Peterkin

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.

Peterson rides a bicycle? Huh. Put an immaculate white suit on the complainant, and that's very apt!

In what ways are this force expressed? How are these laws actually worded? What penalties are levied against which particular offenses against whose personal reality? See, I hear these general complaints, and not only from Peterson and FOX, but they never specify what law it is they're protesting. The laws I know about say you are not allowed to discriminate against people on the basis of --- all those innate and assumed characteristics that have traditionally been the basis for discrimination against groups of people. It doesn't say you have to talk to them. If your job description includes talking to people, then you must, whether you approve of them or not, and you're not allowed to verbally abuse or harass them --- on pain of dismissal, not prison. What is the legal substance of the compliant? I noticed one exchange where Peterson yelled at a student in the audience for failing to make the super-fine distinction between his own very carefully calibrated wording of a message and the clear message as heard by the audience. (The video is helpfully titled 'Peterson SNAPS at Idiot Student'. The student sounds quite intelligent, even if he does speak too fast, and he's trying politely to formulate a question about Peterson's message, not the nuances of wording.) Yet he himself draws no distinction between what the law says and how it makes him feel. Peterson claims that it is. I didn't see or hear anyone with a gripe against society or any university student. But I should expect all such gripers and students to have the same right to be pretentious and virtue-signalling (?) as the professor with the giant podium. And I would expect their target audience to have the same right to cheer as Peterson's. Very little danger of that!

He wasn't misreading or misinterpreting: he was deliberately misrepresenting. In plain words: lying through his beautifully crafted teeth. For a very particular effect. It's all calculated and choreographed for effect and profit. Who says somebody with a PhD can't peddle snake-venom?

Thanks. But I have no clue how bring it from there to here. This is completely off topic... is there a back room to discuss technical matters?

Have you ever thought about going to a recently discovered M-class planet? If you were to lead such a mission, what would be your concerns, considerations, objectives and reservations? What protocol would you put in place - - on approach - on establishing orbit - on landing - on first encounter with a local life-form ?

That was the reason @mistermack gave for drinking bottled in the first place. Some cities have chronic problems with their filtration system or distribution capacity because of rapid growth or outmoded infrastructure or contamination from industry or agriculture. It's not easy - or cheap - to supply wholesome water to millions of people. North America is lucky enough to have plenty of natural sweet water - but has done a really crappy job of keeping it clean. On the whole, municipalities (with some notable exceptions, like Flint MI and Walkerton ON) have managed quite well. I don't see any justification for transporting water from Europe. (I saw some from Poland the summer after Chernobyl. I didn't drink any; have only two legs and most of my hair.) (This is the first time I wish I could import my full avatar pic....)