Peterkin

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.

Of course you do. It was just a second opportunity to draw the distinction between contractual obligation and criminal law. If a prince were to be in one's class and he preferred to be called 'royal highness' but you didn't like to say that, you could address him Prince X, which is his proper name, without using the title. You could not call him Mac, or Shiela or Towelhead.

This one: And Peterson has been riding it to fame, because he represents the ban on hate speech, plus previously existing rules of harassment, to be a violation of his rights. However, And are you now suggesting they were appropriate ??? They were to the power elite of the time. The laws against homosexuality and miscegenation, and any representations thereof in print or graphic form] were enacted so that the privileged could force their personal value system on everyone else. They had that prerogative. The gradual, hard-fought amendments to relax the moral clutch of that elite (you know, old white guys who got to the top of the heap by knocking out young black guys) continues against a strenuous rearguard actions. A teacher is hired to teach all the students. If he bans a, Iraqi student, or blind student, or female student or transgendered student from his lectures or tutorials - and these banned students are not disruptive in their behaviour - he's broken his contract as well as human rights law. He is also hired as an authority figure presiding over young people. Whether his contract specifies this or not, the policy of the institution regarding drug use, demeanour, fraternization, favouritism, standard of discourse, sexual misconduct and harassment has presumably been made clear before he accepted the job. If he fails to meet those standards, he can be fired. Just like any other job.

And, if a few decades ago, they had proposed a law that banned such public displays, because some people were offended, would that not have been wrong ??? There were such laws only a few decades ago.

Which? This? How it's not force of law is that you don't get arrested for refusing to do the job you were hired for, only fired. I should think a libertarian would understand employers' rights. I have no idea. Depends on the specifics I keep waiting to hear. I don't know who those are, and I still haven't seen the wording of that law. I won't say that because I don't know to which law you are referring. And Dr. Peterson on all his televised platforms looks anything but afraid. In what specific way am I forcing which of my identity on you? Description, not critique. (And public performance is legitimately subject to critique.) I thought the cyclist in the picture seemed underdressed for the part.

But individual energy is finite; even more so is available time. When we try to do everything at once, we do become frazzled, run down, frustrated and eventually despondent enough to give up. You can do a number of different things concurrently - like join the Green Party and write to your representative and walk to work and cut out wasteful use of resources in your house and stop eating beef and discuss your concern with acquaintances and send a message to local businesses and their suppliers through requests to the manager, product reviews, shopping habits and sign the odd petition and attend a town hall meeting and maybe even join an organized protest. But you can't do all of that peripherally to your established lifestyle: you have to make a whole lot of decisions. It has to be a deliberate, thoughtful choice, after honest deliberation. How much adjustment are you prepared for? What aspects of your present life are absolute, which are negotiable and which are ripe for change? In fact, it may be a good idea to make a three-column list of what you are prepared to change, what must remain the same and what needs further consideration. Then, start with the easiest, least disruptive action and work up to the hard sacrifices. If you decide to take political action, do it selectively: find out which members of governments (don't forget how much of the good work takes place at the municipal level!) support worthwhile legislation and campaign for them (a show of appreciation goes a long way, too: they're human) Which is also a great money-saver. As are many of the other green suggestions made over the years. Like, how much do you spend on gift wrap? Or overpackaged unhealthy snacks? Or the aforementioned plastic toys? Some governments have the will to regulate housing. https://ec.europa.eu/info/news/new-rules-greener-and-smarter-buildings-will-increase-quality-life-all-europeans-2019-apr-15_en It helps to have these organized citizen groups in place. They give the concerned individual a bigger voice. Here may be a starting point.