The Great SSP Canada Cancel Culture & Wokeism Thread

[lio45]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

Some are now saying that you should also state your race.

Like in the signature of your emails, too. Gender and race.

- Brown Man

edit - Dr. Brown Man, Esq.

That's way too vague! BIPOC Brown Man, or check-your-privilege Asian* Brown Man? I don't know if I can hire you or not!

*they take all the spots in the best universities! hard-working disciplined bastards that they are.


Signed: a white, cis hetero male, member of the great Québécois race.
(The latter being, of course, a discriminated-against group in this country!)





(Between us, I know that you know that I know the precise answer to the question asked in this post, but you get the point )

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Hackslack

... while being part of the process of profiting from doing business on stolen Indigenous land ...

The entire fucking country is built on "stolen Indigenous land". Yearly GDP of 2+ trillion dollars, all from stolen Indigenous land. Get over it already! Every square inch of this planet was stolen from someone else at some point in history.

Contrary to what they imagine, idiots like this guy are obstacles to progress, actively contributing to making us a more systematically racist country.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Hackslack

THIS is f’n hilarious!!!

Vancouver Canucks face calls to retire orca logo over cultural appropriation

For millennia, First Nations were the only ones to make fires on the land that is now modern Alberta, they had a monopoly on the concept. The Calgary Flames' name and logo are cultural appropriation and must be eliminated!

First Nations were exploiting the Athabasca Sands to waterproof their boats, etc. way before the first white person showed up is what is now modern Alberta. The Edmonton Oilers' name and logo are cultural appropriation and must be eliminated!

At least the Habs should be okay, the concept of "Canadian" didn't exist back in pre-Columbian days so that can't be appropriation. (Though the team, of course, plays their home games, as well as every single one of their away games actually, on stolen Indigenous land.)

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by wave46

I wonder if Epstein would take issue with someone referring to Martin Luther King Jr. as "Dr. King". .

Funny you should mention MLK. I always assumed he was something like a psychiatrist which is a medical doctor who could issue prescriptions.

Turns out he was a doctor in theology, right? Just realized this. As I said, always assumed the above until now.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by rousseau

Genuinely curious: can you cite something sexist from the piece?


The entire premise of the article is that people who aren't medical doctors using the honorific "doctor" "feels fraudulent, even comic." It wasn't sex-specific.

It was about Jill Biden because she's going to be in the White House, therefore it's topical. Do you honestly think he wouldn't have written it if "Dr. Joe Biden" had a PhD in education?

Having said that, no man in his right mind going into politics who wasn't a medical doctor would use the honorific "Dr." for fear of looking ridiculous, so it's probably a moot point.

I reread the article by Epstein several times and criticisms of it. There is absolutely nothing sexist or misogynistic about the article.

Alleging that it is is basically equivalent to calling someone racist for telling you not to park in a reserved spot when you have no right to do so and are just being selfish.

Sign(s) of the times I guess.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by esquire

Pretty sure it was the U of T that started using JD for law grads about 12 years ago, apparently on the basis that US recruiters familiar with JDs didn't know what a LL.B. was even though law school programs are essentially the same thing in Canada and the US. So it was basically a marketing thing, going from the British bachelor of laws to the US juris doctor... nothing about the program itself changed.

Then pretty well every English-language Canadian law school followed in lockstep, although I'm not sure whether the civil law programs in Quebec went along with it?

I have yet to meet any JD holder who insists on calling themselves "Dr."... I would think someone who did that would probably generate a lot of eye rolling.

It's still LL.B. in Quebec. Though McGill I believe uses both LL.B. and J.D.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

Some are now saying that you should also state your race.

Like in the signature of your emails, too. Gender and race.

- Brown Man

edit - Dr. Brown Man, Esq.

Are they?

A bunch of ultra-woke purity teens on Twitter talked about this the other day and were laughed out of the room. They became Twitter's main character of the day - something you never want to be.

Wouldn't surprise me if some bored journalist tried to make this a thing though.


RE: the Vancouver Canucks imagery - don't really care other than the old logo is way better, but it certainly is immediately recognizable indigenous imagery. Done in the kinda cringey late 90s/early 2000s desperately searching for an identity Canadiana style. The news coverage is designed to be inflammatory and rile people up, but the quoted scholar does actually make at least one good point (and I wonder how much of what was quoted was taken out of context): "Carleton asked why Holtby faced criticism for the design while his team continues to use Indigenous imagery in its primary logo". Somewhat ironically for those familiar with the tactic on SSP, his twitter thread on it comes across more as trying to provoke discussion than change by decree.

The issue reminds me a bit of the 2010 Van Olympics logo and use of the Inuksuk. Most Inuk people I knew from Nunavut were actually pretty annoyed about that, and the general appropriation of the symbol as a catchall for Canadian indigenous symbolry. Nobody listened to them as far as I can tell, though.

Originally Posted by lio45

The entire fucking country is built on "stolen Indigenous land". Yearly GDP of 2+ trillion dollars, all from stolen Indigenous land. Get over it already! Every square inch of this planet was stolen from someone else at some point in history.

In a perfect world, sure. But I'm guessing it's not exactly in human nature to do this, given that a significant portion of global conflicts, stereotypes and general geopolitical posturing are rooted in the lingering effects of things "stolen" at some point in history. Sometimes very, very long ago. For a fun experiment try going to Belfast and telling a Republican to "get over it" and see what the result is... I mean I've been straight up told by someone in a bar that if he hadn't been living overseas for a decade he'd have punched me (or worse) as soon as he found out my extremely English last name.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by lio45

At least the Habs should be okay, the concept of "Canadian" didn't exist back in pre-Columbian days so that can't be appropriation. (Though the team, of course, plays their home games, as well as every single one of their away games actually, on stolen Indigenous land.)

I think "Habs" could be considered at the very least insensitive to our indigenous friends and might be up for discussion too.

After all, Habs is short for "habitants", who were ultimately settlers and colonizers and thus oppressors. The habitants by definition stole native land. I think we might see some picketing of hockey games in downtown Montreal once physical distancing rules are relaxed and such activities become acceptable again...……..

What do you think lio???

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Andy6

I never "converted" mine to that stupid American "JD". Even Harvard was still using LL.B. when I was in law school. I remember recounting U of T's "reasoning" to a friend who was with one of the top firms in New York - he laughed and said "of course we know what an LL.B. is, do they think we're idiots?"

A friend of mine who is an Ontario-trained common law lawyer told me that J.D. was way more internationally recognized than LL.B., which is why they made the change.

I am not actually sure that that's even true, as the Commonwealth legal tradition (on which LL.B. is based, right?) is much more globally widespread than the U.S. one, is it not?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I think "Habs" could be considered at the very least insensitive to our indigenous friends and might be up for discussion too.

After all, Habs is short for "habitants", who were ultimately settlers and colonizers and thus oppressors. The habitants by definition stole native land. I think we might see some picketing of hockey games in downtown Montreal once physical distancing rules are relaxed and such activities become acceptable again...……..

What do you think lio???

Interestingly enough, while francophones enthusiastically chant "Go Habs Go!" it's quite rare to hear the Canadiens referred to as "les Habs" in French. They have a bunch of other nicknames that are much more frequently used than Habs in French.

Also, outside of this context, "habitant" actually has a fairly negative connotation in French on this side of the Atlantic. If you say "il fait très habitant" about someone, it means he is a bit of a rube.

The same goes for "colon" which strictly speaking only means "colonist" in French. Not necessarily a pejorative strictu sensu but in our French it means a hick or a low-life.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I reread the article by Epstein several times and criticisms of it. There is absolutely nothing sexist or misogynistic about the article.

Alleging that it is is basically equivalent to calling someone racist for telling you not to park in a reserved spot when you have no right to do so and are just being selfish.

Sign(s) of the times I guess.

I agree that it's not if taken at face value, but I think one would have to be naive to think that it wasn't deliberately written in the attempt to provoke the response it got? Which I'd agree is more the fault of the centrist "I'm with her!" lib type that never seems to learn. But also (I'd argue intentionally) suckered in the "how dare they get so outraged!" crowd. It's a pointless distraction that should be ignored at the end of the day.

It's kinda like the aforementioned crowd who are still(!) claiming that Hillary lost because of sexism and not that she was deeply unlikable. Which actually cheapens the fact that sexism probably did occur on some level, even if it was inconsequential to the actual outcome.

Far more ridiculous were the cries of sexism that Biden didn't pick Michèle Flournoy for head of DOD. Because helping allow open air slave markets in Libya screams Girl Power.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Funny you should mention MLK. I always assumed he was something like a psychiatrist which is a medical doctor who could issue prescriptions.

Turns out he was a doctor in theology, right? Just realized this. As I said, always assumed the above until now.

In my experience (Reformed Protestant, NAmerica), someone with a DTh is referred to as "Dr", "Rev", or "Rev Dr", depending on context and probably in that order. Never as "Mr" by anyone who knows them.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

In my experience (Reformed Protestant, NAmerica), someone with a DTh is referred to as "Dr", "Rev", or "Rev Dr", depending on context and probably in that order. Never as "Mr" by anyone who knows them.

I get Rev but Dr for a theologian just seems odd to me. Catholics most definitely don't do that!

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

In my experience (Reformed Protestant, NAmerica), someone with a DTh is referred to as "Dr", "Rev", or "Rev Dr", depending on context and probably in that order. Never as "Mr" by anyone who knows them.

To my mind, while one should never go out of their way (in a non appropriate context) to refer to themselves as "Dr"; to be referred to by someone else as "Mr" (or Ms) rather than "Dr" (if they should know better) is actually somewhat insulting.

It doesn't matter if it is an MD, PhD, DDS, DO, OD, D.Chir or D.Theol, the holder of these designations has invested considerable time, money and effort in achieving this designation and should be addressed appropriately.

In other words, if my name is Bill and I have a doctorate of some form, you can introduce me as "Bill", "Dr Bill", but never "Mr Bill"

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I get Rev but Dr for a theologian just seems odd to me. Catholics most definitely don't do that!

Reformed Protestants, as I said. The minister at the Church I grew up in was a "Dr".

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by niwell

I agree that it's not if taken at face value, but I think one would have to be naive to think that it wasn't deliberately written in the attempt to provoke the response it got? Which I'd agree is more the fault of the centrist "I'm with her!" lib type that never seems to learn. But also (I'd argue intentionally) suckered in the "how dare they get so outraged!" crowd. It's a pointless distraction that should be ignored at the end of the day.

It's kinda like the aforementioned crowd who are still(!) claiming that Hillary lost because of sexism and not that she was deeply unlikable. Which actually cheapens the fact that sexism probably did occur on some level, even if it was inconsequential to the actual outcome.

Far more ridiculous were the cries of sexism that Biden didn't pick Michèle Flournoy for head of DOD. Because helping allow open air slave markets in Libya screams Girl Power.

I get your points though I wonder if Epstein really has an axe to grind on this one if it isn't more an anti-Biden or anti-Dem as opposed to anything related to sexism.

Regardless, while I think that Jill Biden can be rightfully proud of what she has achieved in education, her (apparent) insistence on being styled as "Dr." probably comes from a serious lack of self- and societal awareness. That much we can say.

I've mentioned before that in a previous life I was a (national and international) conference organizer and it was always a big headache dealing with how eminent scholars were identified in the programs and proceedings.

In Quebec, it's extremely rare for PhDs to be referred to as "Dr", though they often add "PhD" at the end of their name.

(If you do a search of Government of Canada websites, you'll find that "Dr." appears on the English pages for some people, but often disappears from the French pages devoted to the same individual.)

Also, the parameters of academic credentials can vary from country to country or culture to culture.

My wife for example has a master's but no PhD, but in countries like Italy a master's is sufficient to get you the "dottore" or "dottoressa" appellation, and so in conference documents and other publications there she has been listed as a "dottoressa".

[shreddog]

OH NO!!!!!

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

... but never "Mr Bill"

Sorry

That said, this would never fly today given Slugos appearance ...

[shreddog]

Originally Posted by Hackslack

THIS is f’n hilarious!!!

Vancouver Canucks face calls to retire orca logo over cultural appropriation

...

So a FN scholar from Manitoba (who would have never know about west coast FN groups unless he "culturally appropriated books and online resources") says it's bad, but a local westcoast Chief, whose culture was supposedly apporpriated, says its okay.

Grand Chief says he's not offended by Canucks logo

link

So who to listen to??

[YOWflier]

Addressing someone as "M(rs). FirstName" is something I've only ever routinely experienced in QC. "Hello Mr. Steve". Always made me chuckle.

I think it takes someone extraordinarily egocentric to take offense in being referenced as M(rs) instead of with whatever honorific applies to them. Again, this is outside of a professional setting.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

To my mind, while one should never go out of their way (in a non appropriate context) to refer to themselves as "Dr"; to be referred to by someone else as "Mr" (or Ms) rather than "Dr" (if they should know better) is actually somewhat insulting.

It doesn't matter if it is an MD, PhD, DDS, DO, OD, D.Chir or D.Theol, the holder of these designations has invested considerable time, money and effort in achieving this designation and should be addressed appropriately.

In other words, if my name is Bill and I have a doctorate of some form, you can introduce me as "Bill", "Dr Bill", but never "Mr Bill"

I would never introduce someone as "Mr. (given name)", if I am using a given name. I'd just introduce you as "Bill".

But if you meant the surname, then I must say I probably wouldn't introduce a doctor of asphalt pavements as "Dr. Smith", unless it was in a specific setting related to asphalt pavements. And there I probably would have included as part of the intro that he has a PhD in asphalt pavements from the University of Waterloo.

But in any other setting? It would never enter my mind to do that.