Well really, if you think about it, they’re kind of arguing against their own point. Like, trans women want to be viewed and treated the same as biological women, right? So doesn’t being offended at being referred to as a lady kind of go against your own argument?
Air Canada staff will no longer greet 'ladies and gentlemen' onboard planes
- Thread starter Zaibetter
- Start date
If My name was David, but I hated being called David, and asked you to call me Dave, then I'd expect to be called Dave. I would expect you to challenge me on it, I'd just expect you to comply. If you refused to call me Dave, and instead complained about how "your" rights to call me what YOU wanted to call me were being violated, then you'd be a dick. If you were a student of mine who complained about me being a dick (by refusing to call you Dave, because you were worried about your right to NOT call me Dave) , then I'd expect to be reprimanded (or even fired if I refused to stop being a dick). That's what happens to dicks.
That's why people are opposed to Mr. Peterson. Not because we all stand for all the genders of the rainbow, but because we're not dicks.
That's why I support Air Canada saying "Everybody". Not because I'm all that worried about the 0.001% of people (or whatever the statistic is) who don't identify as man or woman (I have no doubt that they can handle themselves), but simply because I'm not a dick. If somebody (or some organization) wants to try to be inclusive of a minority (no matter how small), then that's fine by me. I'm just not okay with somebody being a dick.
I'm glad that you don't consider yourself a dick.
I guess because I think it's stupid for Air Canada to remove the phrase "Ladies and Gentlemen" from their announcements, that makes me a dick.
No, it is stupid for Air Canada to remove the phrase "Ladies and Gentleman". There's nothing wrong with acknowledging that.
Getting upset about it, on the other hand, is a different story all together.
Attempting to play the part of a victim simply because somebody (or some organization) is attempting to be inclusive of a group that includes both you and a previously unrecognized minority, would most definitely make you a dick.
It's not hard to not make yourself look like a dick. It's actually much easier than making a dick hard.
I suppose you have a point that we don't have definitive public polling on Peterson's position on pronouns. However, it's hard to differentiate Peterson's large popularity and support from his stance against Bill C-16.
I'm not a legal expert, but I suppose Peterson doesn't think the government should be disapproving of speech in this area. It seems that a Canadian University quickly got tripped up on Bill C-16. Even though I understand your point regarding the difference between disapproval and prohibition, we have real world confusion as to Bill C-16's intended meaning.
Per Wikipedia: "In November 2017, Lindsay Shepherd, a teaching assistant at Wilfrid Laurier University who showed a video of Peterson's critique of Bill C-16 in her "Canadian Communication in Context" class, was reprimanded by faculty members, who said that she may have violated Bill C-16 by showing the video and holding a debate."
For the record, I don't support discrimination based on gender, gender choices and sexual preferences.
Of course, everything on social media becomes deeply divided black and white positions. If some TERB regulars could find a way to introduce a certain politician from south of the Canadian border into this topic, we could really get some division going.
You should watch Adam Carolla's take on the proverbial slippery slope in regards to banning smoking. You don't have to agree with his simplistic analogy to the Progressive movement, but I found it interesting.
https://www.facebook.com/NextRevFNC/videos/adam-carolla-on-the-progressive-movement/503674617040519/
Not sure I agree with this argument. A name is a proper noun, and isn't a descriptor of a person other than to be a unique label. The whole point is that they are unique, chosen identifiers.
On the other hand, pronouns, like "he" and "she", and other nouns like "ladies" and "gentlemen", have defined, generally understood characteristics. Asking someone to call you a "he" when you fit the characteristics of a she is no different than asking someone to call you tall when you are actually short, call you black when you're clearly white, or say you're 24 years old when you're actually 14. It's not like that last one would fly if you were entering a bar.
Now, is Air Canada's choice a big problem. Not really. But it is evidence of an underlying issue, that being the proliferation of ideology over fact. I don't know if you've noticed, but modern day society isn't so great at understanding the facts at the moment, not just in this regard.
If I remember correctly the Wilfred Laurier faculty quickly backtracked on whatever it was you're trying to say they did wrong. Your quote seems to assume we all know and care. And likewise know and care about Peterson. What speech you may suppose Peterson doesn't think the government should be disapproving may be relevant to something, but I can't see how it would connect to Air Canada's recent change in how they address passengers. Even if I cared about that.
Your response to Dave, had some logic, but it doesn't fit this situation at all. There's nothing in the report about pronouns. No one has asked AC to do anything any more unreasonable that to stop using an entirely gratuitous, and unnecessary phrase that seems to bother some customers. What's objectionable about, "Good morning passengers"? Surely it's the right of any company to address its customers as they choose, within the bounds of good taste, common courtesy and the law. But if you have objections please give me ammo in my quarrel with being addressed as 'WalMart Shopper' when I've bought nothing from them, and am of settled intent not to.
And FWIW 'Ladies and Gentlemen' is an outdated holdover from XIXthC British music-halls, whose attendees were usually anything but. In any place attended by real gents and ladies, the address would be , "My lords, ladies and gentlemen". These days the most common protocol is some scratchy mike-noise follewed by 'Hey y'all'.
And CTV NEWs knew what would grad the righty-tighty eyeballs.
If you want to be referred to as tall despite the fact that you are short, and it ruins you inside every time I refer to you as short (and you've made this abundantly clear to me), then I'd be a dick for continuing to refer to you as short. Based on on the widely accepted definition of "short" am I correct by calling you short? Absolutely. Am I a dick for ignoring your perfectly harmless demand to not be referred to as short (and as "tall" instead)? 100%! As I said before, it's not hard to not look like a dick. Simply calling you tall, doesn't make you tall. It just makes ME not a dick.
Now, I didn't say that the issue of when (or whether or not) we agree to actually (as a society) consider a man a man, or a woman a woman, wasn't complex and without it's pitfalls if not dealt with carefully and with the consideration of everybody in mind. The topic is incredibly complex, but that's not what I'm talking about. It's also not what Air Canada was addressing when they decided to start calling "Everybody" to the gate. All I'm saying is that one is (and rightfully should be) considered a dick if they refuse to refer to somebody else in any way that that somebody else has made clear that they'd prefer.
One is equally (if not more so) a dick for getting triggered and upset over somebody (or some organization) going out of their way to make a minority of people feel included when that minority might not have previously felt that way.
So we must use language the same way we did in the past. Dost thou consentest to thine changes of yon languageth? Also funny that a guy concerned with fairness of constitutional law wants exclusive language to be enforced.
Sorry to break it to you, language is always changing and there is no official version voted on by people. In fact it is the people using the language that cause the change.
Because the right's version of free speech means they can say what they want and people can't criticize them.
why don't you aks any women or girl if they like to give up their privacy rights?
Maybe they can ban "oversize" humans from boarding the plane (unless they are trans).
And the left's version of free speech is just plain censorship of opposing views.
Who says I want anything enforced? Please don't put words and thoughts down for me.
I think anyone with common sense knows that political correctness doesn't just surface out of the zeitgeist. We discuss this in our communities (here for example). Some of us say hey that's stupid.
Would you like to argue that you should be able to call anybody whatever you want (despite their harmless protestations) and not be considered a dick?
While they're at it, anybody who reclines their seat during a short haul flight should have a cup of hot coffee thrown in their lap.
Any person who puts both pieces of carry-on in the overhead should be forced to choose which of their carry-on bags the remaining passengers will get to release bodily fluids into.
Any person (who isn't blind/autistic/suffering from PTSD) who claims to require a "support animal" should have their right to fly revoked for the duration of that animal's life.
Any person who removes their shoes during flight should be forced to wear their shoes on the opposite feet from the time that they disembark the airplane until the time that they exit the airport.
Any person who insists on flatulating while sitting in their seat (rather than getting up and going to the bathroom) should be lined up against the wall and shot upon landing.
