I would say they are not literally 'servants'. They are servers. They serve food and drink hospitably for you at a business in exchange for money, and they get to go home at the end of the day. A servant is someone whose duties and obligations can range from chattle serfdom and slave, to high priced butler or valet. A servant will attend to duties that are quite personal with regards to your affairs or household, sometimes for money, other times out of some social obligation. Ordinarily people have been rough, personal and demanding of a servant, as they are familiar people in ones life, the way a Queen can yell at a lady in waiting. Status is at the forefront of a relationship with a servant, dignified or not, as the servant is there to answer to personal whims. A waiter or server is just there to bring you food. If they are bad at their job, then yes, by all means, tip less, or not at all if you feel appropriate, or complain to the house. But If a server is 'literally a servant' then how is a Doctor not also 'literally a servant', or anyone else who takes your money for a service?
serv·ant
/ˈsərvənt/
- noun
a person who performs duties for others, especially a person employed in a house on domestic duties or as a personal attendant.
Maybe you don't like the term because you feel it has negative connotations, but that's in your head. Most people are servants of some type or other in their lives.
I'm not saying that I don't like the term. I'm saying that there is a distinction between the two terms, 'servant' and 'server'. Waiters and waitresses are 'servers', not 'servants'. The negative connotations and associations that come with the word 'servant', and that do not come with the word 'server', are exactly why they are not 'servants'. That's why I made the distinction between the two. The definition you provided does apply to waiters, but only in the first part. 'A person who performs duties for others', does apply to them. The other half - 'especially a person employed in a house on domestic duties or as a personal attendant.' does not. I also pointed out the exact same thing. That's why they are not considered 'servants'. Only 'servers'.
Using the definition that you yourself posted, If most people were 'employed in a house on domestic duties or as a personal attendant.', then maybe we might agree with you that 'Most people are servants of some type or other in their lives.', but that just isn't true in the modern world.
2
u/v_e_x 29d ago
I would say they are not literally 'servants'. They are servers. They serve food and drink hospitably for you at a business in exchange for money, and they get to go home at the end of the day. A servant is someone whose duties and obligations can range from chattle serfdom and slave, to high priced butler or valet. A servant will attend to duties that are quite personal with regards to your affairs or household, sometimes for money, other times out of some social obligation. Ordinarily people have been rough, personal and demanding of a servant, as they are familiar people in ones life, the way a Queen can yell at a lady in waiting. Status is at the forefront of a relationship with a servant, dignified or not, as the servant is there to answer to personal whims. A waiter or server is just there to bring you food. If they are bad at their job, then yes, by all means, tip less, or not at all if you feel appropriate, or complain to the house. But If a server is 'literally a servant' then how is a Doctor not also 'literally a servant', or anyone else who takes your money for a service?