Highlights from the article (https://canoe.com/news/national/pronoun-use-mostly-by-younger-canadians-poll/wcm/9a5dee22-8e38-4be7-b912-a5c159190545):
- Almost 85% of Canadians don't add their pronouns to emails.
- Most Canadians (85.4%) do not believe adding pronouns should be compulsory.
- Those who do use pronouns in emails or social media or share in meetings think it should be required. Of those who do share, 58.8% said it should be compulsory.
- Young people aged 18 to 24 are most likely to share pronouns, with about 30% saying they do so.
- Another ACS poll found many people don't like the word racialized. Of those polled, 43.6% favoured "persons of colour" and thought it made the most sense in reference to Black or Asian people.
- Canadians who are Black prefer "visible minorities," with 44.3% saying this term makes the most sense. Another 11.3 per cent of Black-identifying respondents said "racialized groups" is best.
- More than half of Asian respondents say "visible minority" is best.
- Persons aged 18 to 24 prefer "racialized groups" to refer to Black or Asian people, and 24 per cent say it makes the most sense. Very few aged 45 to 54 say it's the better term.
Okay. Shrug.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on August 30, 2022, 07:28:30 AM
Okay. Shrug.
Should the topic come up here at some point, this gives a bit of useful data for context.
Unsurprisingly I think that:
Apparently wider society is just not as enlightened as the academic world and the government, despite our vigorous efforts to improve them.
"The National Post cites Jack Jedwab, president and CEO of the ACS, as saying Canadians need more guidance from academics and policymakers about the language changes, including information on what these terms mean and why it is important to understand their use."
Of course he does. If he isn't there to change something, who needs him? Government bureaucracy is a self-regenerating plague.
Too misquote Yogi Berra, if people don't want to announce their preferred pronouns, you can't stop them.
I do include my preferred pronouns they/them/theirs for work related emails but never outside of teaching work or the campus email servers.
Quote from: mahagonny on August 30, 2022, 10:36:57 AM
I do include my preferred pronouns they/them/theirs for work related emails but never outside of teaching work or the campus email servers.
Don't you feel a little small for belittling trans people? It is pretty lame.
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on August 30, 2022, 12:02:09 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on August 30, 2022, 10:36:57 AM
I do include my preferred pronouns they/them/theirs for work related emails but never outside of teaching work or the campus email servers.
Don't you feel a little small for belittling trans people? It is pretty lame.
Excuse me? I am gender non-binary.
Quote from: mahagonny on August 30, 2022, 12:33:54 PM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on August 30, 2022, 12:02:09 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on August 30, 2022, 10:36:57 AM
I do include my preferred pronouns they/them/theirs for work related emails but never outside of teaching work or the campus email servers.
Don't you feel a little small for belittling trans people? It is pretty lame.
Excuse me? I am gender non-binary.
Uh huh, more like you are making fun of people who are gender non-binary.
Is that something you think is funny or cool? Making fun of people because they are different than you? Is that how you think adults should behave?
No need for you to respond, I have no interest in wasting time engaging with you on this.
That is where you are wrong. Being non-binary or trans gender is anyone's right. I belittle no one over this. And if you were in my workplace you could get in trouble for what you're saying to me.
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on August 30, 2022, 12:44:01 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on August 30, 2022, 12:33:54 PM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on August 30, 2022, 12:02:09 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on August 30, 2022, 10:36:57 AM
I do include my preferred pronouns they/them/theirs for work related emails but never outside of teaching work or the campus email servers.
Don't you feel a little small for belittling trans people? It is pretty lame.
Excuse me? I am gender non-binary.
Uh huh, more like you are making fun of people who are gender non-binary.
Is that something you think is funny or cool? Making fun of people because they are different than you? Is that how you think adults should behave?
When people can claim some sort of special privilege based on
nothing but their request for it, you are going to get people doing it for all kinds of reasons, including some you don't like. (On other threads there have been all kinds of stories of people post-pandemic demanding to be able to do everything remotely, for any number of reasons. If no reason were required, you can bet many if not most students would demand it.)
As for whether that's how adults "should" behave, all that matters is that many
will behave that way as long as it is allowed and/or supported.
Not to mention, a person's reason to be gender non-binary is likely to be personal, and not something to interrogate them over.
As for 'how adults should behave' I don't find getting irritated when someone says they are non-binary is particularly becoming.
Quote from: marshwiggle on August 30, 2022, 01:22:24 PM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on August 30, 2022, 12:44:01 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on August 30, 2022, 12:33:54 PM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on August 30, 2022, 12:02:09 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on August 30, 2022, 10:36:57 AM
I do include my preferred pronouns they/them/theirs for work related emails but never outside of teaching work or the campus email servers.
Don't you feel a little small for belittling trans people? It is pretty lame.
Excuse me? I am gender non-binary.
Uh huh, more like you are making fun of people who are gender non-binary.
Is that something you think is funny or cool? Making fun of people because they are different than you? Is that how you think adults should behave?
When people can claim some sort of special privilege based on nothing but their request for it, you are going to get people doing it for all kinds of reasons, including some you don't like. (On other threads there have been all kinds of stories of people post-pandemic demanding to be able to do everything remotely, for any number of reasons. If no reason were required, you can bet many if not most students would demand it.)
As for whether that's how adults "should" behave, all that matters is that many will behave that way as long as it is allowed and/or supported.
Whatever man, I don't respect people who make fun of others because of their sexual orientation, race, gender, IQ, etc. We can have policy disagreements and keep it respectful, but when someone starts making fun of others just because they are different, it takes things in another direction and I'm going to look at them like the childish troll that they show themselves to be.
As for your point, these people aren't claiming a "special privilege," they're just saying that they don't feel themselves to fit in with either gender and so prefer not to be categorized as one or the other. If that is too much of an ask for you, then say what you want, none of us care as you can see in the responses (or lack thereof) to your thread. But spare spare us all the obviously false equivalence.
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on August 30, 2022, 01:56:02 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on August 30, 2022, 01:22:24 PM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on August 30, 2022, 12:44:01 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on August 30, 2022, 12:33:54 PM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on August 30, 2022, 12:02:09 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on August 30, 2022, 10:36:57 AM
I do include my preferred pronouns they/them/theirs for work related emails but never outside of teaching work or the campus email servers.
Don't you feel a little small for belittling trans people? It is pretty lame.
Excuse me? I am gender non-binary.
Uh huh, more like you are making fun of people who are gender non-binary.
Is that something you think is funny or cool? Making fun of people because they are different than you? Is that how you think adults should behave?
When people can claim some sort of special privilege based on nothing but their request for it, you are going to get people doing it for all kinds of reasons, including some you don't like. (On other threads there have been all kinds of stories of people post-pandemic demanding to be able to do everything remotely, for any number of reasons. If no reason were required, you can bet many if not most students would demand it.)
As for whether that's how adults "should" behave, all that matters is that many will behave that way as long as it is allowed and/or supported.
Whatever man, I don't respect people who make fun of others because of their sexual orientation, race, gender, IQ, etc. We can have policy disagreements and keep it respectful, but when someone starts making fun of others just because they are different, it takes things in another direction and I'm going to look at them like the childish troll that they show themselves to be.
I don't respect convicted rapists who claim to be trans to get placed in women's prisons where they continue their predations. And I certainly don't respect the people with their heads in the sand who implicitly condone this. To be clear: the idea that someone can simply make a claim, requiring no evidence, that allows them some privilege that they wouldn't otherwise have, (such as what spaces they can enter, or what events they can participate in), opens the door to abuse by all kinds of unethical people. Just because many, or even most, of the people who do it will do so "honestly" doesn't absolve those supporting it from responsibility for giving cover to the abuse
unless and until they make some legitimate, concrete effort to prevent it.
Quote
As for your point, these people aren't claiming a "special privilege," they're just saying that they don't feel themselves to fit in with either gender and so prefer not to be categorized as one or the other. If that is too much of an ask for you, then say what you want, none of us care as you can see in the responses (or lack thereof) to your thread. But spare spare us all the obviously false equivalence.
In 99% of normal human interactions, a person's gender identity, sexual orientation, etc. will be entirely irrelevant and
do not need to be stated or implied. (For instance, since the only gendered pronoun in English is 3rd person singular, any face-to-face conversation won't need it.) Trying to preface interactions by exchanging pronouns imposes an unnecessary awkwardness. (Starting a conversation by exchanging sexual orientations is similarly unnecessary.)
There are many (most?) details of peoples' private lives that do not need to come up in conversation, and dragging them out explicitly actually makes interactions more strained than they need to be. (Consider online interactions like here on the fora. By being pseudonymous, all kinds of details like age, ethnicity, etc. are not explicitly revealed, so discussions don't need to be automatically freighted with extraneous baggage. No-one needs to reveal any of those things unless and until they
choose to do so.)
Quote from: marshwiggle on August 30, 2022, 02:19:34 PM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on August 30, 2022, 01:56:02 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on August 30, 2022, 01:22:24 PM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on August 30, 2022, 12:44:01 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on August 30, 2022, 12:33:54 PM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on August 30, 2022, 12:02:09 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on August 30, 2022, 10:36:57 AM
I do include my preferred pronouns they/them/theirs for work related emails but never outside of teaching work or the campus email servers.
Don't you feel a little small for belittling trans people? It is pretty lame.
Excuse me? I am gender non-binary.
Uh huh, more like you are making fun of people who are gender non-binary.
Is that something you think is funny or cool? Making fun of people because they are different than you? Is that how you think adults should behave?
When people can claim some sort of special privilege based on nothing but their request for it, you are going to get people doing it for all kinds of reasons, including some you don't like. (On other threads there have been all kinds of stories of people post-pandemic demanding to be able to do everything remotely, for any number of reasons. If no reason were required, you can bet many if not most students would demand it.)
As for whether that's how adults "should" behave, all that matters is that many will behave that way as long as it is allowed and/or supported.
Whatever man, I don't respect people who make fun of others because of their sexual orientation, race, gender, IQ, etc. We can have policy disagreements and keep it respectful, but when someone starts making fun of others just because they are different, it takes things in another direction and I'm going to look at them like the childish troll that they show themselves to be.
I don't respect convicted rapists who claim to be trans to get placed in women's prisons where they continue their predations. And I certainly don't respect the people with their heads in the sand who implicitly condone this. To be clear: the idea that someone can simply make a claim, requiring no evidence, that allows them some privilege that they wouldn't otherwise have, (such as what spaces they can enter, or what events they can participate in), opens the door to abuse by all kinds of unethical people. Just because many, or even most, of the people who do it will do so "honestly" doesn't absolve those supporting it from responsibility for giving cover to the abuse unless and until they make some legitimate, concrete effort to prevent it.
Quote
As for your point, these people aren't claiming a "special privilege," they're just saying that they don't feel themselves to fit in with either gender and so prefer not to be categorized as one or the other. If that is too much of an ask for you, then say what you want, none of us care as you can see in the responses (or lack thereof) to your thread. But spare spare us all the obviously false equivalence.
In 99% of normal human interactions, a person's gender identity, sexual orientation, etc. will be entirely irrelevant and do not need to be stated or implied. (For instance, since the only gendered pronoun in English is 3rd person singular, any face-to-face conversation won't need it.) Trying to preface interactions by exchanging pronouns imposes an unnecessary awkwardness. (Starting a conversation by exchanging sexual orientations is similarly unnecessary.)
There are many (most?) details of peoples' private lives that do not need to come up in conversation, and dragging them out explicitly actually makes interactions more strained than they need to be. (Consider online interactions like here on the fora. By being pseudonymous, all kinds of details like age, ethnicity, etc. are not explicitly revealed, so discussions don't need to be automatically freighted with extraneous baggage. No-one needs to reveal any of those things unless and until they choose to do so.)
Yes the bolded is really the same as listing they/them as part of their Zoom name or at the end of an email. Give me a break.
And again, you can respect people's wishes to be called they/them, or don't. I really don't care what you do. I wouldn't have even responded to your thread if a certain somebody wasn't in here trolling in a particularly mean spirited way.
Quote from: marshwiggle on August 30, 2022, 01:22:24 PM
When people can claim some sort of special privilege based on nothing but their request for it, you are going to get people doing it for all kinds of reasons, including some you don't like.
Stop there. That's not really the situation. For the people who approach this like Sun worshiper does, as long as the person claiming to be gender non-binary espouses all the right progressive views, they don't need a reason to be non-binary; whereas, if they hold conservative views, no reason is plausible.
Quote from: mahagonny on August 30, 2022, 02:36:42 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on August 30, 2022, 01:22:24 PM
When people can claim some sort of special privilege based on nothing but their request for it, you are going to get people doing it for all kinds of reasons, including some you don't like.
Stop there. That's not really the situation. For the people who approach this like Sun worshiper does, as long as the person claiming to be gender non-binary espouses all the right progressive views, they don't need a reason to be non-binary; whereas, if they hold conservative views, no reason is plausible.
Mahagonny, I'm going to lift my embargo on responding to you in this thread for one post to that in the extremely unlikely event that you are not trolling, but are actually being genuine, I am happy to call you "them."
Smart move, Professor.
Is the whole point of this thread, "Let's raise a hot-button topic and see if we can get people to fight about it"? If not, I'm lost on what the goal is.
Quote from: Hegemony on August 30, 2022, 10:39:26 PM
Is the whole point of this thread, "Let's raise a hot-button topic and see if we can get people to fight about it"? If not, I'm lost on what the goal is.
The point of the thread was to allow a discussion. People do this a lot of times; link to an article and list a few highlights.
ETA: It's kind of ironic that on an
academic forum, discussion of "hot-button" topics is considered a bad thing. If they can't be civilly discussed in a setting like this, society is in danger.
Quote from: mahagonny on August 30, 2022, 10:36:57 AM
Unsurprisingly I think that:
Apparently wider society is just not as enlightened as the academic world and the government, despite our vigorous efforts to improve them.
"The National Post cites Jack Jedwab, president and CEO of the ACS, as saying Canadians need more guidance from academics and policymakers about the language changes, including information on what these terms mean and why it is important to understand their use."
Of course he does. If he isn't there to change something, who needs him? Government bureaucracy is a self-regenerating plague.
Too misquote Yogi Berra, if people don't want to announce their preferred pronouns, you can't stop them.
I do include my preferred pronouns they/them/theirs for work related emails but never outside of teaching work or the campus email servers.
I don't know. I thing society is progressing quite quick, it is just a demographic issue. I live in a small town with big trucks, and my children live in a much more progressive world than you would imagine, probably more progressive than my university bubble in the nearby city.
Just as my grandparents seem very racist from my generational perspective, similar is true of us to our children. It is quite good to see.
Quote from: Kron3007 on August 31, 2022, 06:56:29 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on August 30, 2022, 10:36:57 AM
Unsurprisingly I think that:
Apparently wider society is just not as enlightened as the academic world and the government, despite our vigorous efforts to improve them.
"The National Post cites Jack Jedwab, president and CEO of the ACS, as saying Canadians need more guidance from academics and policymakers about the language changes, including information on what these terms mean and why it is important to understand their use."
Of course he does. If he isn't there to change something, who needs him? Government bureaucracy is a self-regenerating plague.
Too misquote Yogi Berra, if people don't want to announce their preferred pronouns, you can't stop them.
I do include my preferred pronouns they/them/theirs for work related emails but never outside of teaching work or the campus email servers.
I don't know. I thing society is progressing quite quick, it is just a demographic issue. I live in a small town with big trucks, and my children live in a much more progressive world than you would imagine, probably more progressive than my university bubble in the nearby city.
Just as my grandparents seem very racist from my generational perspective, similar is true of us to our children. It is quite good to see.
How are BIPOC people better off because of this progress?
Well, for one thing, there's the term "BIPOC." Efforts by those in authority and positions of influence to include, to listen, and to acknowledge those who are unacknowledged... these are good things.
Yeah, there's bad stuff, misuse, and misunderstanding. To use one of your favorite expressions, "so what." We can choose to find the good and build upon it, or we can create worst-case scenarios from the pit of our fear and ignorance.
It's always our choice to make.
Quote from: little bongo on September 01, 2022, 06:51:41 AM
Well, for one thing, there's the term "BIPOC." Efforts by those in authority and positions of influence to include, to listen, and to acknowledge those who are unacknowledged... these are good things.
"Progressives" didn't invent this yesterday. Decent, thoughtful, intelligent people have been doing this for
decades. (Actually, probably more like millennia, across all kinds of cultures. All kinds of "wisdom literature" contain advice about things like "not judging a book by its cover.) The idea that there are people who, for any number of reasons, go under the radar isn't remotely novel. And there are dozens of reasons that have nothing to do with "identity" categories.
The arrogance of acting like no-one ever thought of this before is what gets particular younger progressives dismissed as annoying and self-righteous.
Quote from: little bongo on September 01, 2022, 06:51:41 AM
Well, for one thing, there's the term "BIPOC." Efforts by those in authority and positions of influence to include, to listen, and to acknowledge those who are unacknowledged... these are good things.
Yeah, there's bad stuff, misuse, and misunderstanding. To use one of your favorite expressions, "so what." We can choose to find the good and build upon it, or we can create worst-case scenarios from the pit of our fear and ignorance.
It's always our choice to make.
'BIPOC' is a horrible term. Using the acronym BIPOC suggests an interchangeability in being Black or a person of color (i.e. South Asian, Korean, Chinese, etc.). There is no interchangeability.
What it does... potentially inadvertently, is that by lumping all these groups together, it comes across as—and suggests—that they are having the same experience. So the acronym BIPOC fails to articulate the differential ways that racialized people experience race and racism.
And we've got horribly racist terms like 'Monkeypox,' 'Africanized Killer Bees.'
Then we've got things like the
democratic party and media depicting candidate Herschel Walker, who is a highly accomplished athlete and community leader, as a dim-witted guy who doesn't have the IQ to understand the issues, just to appeal to the
racism of their white voting base.What progress?
(Walker is running for GA Senate. I realize the thread is about a poll among Canadians. But I am calling progressive wokeism a phenomenon that spans across borders.)
Quote from: mahagonny on September 01, 2022, 08:25:05 AM
Then we've got things like the democratic party and media depicting candidate Herschel Walker, who is a highly accomplished athlete and community leader, as a dim-witted guy who doesn't have the IQ to understand the issues, just to appeal to the racism of their white voting base.
What progress?
(Walker is running for GA Senate. I realize the thread is about a poll among Canadians. But I am calling progressive wokeism a phenomenon that spans across borders.)
I'm calling it. This comment is complete BS, so I think you've lost it.
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 01, 2022, 07:14:00 AM
Quote from: little bongo on September 01, 2022, 06:51:41 AM
Well, for one thing, there's the term "BIPOC." Efforts by those in authority and positions of influence to include, to listen, and to acknowledge those who are unacknowledged... these are good things.
"Progressives" didn't invent this yesterday. Decent, thoughtful, intelligent people have been doing this for decades. (Actually, probably more like millennia, across all kinds of cultures. All kinds of "wisdom literature" contain advice about things like "not judging a book by its cover.) The idea that there are people who, for any number of reasons, go under the radar isn't remotely novel. And there are dozens of reasons that have nothing to do with "identity" categories.
The arrogance of acting like no-one ever thought of this before is what gets particular younger progressives dismissed as annoying and self-righteous.
Are you saying I personally didn't invent goodness and decency? Hey, man, I've got a patent. Well, patent pending, anyway. Shall we say pistols at dawn?
Ah, well. Sorry you find looking for goodness to be annoying and self-righteous. Doesn't sound like a happy outlook. (Hey, I just concern-trolled a troll!)
It's not about who thought or didn't think of this sort of thing before. It's who's doing it now, and who's doing it better. And yes, a lot of us are annoying, self-righteous sons-of-bitch. (I won't flatter myself to take on the description "younger.") But overall I like what's happening among the "woke." I'll tell you something I learned from this fora:
I used to make fun of the convention of naming the indigenous peoples of the land from where you happen to be speaking when giving a presentation or a speech, for example. It seemed to me to be a performance of concern and righteousness--"virtue-signaling," if you will. Someone on the fora gave an example of an indigenous representative who expressed sincere gratitude for the naming. The act of naming and acknowledging truly meant something to that person. What an amazing example of what we human beings can do for each other! And who's making an effort to do that? Who is trying to make that kind of behavior the norm rather than an exception? I'd say progressives (including the annoying and self-righteous ones) are doing it more than the non-progressives; democrats are doing it more than republicans; and the left is doing it more than the right. That could change. But for now, well, sign me up for the next annoying, self-righteous wine and cheese party.
Quote from: jimbogumbo on September 01, 2022, 08:52:22 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on September 01, 2022, 08:25:05 AM
Then we've got things like the democratic party and media depicting candidate Herschel Walker, who is a highly accomplished athlete and community leader, as a dim-witted guy who doesn't have the IQ to understand the issues, just to appeal to the racism of their white voting base.
What progress?
(Walker is running for GA Senate. I realize the thread is about a poll among Canadians. But I am calling progressive wokeism a phenomenon that spans across borders.)
I'm calling it. This comment is complete BS, so I think you've lost it.
C'mon Professor. You don't have to take it so hard. Reverend Warnock preaches that it's time for good Christians to go to church and confess their original sin of racism. Redemption awaits you!
Quote from: little bongo on September 01, 2022, 10:13:41 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 01, 2022, 07:14:00 AM
Quote from: little bongo on September 01, 2022, 06:51:41 AM
Well, for one thing, there's the term "BIPOC." Efforts by those in authority and positions of influence to include, to listen, and to acknowledge those who are unacknowledged... these are good things.
"Progressives" didn't invent this yesterday. Decent, thoughtful, intelligent people have been doing this for decades. (Actually, probably more like millennia, across all kinds of cultures. All kinds of "wisdom literature" contain advice about things like "not judging a book by its cover.) The idea that there are people who, for any number of reasons, go under the radar isn't remotely novel. And there are dozens of reasons that have nothing to do with "identity" categories.
The arrogance of acting like no-one ever thought of this before is what gets particular younger progressives dismissed as annoying and self-righteous.
Are you saying I personally didn't invent goodness and decency? Hey, man, I've got a patent. Well, patent pending, anyway. Shall we say pistols at dawn?
Ah, well. Sorry you find looking for goodness to be annoying and self-righteous. Doesn't sound like a happy outlook. (Hey, I just concern-trolled a troll!)
I'm curious what makes me a troll. Is it due to my point of view or how I express it?
Quote
It's not about who thought or didn't think of this sort of thing before. It's who's doing it now, and who's doing it better. And yes, a lot of us are annoying, self-righteous sons-of-bitch. (I won't flatter myself to take on the description "younger.")
Even though I am a Christian, I almost always avoid "Christian" movies, books, etc. Even though I may agree with 90% of what they say, the
preachiness makes it tedious to listen to. No wonder it makes other people even more averse to it.
WHY IS IT BOTHERSOME FOR PEOPLE TO USE ALL CAPS? In speech, loudness can be physically annoying, but I've never seen any research to indicate that the mere sight of upper case letters causes some adverse neurological reaction. The reason all-caps is annoying is that it implies that the person being addressed is somehow unwilling or incapable of comprehending what is being said without sustained additional emphasis. (Note: people who actually disagree aren't going to change their minds BECAUSE A POINT HAS BEEN MADE WITH MORE EMPHASIS!!!!!!)
People who already agree don't need to be nagged, and people who disagree will need some alternative approach since the current approach is clearly ineffective.
Quote
But overall I like what's happening among the "woke." I'll tell you something I learned from this fora:
I used to make fun of the convention of naming the indigenous peoples of the land from where you happen to be speaking when giving a presentation or a speech, for example. It seemed to me to be a performance of concern and righteousness--"virtue-signaling," if you will. Someone on the fora gave an example of an indigenous representative who expressed sincere gratitude for the naming. The act of naming and acknowledging truly meant something to that person.
At the very least, it's much more important to know how
the majority of people in that community feel about it. (For example, most Black people don't agree with "defund the police", and most people of Latin American descent don't like the term LatinX. Using those terms is more for the benefit of the person saying it than for the people they are supposedly "supporting".)
Quote
What an amazing example of what we human beings can do for each other! And who's making an effort to do that? Who is trying to make that kind of behavior the norm rather than an exception?
So what kind of disrespectful behaviour is
the norm? (See above for the point about what the majority of a community
prefers. Something that is not the preference of the majority cannot logically have its
absence considered disrespectful.)
Quote from: mahagonny on September 01, 2022, 10:41:38 AM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on September 01, 2022, 08:52:22 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on September 01, 2022, 08:25:05 AM
Then we've got things like the democratic party and media depicting candidate Herschel Walker, who is a highly accomplished athlete and community leader, as a dim-witted guy who doesn't have the IQ to understand the issues, just to appeal to the racism of their white voting base.
What progress?
(Walker is running for GA Senate. I realize the thread is about a poll among Canadians. But I am calling progressive wokeism a phenomenon that spans across borders.)
I'm calling it. This comment is complete BS, so I think you've lost it.
C'mon Professor. You don't have to take it so hard. Reverend Warnock preaches that it's time for good Christians to go to church and confess their original sin of racism. Redemption awaits you!
I wasn't touting the virtues of Rev. Warnock. I was disputing your loony take on Herschel Walker. You really don't know anything about him, do you?
Walker has seemed like a pleasant fellow and had a good idea of and respect for what Americans are concerned about. But I'll admit lately it strikes me: he seems way too happy to be living in the United States, given that his skin color is not like mine. This would be a worrying sign if it were true. I'll keep following.
Quote from: mahagonny on August 31, 2022, 02:32:56 PM
Quote from: Kron3007 on August 31, 2022, 06:56:29 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on August 30, 2022, 10:36:57 AM
Unsurprisingly I think that:
Apparently wider society is just not as enlightened as the academic world and the government, despite our vigorous efforts to improve them.
"The National Post cites Jack Jedwab, president and CEO of the ACS, as saying Canadians need more guidance from academics and policymakers about the language changes, including information on what these terms mean and why it is important to understand their use."
Of course he does. If he isn't there to change something, who needs him? Government bureaucracy is a self-regenerating plague.
Too misquote Yogi Berra, if people don't want to announce their preferred pronouns, you can't stop them.
I do include my preferred pronouns they/them/theirs for work related emails but never outside of teaching work or the campus email servers.
I don't know. I thing society is progressing quite quick, it is just a demographic issue. I live in a small town with big trucks, and my children live in a much more progressive world than you would imagine, probably more progressive than my university bubble in the nearby city.
Just as my grandparents seem very racist from my generational perspective, similar is true of us to our children. It is quite good to see.
How are BIPOC people better off because of this progress?
Sorry, I should have said my grandparents were extremely homophobic rather than racist (they were both). The two often move in tandem...
Quote from: Kron3007 on September 01, 2022, 01:58:36 PM
Sorry, I should have said my grandparents were extremely homophobic rather than racist (they were both). The two often move in tandem...
And by your grandparents' standard, many (most?) people today would be lascivious.
What exactly is the point of using nasty names for other generations merely because cultural norms are different at different times? By the standards of many developing countries, even the most environmentally-sensitive in developed countries are raping the environment. They could logically advocate for culling the population of developing countries as the quickest way to sustainability.
marshwiggle: yes, we would be lascivious to some previous generations. Don't consider that nasty, just descriptive. Also descriptive: for most of its existence the US population as a whole has been accurately described compared to now (of course, IMO) as homophobic and racist. So in those two regards I (again, my view) see the US now as better on those two measures.
Statistic: hate crimes against white people are up sharply over the last three years...https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/fairness-justice/fbi-report-shows-41-increase-in-hate-crimes-with-anti-white-bias
The FBI database also shows intimidation against Blacks slightly more than doubled from 2019 to 2020 (849 to 1710). I'm guessing a change in reporting.
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 01, 2022, 02:15:16 PM
Quote from: Kron3007 on September 01, 2022, 01:58:36 PM
Sorry, I should have said my grandparents were extremely homophobic rather than racist (they were both). The two often move in tandem...
And by your grandparents' standard, many (most?) people today would be lascivious.
What exactly is the point of using nasty names for other generations merely because cultural norms are different at different times? By the standards of many developing countries, even the most environmentally-sensitive in developed countries are raping the environment. They could logically advocate for culling the population of developing countries as the quickest way to sustainability.
IIRC, one of the favourite pastimes of 16th-century Parisians involved setting a live cat on fire and playing hot potato with it (in the streets). They did not recognize that as wrong (in part because they believed animals could not feel pain, since they hadn't committed original sin). But it
was, and their failure to recognize it as wrong reflects poorly on them.
More generally, if your argument is that because early 20th-century Europeans/North Americans would have thought us lascivious, but contemporary Europeans/North Americans don't, then there's no such thing as an objective standard of lasciviousness or morality... well, I'll content myself with observing that the argument is invalid. And noticing that it's invalid is purely a matter of the argument's formal properties, not of its content--which means that even if we can't pinpoint an objective standard of lasciviousness/morality, that doesn't matter. The conclusion still doesn't follow from the premises. I can translate it into first-order logic if that'll help, since I know you're a computer scientist. It's just logic gates, basically.
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 01, 2022, 11:25:17 AM
Quote from: little bongo on September 01, 2022, 10:13:41 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 01, 2022, 07:14:00 AM
Quote from: little bongo on September 01, 2022, 06:51:41 AM
Well, for one thing, there's the term "BIPOC." Efforts by those in authority and positions of influence to include, to listen, and to acknowledge those who are unacknowledged... these are good things.
"Progressives" didn't invent this yesterday. Decent, thoughtful, intelligent people have been doing this for decades. (Actually, probably more like millennia, across all kinds of cultures. All kinds of "wisdom literature" contain advice about things like "not judging a book by its cover.) The idea that there are people who, for any number of reasons, go under the radar isn't remotely novel. And there are dozens of reasons that have nothing to do with "identity" categories.
The arrogance of acting like no-one ever thought of this before is what gets particular younger progressives dismissed as annoying and self-righteous.
Are you saying I personally didn't invent goodness and decency? Hey, man, I've got a patent. Well, patent pending, anyway. Shall we say pistols at dawn?
Ah, well. Sorry you find looking for goodness to be annoying and self-righteous. Doesn't sound like a happy outlook. (Hey, I just concern-trolled a troll!)
I'm curious what makes me a troll. Is it due to my point of view or how I express it?
Quote
It's not about who thought or didn't think of this sort of thing before. It's who's doing it now, and who's doing it better. And yes, a lot of us are annoying, self-righteous sons-of-bitch. (I won't flatter myself to take on the description "younger.")
Even though I am a Christian, I almost always avoid "Christian" movies, books, etc. Even though I may agree with 90% of what they say, the preachiness makes it tedious to listen to. No wonder it makes other people even more averse to it.
WHY IS IT BOTHERSOME FOR PEOPLE TO USE ALL CAPS? In speech, loudness can be physically annoying, but I've never seen any research to indicate that the mere sight of upper case letters causes some adverse neurological reaction. The reason all-caps is annoying is that it implies that the person being addressed is somehow unwilling or incapable of comprehending what is being said without sustained additional emphasis. (Note: people who actually disagree aren't going to change their minds BECAUSE A POINT HAS BEEN MADE WITH MORE EMPHASIS!!!!!!)
People who already agree don't need to be nagged, and people who disagree will need some alternative approach since the current approach is clearly ineffective.
Quote
But overall I like what's happening among the "woke." I'll tell you something I learned from this fora:
I used to make fun of the convention of naming the indigenous peoples of the land from where you happen to be speaking when giving a presentation or a speech, for example. It seemed to me to be a performance of concern and righteousness--"virtue-signaling," if you will. Someone on the fora gave an example of an indigenous representative who expressed sincere gratitude for the naming. The act of naming and acknowledging truly meant something to that person.
At the very least, it's much more important to know how the majority of people in that community feel about it. (For example, most Black people don't agree with "defund the police", and most people of Latin American descent don't like the term LatinX. Using those terms is more for the benefit of the person saying it than for the people they are supposedly "supporting".)
Quote
What an amazing example of what we human beings can do for each other! And who's making an effort to do that? Who is trying to make that kind of behavior the norm rather than an exception?
So what kind of disrespectful behaviour is the norm? (See above for the point about what the majority of a community prefers. Something that is not the preference of the majority cannot logically have its absence considered disrespectful.)
Well, more or less in order:
1) For trolling, see this excerpt from Sartre, "Anti-Semite and Jew." For "anti-Semite," just substitute "Marshwiggle."
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7870768-never-believe-that-anti-semites-are-completely-unaware-of-the-absurdity
Also, check out the slang definition of "sealioning." You do that... well, a lot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
2) Christian messages are delivered in a large variety of ways. Some folks go for Christian movies, others not so much--they can go to church or study independently, for example. (I kind of like the movie "Soul Surfer," I have to admit.) And if you don't like the particular church or pastor, you can always find a different one. Pretty much the same deal with any religion, philosophy, or way of life you generally like, but don't care for the issues surrounding the particular organization, person, or group espousing it.
3) Lost me with the all-caps thing--not sure where you were going with that one.
4) I don't know that it's particularly fruitful to examine the deeper motives of would-be do-gooders. People very often do good deeds for their own self-esteem or their own benefit, and that doesn't really matter very much except perhaps to the individual and their own conscience.
5) What kind of disrespectful behavior is the norm? The kind of behavior where we're NOT listening, acknowledging, and including. That's why we have terms like "systemic racism."
And there we are.
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 01, 2022, 02:15:16 PM
Quote from: Kron3007 on September 01, 2022, 01:58:36 PM
Sorry, I should have said my grandparents were extremely homophobic rather than racist (they were both). The two often move in tandem...
And by your grandparents' standard, many (most?) people today would be lascivious.
What exactly is the point of using nasty names for other generations merely because cultural norms are different at different times? By the standards of many developing countries, even the most environmentally-sensitive in developed countries are raping the environment. They could logically advocate for culling the population of developing countries as the quickest way to sustainability.
Yes, my grandparents would not approve of my Brother's life choices for example. They may very well have disowned him if the timing was different. I think that is wrong.
When I look back at my childhood and the jokes we told, they were homophobic, and some were racist. It was also wrong, but pretty common place at the time.
In both cases, I don't really put the blame on the individuals, it reflects the cultural norms of the time. Regardless, they are still homophobic/racist actions.
The point of calling previous generations is not any sort of personal attack, just a recognition of the facts. If you don't recognize historical wrongs as such, how can we move forward?. Slavery was once accepted, most people now agree that it was wrong and racist. It was common place for thousands of years, and I don't necessarily blame individuals for participating, but fully acknowledge that it is a racist practice and wrong.
Do you disagree that previous generations were more homophobic and racist?
Quote from: Kron3007 on September 02, 2022, 06:19:17 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 01, 2022, 02:15:16 PM
Quote from: Kron3007 on September 01, 2022, 01:58:36 PM
Sorry, I should have said my grandparents were extremely homophobic rather than racist (they were both). The two often move in tandem...
And by your grandparents' standard, many (most?) people today would be lascivious.
What exactly is the point of using nasty names for other generations merely because cultural norms are different at different times? By the standards of many developing countries, even the most environmentally-sensitive in developed countries are raping the environment. They could logically advocate for culling the population of developing countries as the quickest way to sustainability.
Yes, my grandparents would not approve of my Brother's life choices for example. They may very well have disowned him if the timing was different. I think that is wrong.
When I look back at my childhood and the jokes we told, they were homophobic, and some were racist. It was also wrong, but pretty common place at the time.
In both cases, I don't really put the blame on the individuals, it reflects the cultural norms of the time.
The important thing about that is to see how
individuals were in relation to their culture. We can learn from the stories of individuals, even flawed ones, by looking at the ways that they influenced their own cultures. (For instance, apparently MLK was a womanizer. Does that negate all that he did for the civil rights movement? Or, does that need to be suppressed in order that he can have a "pure" legacy? Was he
either a sexist
or a civil rights hero? Can he be both?)
Quote
Regardless, they are still homophobic/racist actions.
The point of calling previous generations is not any sort of personal attack, just a recognition of the facts. If you don't recognize historical wrongs as such, how can we move forward?. Slavery was once accepted, most people now agree that it was wrong and racist. It was common place for thousands of years, and I don't necessarily blame individuals for participating, but fully acknowledge that it is a racist practice and wrong.
Do you disagree that previous generations were more homophobic and racist?
If we only view history through the homogenized lens of culture, without looking at the actions of individuals
relative to their cultures, then
all generations will eventually be written off by later ones.
Quote from: little bongo on September 01, 2022, 04:33:25 PM
Well, more or less in order:
1) For trolling, see this excerpt from Sartre, "Anti-Semite and Jew." For "anti-Semite," just substitute "Marshwiggle."
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7870768-never-believe-that-anti-semites-are-completely-unaware-of-the-absurdity
Also, check out the slang definition of "sealioning." You do that... well, a lot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
From the wikipedia entry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning):
Quote
The sealioner feigns ignorance and politeness while making relentless demands for answers and evidence (while often ignoring or sidestepping any evidence the target has already presented), under the guise of "I'm just trying to have a debate", so that when the target is eventually provoked into an angry response, the sealioner can act as the aggrieved party, and the target presented as closed-minded and unreasonable.
When do I act as the aggrieved party? (FWIW, I'm not "aggrieved" now; I'm curious.)
Quote
3) Lost me with the all-caps thing--not sure where you were going with that one.
The point of the all-caps thing was that being louder and/or more shrill does not make people more likely to change their minds. (Rather the reverse, from everything I've read.) So things like calling people <whatever>-ists or <whatever>-phobes is
intended to shame or shock people into changing their minds, but its main
effect seems to be to get people to be quiet and keep their heads down, rather than to actually change their minds. (Opinion polls often show significantly different results than "consensus" on social media, for instance.)
Quote
5) What kind of disrespectful behavior is the norm? The kind of behavior where we're NOT listening, acknowledging, and including. That's why we have terms like "systemic racism."
And there we are.
Where is the
norm to not listen and include? Every community organization, institution, etc. has
for years been hiring, appointing, promoting, etc. in order to move away from the homogeneity of the past.