for them to think that you MEANT to expand the circle to include them.

Because if you did, that's how you'd do it, right?

Makes sense to me.

But the real burning question here is ... How on earth does one drink hot sauce thinking it is water?

Same way you eat a jalapeno because you thought it was a pepper - you aren't paying attention to what you are doing.

[TootsNYC]

or you have your bottle of water in one hand and the hot sauce that you were carrying to the table in the other. And you get wrapped up in talking to someone and then take a swig without thinking. (I once bit into a bar of soap that way--a cookie in one hand, the soap in the other)

[Lynn2000]

or you have your bottle of water in one hand and the hot sauce that you were carrying to the table in the other. And you get wrapped up in talking to someone and then take a swig without thinking. (I once bit into a bar of soap that way--a cookie in one hand, the soap in the other)

Oh, so your catchphrase for something shocking would be... "That's soapy!" 

[gramma dishes]

Why do I have a vision in my head of someone taking a huge swig of hot sauce, then smacking their head and saying "I could have had a V-8 !!"   

[Moray]

I don't think Sue and Sally were rude in using the phrase around Mary. I do think they were a little rude in continuing to use it without explaining the origin, not just the meaning. If they'd done that, it would have brought Mary "in on it" and eliminated any discomfort on all their parts.

[gramma dishes]

I don't think Sue and Sally were rude in using the phrase around Mary. I do think they were a little rude in continuing to use it without explaining the origin, not just the meaning. If they'd done that, it would have brought Mary "in on it" and eliminated any discomfort on all their parts.

I think that's the problem though.  They didn't want Mary "in on it".

They seemed to be almost taunting her by repeating the words often enough to persuade her to ask, then intentionally left out the necessary details to indicate that it was - and why it was - a joke.  Then complained when she used the words because, don't you know?  Those words belonged to THEM and them only!

[ClaireC79]

I don't see it as any different to POD on here? Should only those who were around when it first started getting used to allowed to use it? or is it ok for the hundreds of newcomers who ask what it means as they see it used and it's explained to start using it as well

[Victim Of Fate]

I can completely understand the OP's point of view here, though I don't think there's anything that can be done about it without being rude. If I'm interpreting the OP correctly, it's not that they don't want the inside joke to be shared, more that there's something slightly false about someone using a joke that references an event they weren't there for, and that they therefore can't possibly understand fully.

But, I do think that this depends on the nature of the joke. In the example given in the OP, using the phrase "That's spicy!" as an expression of surprise is vague enough that it could simply become a phrase. But if it was something much more specific then I think it might emphasise the 'falseness'. If, for example, the OP and her friend had a phrase like "wait a minute... this isn't water, it's hot sauce!", then I think it would be slightly more off-putting, because it's more a phrase of reminiscence than an inside joke, and by using it, the second friend would almost be pretending they were there for the initial incident.

[Emmy]

I don't think Sue and Sally were rude in using the phrase around Mary. I do think they were a little rude in continuing to use it without explaining the origin, not just the meaning. If they'd done that, it would have brought Mary "in on it" and eliminated any discomfort on all their parts.

I think that's the problem though.  They didn't want Mary "in on it".

They seemed to be almost taunting her by repeating the words often enough to persuade her to ask, then intentionally left out the necessary details to indicate that it was - and why it was - a joke.  Then complained when she used the words because, don't you know?  Those words belonged to THEM and them only!

I would feel differently if the OP and her friend only used the phrase once in front of Mary or she overheard the end of a conversation they were having and started using it.  However, they used it several times in front of her when they really didn't want her in on it.  If there are 3 people in a conversation and two of them are frequently bringing up an inside joke, that is rude and exclusionary to the 3rd person.  I get the impression that the OP and her friend don't really care for Mary and were repeating an inside joke in hopes of having a private conversation in front of her.  Because they used the phrase several times, I can see why Mary would have no idea it was an inside joke, ask its meaning, and start using it to better relate to her companions.  I can understand the OP and her friend feeling annoyed that their inside joke is not longer private, however their annoyance should be at themselves for repeatedly bringing up a private joke in front of somebody else. 

I don't think there would be a kind way to tell Mary the joke is private after using it in front of her so often.  The best thing for OP and her friend to do would be to never use the phrase in front of Mary again.  Hopefully Mary will just forget it over time.

[Winterlight]

The difference as I see: "have a shared experience with a friend that becomes part of their short hand" is of course OK, no one has said it isn't OK. But if a pair/group of friends have developed a special shorthand and they don't want others to pick it up then the onus is on the insiders to keep it among themselves, not on the outsider to know they're not to pick it up and use it.

Agreed. By using it repeatedly in front of outsiders, you're pretty much setting yourself up for them to pick up on it.

I've had an "inside joke" sort of thing get picked up by someone who simply overheard it. It was annoying.

I think the way to handle it is to simply never use it in front of them again, and to go totally "dead" when they try it.

It's also permissible, I think, to say something: "That's a phrase that the two of us use together, and I'd really rather you not use it." Soften it by saying, "I'm sure we'll end up with our own catch phrase soon enough."

I think that not using it again outside their duo is fine, but telling the third party not to use it? I'd feel pretty slapped down.

[citadelle]

I think that not using it again outside their duo is fine, but telling the third party not to use it? I'd feel pretty slapped down.

Agreed. I think asking someone not to use the phrase would be rude.

[audrey1962]

This has happened to me a few times and it kinda rubs me the wrong way, probably because the Outsider seems kinda of...pushy? I guess like they're inserting themselves in an inappropriate way?

Does this bother anyone else? Would you address it or ignore it?

Mary is trying to fit in. She is a friend. I would encourage it. The more the merrier, right?

[Lynn2000]

But, I do think that this depends on the nature of the joke. In the example given in the OP, using the phrase "That's spicy!" as an expression of surprise is vague enough that it could simply become a phrase. But if it was something much more specific then I think it might emphasise the 'falseness'. If, for example, the OP and her friend had a phrase like "wait a minute... this isn't water, it's hot sauce!", then I think it would be slightly more off-putting, because it's more a phrase of reminiscence than an inside joke, and by using it, the second friend would almost be pretending they were there for the initial incident.

I think this is an interesting distinction. Let's say Sally and Sue are sisters, and Mary is their brother's fiancee. They want her to feel welcomed into the family. One day, in front of Mary, Sally and Sue use the phrase, "wait a minute... this isn't water, it's hot sauce!!!" and then start laughing. Mary's confused, because there's no water or hot sauce around. Again, in this scenario they want her to feel welcome, so Sally and Sue happily explain the incident from a few years ago that inspired the phrase. Now Mary knows what they mean by it, and where it comes from.

I still think it would be weird for Mary to actually use the phrase herself, because it suggests she was present at an event that happened before her time. It's like she's artificially trying to build history with the group. If she does this kind of thing often, it could be viewed as a bit insecure and desperate, like she thinks she won't be able to form new memories with the group so she's trying to insert herself into old ones. If I was Sally or Sue, I wouldn't be thinking so much that Mary is rude, as she is insecure, and if I generally liked her and wanted her to feel welcome, I would try doing other things to make her feel included and make new memories with her, so she doesn't feel the need to rather obviously co-opt situations she wasn't in.

Now, if this entire phrase has become a catchphrase of the whole family, and is already being used by people who weren't there, it would be rude to make Mary feel awkward for using it herself.

[elephantschild]

Just reread the OP. It doesn't say the original two actively wanted Mary to stop using the phase. Just that it felt ... off.

I can understand that. My DH has this immense pack of close friends, many of whom he's known since elementary school. They have a lot of backstory ... and a lot of inside jokes. It's not that they're trying to exclude people, just that those words and phrases have so well and truly entered their lexicon that they use them as easily as they breathe. I'm thinking of one word in particular that they use in a particular context that could mystify newcomers, including me.

Now, they happily explained all the in-jokes at a raised eyebrow, even in those early days. But it would still have felt odd to me, as a newcomer to the group (when DH and I were first dating) to just start using them, even when I knew the background, meaning and origin. It would be assuming a relationship that just wasn't there.

Today I use those phrases as easily as I breathe, too. And I have to explain them to people if I goof and let one slip. But if a friend of mine who didn't know DH or his friends just started using them ... I would feel it was odd, too.

I really feel like the original two are dragging rather dragged over the coals here.    And I don't see how they did anything at all wrong.

[Allyson]

I can see situations where it would be annoying, what Mary was doing. But I don't think there's much that can be done at this point. Especially if it is just a one-word description like 'spicy', it doesn't seem that odd that Mary would pick up on it. I *love* spreading weird catchphrases and so on with people. If a slang word I've picked up 'goes viral' I feel a little happy anytime someone uses it, like having a book published and seeing someone reading it on a much smaller scale. So if it seems like it could be something like that, I don't think Mary's doing anything wrong.

I can see the other side of it, too, but it's hard to verbalize without coming off as mean. It can feel odd and awkward for someone to pick up on a shared experience they weren't there for. Three friends and I went backpacking through Europe a few years ago, and we have quite a few little in-jokes from that, many of which we've explained to people because, well, they're funny! They've all found those things funny, but none of them have started talking about those experiences in an overly familiar way--it might feel sort of odd if they did. I can't quite articulate the difference between this and the above catching a viral catchphrase, though.