Peterkin

I wonder.... If the sensitive and insensitive people of the world were to battle it out for dominance, once and for all, and the insensitive won, would this become a better, freer, more honest world?

Plus he dresses funny, in public yet! Heaven knows (oh, It does!) what he gets up to in the closet.

It isn't. You're not. You're only being asked to respect them (optional) and forbidden to discriminate against them (legal). I sincerely doubt that. The holy Inquisition, in Spain and elsewhere, was extremely successful at preventing non-mainstream, proscribed-by-dogma identities from being expressed for +/-600 years. The dogma lived on beyond its official disbanding, in bodies of civil and criminal law, and lives on still in the more benighted ridings/electoral districts. That's why people who vociferously oppose the right to self- or group- identification for non-them-type people are so popular on the far right.

Or gives the police an excuse to arrest, rough up and generally violate the civil rights of genuine protestors. Yes, i understand that and agree with it - as well as your point. All I'm saying is that "unreasonable aspects of political correctness" are far more nebulous and therefore harder to identify. You can see CCTV footage of a guy torching a [out-of-the-way, abandoned, with the window open] police car, but I don't know who made which demand that was deemed by whom unreasonable in what setting. So I can't identify the group doing this. Good! Some people don't see it, or refuse to see it or see it and refuse to make the distinction in practice. While Bob may let a single inadvertent comment pass by unremarked, persistent references to his thighs may very well make him uneasy... and eventually cross. One comment on a particular dress would probably result in Mary saying, "thank you", but if her outfit were publicly critiqued ever morning, she might take exception. Habitual transgressors against appropriate workplace or classroom protocol usually take refuge in the harmlessness of one specific utterance, when the complaint is against their long-term behaviour. And some people, rather more dangerously, insist on their own right to assign identities to other people, rather than acknowledge the right of other people to determine their own identity.

Why pigeon-hole anybody on the basis of second- or third-hand information. By professional protestors, I assume you mean political agitators. That's a real and serious activity, practiced by well organized and funded groups - but I wouldn't be able to spot one in regular street garb; I would only be able to identify them in the performance of a specific action. If there are unreasonable demands made on standards of public speech, or legislators or communications media, these demands are made by individuals, with names and faces - not by brigades in black hoodies. Well let's start off with the lyrics objected to in the song https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_3sFeQGNeo or the demanded use of non gendered terms when speaking like "partner" as per my previous example...or maybe innocently asking a person where he or she is from...something I often do, as I love guessing where a person comes from, based on their accents. By the way, I have never yet experienced any objection when asking that question. That's not any newer, nor any more of an idea than the grievances Peterson is on about. On the whole, while I understand why the climate of the time made that song suspect, I would prefer each radio station made its own programming policy. Oh wait - they did! Listeners' reaction matters to them. Then the backlash and reversal. Listeners' reaction strikes again. If you don't want to address people in the terms they expressly prefer, no law forces you to address them at all. If you don't know their preference, nobody blames you for guessing wrong, unless it's outright insulting. If nobody objects to being asked a question, who did the objecting? You were not forced to obey Emily Post, and you're forced to obey a modern arbiter of good manners. The new ideas in common courtesy never made it Dr. Peterson's podium. .

I think it usually is considered. However, when the offender says "I didn't mean anything by that", the offended person gets to decide whether to believe him. Your friend did, in the case of a quite ordinary assumption, and that's fine. Where a professor or supervisor persistently makes the same "mistake" in the pronoun they use or pronunciation of one's name, or the same 'slip of the tongue' in commenting jovially on one's physical attributes, the target might not be so easily convinced that their intent was innocent.

This has not happened, contrary to many and repeated false claims. Who, precisely is "the PC brigade"? Is there a website? A head office? Membership cards? Ranks and offices?

I don't need to ask them: they express their sentiments from large and well-funded podia, in mass communications, governor's mansions and senate chambers. Nobody muzzled them. They, too, make their objections known, and make their position on the issue count. Nobody muzzled them. That right is exercised by anyone, with any views, who has the clout to to do so without repercussions. It does not extend to the marginalized and vulnerable who have no public voice. As I don't make any of the legal or policy decisions, who agrees or disagrees with me is very far removed from the allocation of rights. Why? Unarmed foot-soldiers would be rather stupid to stand up against sword-wielding cavalry if they have an option. Peterson has an option to use all the power of white male tradition, academic credentials, money, mass media, free publicity through controversy, right-wing supporters and a credulously adoring, crowd-funding book-buying public - and he makes clever use of those resources. Why shouldn't his opponents make use of the resources available to them? I'm not clear on what "new" ideas have been presented.

Amelia Wierman, was asking, from an entirely personal, presumably 1st world middle class position, what she herself could do to mitigate climate change. From this simplistic POV, a number of constructive suggestions were made. Her influence on the mode of electric power generation, automotive design and marketing, resource extraction practice and funding is, and will likely continue to be minimal, and only minutely amplified if she joins the largest organization for climate change mitigation. Her influence on municipal government regarding zoning regulation and public transport might be somewhat more evident, especially if a lobby already exists in her community. Her influence on the industry in which she works could conceivably be noticeable - at least locally. Her influence on social media, political campaigns and popular attitudes of her cohort can be anything from zero to Jane Fonda, depending on the level of celebrity she achieves - odds are closer to the zero end. Her household and lifestyle decisions are guaranteed to make a difference in her personal and family life and have a significant influence on her child. This last area is the only one she can actually control, even if it has the least impact.

He really doesn't have to get up on stage to strut his grievance and take all this criticism. The up-side is, it's made him rich and famous. On balance, I can't see him as victim. I certainly can see him as a little drummer boy for the right-wing back-draft. Interesting Guardian article.

Some people insist on their right to be offensive. Some people insist on their right to be offended. Each group wants the other to stop being and doing what are and do. They can't both win at the same time. The law tries to stop them doing one another too much damage. So they both attack the law for going too far/ not doing enough. Over all, in the last five decades, the offensive people have been steadily losing the right to intimidate people who have less power than they do (students, employees, immigrants, subordinates, minority religions, homeless people, handicapped people) and that's caused a great seething grievance among the formerly privileged. They have used words as weapons and they don't want to be disarmed; don't want to be as vulnerable as their erstwhile prey. That's understandable. If they're numerous and vocal enough; if a few more from their ranks attain position of political power or social influence, they may win the next round. At the moment, it's a stand-off, with legislators and, adjudicators and arbitrators caught in the middle.

Coulda sworn that's what C-16 was about. Marxist ideology wasn't mentioned in that or any other context.

William Shatner is still doing his part. He's finally going where lots of men have gone before.

...after having torn all the polite men apart with her claws, no doubt....

So why can't white people use it in the same context? Have you seriously not figured this one out yet? Especially if there is en element of fear - as, if the minority you belong to has been traditionally the target of violence. If you 'let it slide', assume it's unintentional or whatever, you may be seen as weak: a soft target. So you know it won't stop, and you watch for sign of it escalating, which takes even more emotional energy. Taking issue may resolve the situation - if the offender really didn't doesn't mean to offend and if he's not one of the adamant non-PC and if you broach it in the right way at the right time.... Or else it may have negative consequences. That's a heavy piece of luggage for little kid to pick up and carry all through life.

No

Oh, I dunno.... A lot of people are still looking for magical answers to mundane problems. Just watch a football match - how many players say a little prayer for their goal, or listen to the speeches after a mass shooting, how many "thought and prayers" are sent to the victims' families.

But they make that average person empowered to go on to do more, incidentally saving money, and setting an example. Exactly. No change takes place until somebody starts it. Then other people catch on, and it gets multiplied. Government won't ban gift-wrap; only falling sales will reduce its manufacture. As @TheVat said, there is no reason you can't do both. In fact, I'll go a step farther: small commitments that are insignificant in the vast scheme of things encourage the average citizen to feel effective - and there are few things more formidable than a good citizen who has just woken to his or her own effectiveness. Once they start joining the organizations that already exist, they don't each have to do their own research; don't have to waste time on duplicating work that's already been done. Sure. What's Amelia supposed to do about that? Either she has a car or she doesn't. Either she needs it or she doesn't. Either she can afford to replace it or she can't. She has no say in who designs what or how it's marketed: all she can do is find alternate transportation if it's available. Debatable.. That was referring to the analysis of one's own energy consumption. If you find out where you're wasting electricity, and turn off appliances and devices when they're not in use, you'll save some money. Just as you will if you figure out alternatives for other expenses. There is no debate about that: when you stop spending on stuff you don't need, you save money. So did we. And since we put in the solar array, we're even more careful, because we pay through the nose for Hydro backup. How that affects social justice in the thrall of The Market is beyond Amelia's - or my - sphere of influence. It's a whole other political park with a whole other set of heads getting bashed in by the same riot police.

Depends on the protocol of the individual school. What students call one another is not exactly relevant to the topic anyway. The example was for a professor who dislikes a title that the student prefers. He doesn't have to say the loathsome words that will singe his lips; he can use a polite form of the student's name instead. What he can't do is use belittling, derisive or bigoted words when addressing that student. Last I heard, New Zealand culture was not very different from British - back then, much less so.

We don't have any princes. Even that temporary one moved to California.

Sure, joining an organization is a very good step, and I've pointed to that. The tiny houses are just one of many examples of government resistance to change. It is in the jurisdiction of municipal governments to enact zoning and services that will accommodate the tiny, the conversions, the mobile homes, the multi-family homes, the homeless settlements - and to require all of them, as well as the older kinds of construction, to meet a standard of ecological hygiene. It is far more within the individual citizen's, as well the citizens' groups' power to influence municipal government than federal. Again, a very good step. Here is an article https://www.buildwithrise.com/stories/tiny-house-zoning-and-regulations-what-you-need-to-know

Thank God! For a second there I thought you'd say panties.

My breath is suitably bated. Meanwhile, could you flesh out the question?

And therefore doesn't realize his/her own power to force corporations and governments to change the way things are done.

I suspect every one of them was deliberately testing the situation. If the student didn't stand up for her right to the preferred form of address, the old status quo would prevail by default - the jerk would chalk up another victory. The professor wanted to draw attention to what he perceived as an infringement of his right to "call them like he sees them" and maybe teach the uppity student a lesson. The administration wanted to establish their policy and had to be seen enforcing it, or else have the same issue raised again and again, until it poisoned the whole atmosphere. Classmates, maybe, though not necessarily. The teacher - especially a teacher of adults - might not be so familiar. And a privileged student from a very different culture might not welcome such familiarity.