The Great SSP Canada Cancel Culture & Wokeism Thread

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

On the other hand, I assume that people with whom you are not on a first name basis but who know you are a doctor would call you "Dr MonctonRad" rather than "Mr MonctonRad", no? Or, if they introduce you to a third person, it would always be as "Dr MonctonRad"?

If they know I am an MD, I will never be introduced as Mr MonctonRad, but they might introduce me as just MonctonRad rather than Dr MonctonRad. That's OK as far as I'm concerned.

The only time I think it is mandatory to be referred to as Dr MonctonRad is in a professional context at work, just to establish that I have the professional qualifications for the upcoming medical interaction, especially as there is often some confusion amongst lay people as to what a radiologist actually is. After all, I think I would be quite nervous if I thought the person planning to stick a needle in my spine to draw off some CSF were a technician rather than an MD.

[dleung]

Originally Posted by lio45

You're going to be happy to know that the Federal government announced some sort of program to help black entrepreneurs recently, and I have decided that I would help my black businessmen tenants navigate through those programs, and in exchange for my help, we'll likely share whatever free money I manage to get for them thanks to the color of their skin. (Turns out it pays to be color-blind like me and accept to rent to anyone regardless of color! Had no idea such a program would exist someday but in retrospect I'm glad I happened to have a few [N-Word]s as commercial tenants at the moment!) I am sure that the idea that some of this earmarked-for-blacks government gravy could go and line lio45's pockets will make you smile, right, dleung?

Lio: fine, I'll accept Trump losing because my stocks went up
Lio: fine, I'll accept n***ers in my buildings if it means I get government gravy money

[Xelebes]

Originally Posted by lio45

You're going to be happy to know that the Federal government announced some sort of program to help black entrepreneurs recently, and I have decided that I would help my black businessmen tenants navigate through those programs, and in exchange for my help, we'll likely share whatever free money I manage to get for them thanks to the color of their skin. (Turns out it pays to be color-blind like me and accept to rent to anyone regardless of color! Had no idea such a program would exist someday but in retrospect I'm glad I happened to have a few [N-Word]s as commercial tenants at the moment!) I am sure that the idea that some of this earmarked-for-blacks government gravy could go and line lio45's pockets will make you smile, right, dleung?

Lio, grow up. Now.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Xelebes

Lio, grow up. Now.

What's the problem, exactly? If the staff here is fine with dleung's trolling, surely it's also okay to respond to him?

And it's true that I intend to help my commercial tenants milk those stupid help programs whose existence I disapprove, but since they're there, might as well do the reasonable thing and use them. I wasn't saying that part just to piss him off, it's reality. (If he dislikes it, that's not my fault.)

Discussing whether the existence of such programs ("if your skin is of color X, then this one is the set of rules and benefits that applies to you") does more good than harm to society is on topic for a SSP SJW/racism thread, in fact. The intent may be good, but it feels like we're back to the days of separate drinking fountains, and that's not progress in the right direction IMO.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I am not disturbed at all by Ph.D's, or other health professionals (for the most part) referring to themselves as "doctor", although I find it a bit much for optometrists. I see that even pharmacists graduate with the honourific "doctor", and many law programs confer JDs rather than LLBs. There certainly seems to be a "credential creep" going on. This just cheapens the usage of the term "doctor", and, can lead to some confusion amongst lay people.

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.

[YOWflier]

My spouse is an MD and if she ever introduced herself as "Dr. AC888YOW" outside of a professional environment I'd give her the eye roll myself. Thankfully she's more humble than that.

We get invitations to social events in the mail and people who know her profession often address her using "Dr.". She even rolls her own eyes at that (not that people do it, because they obviously mean well, but that they thought they needed to?).

[lio45]

Most of my close friends have PhDs but none of them would ever think of using the pompous "Dr" outside of an academic setting.

Since this friend group is from our undergrad days, we used to all know each other in a setting of complete equality before some of us went on to become doctors while a few others went on other paths instead, and it seems like this feeling is still intact - the ones who don't have PhDs absolutely still feel like true equals to the others.

(I had better grades as an undergrad that many of those who went on to get PhDs so I know I could have gotten one too )

So, there's no "Sheldon looking down on Howard for being the only one in the group having only a MSc" factor at all in our group.

[flar]

Originally Posted by lio45

(I had better grades as an undergrad that many of those who went on to get PhDs so I know I could have gotten one too )
.

But you didn't get one, and you don't have one

[kwoldtimer]

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.

In fact, law schools reached out to alumni, offering them the option of converting their LLBS to JDs. It has never been suggested, afaik, that a lawyer would be entitled to style themselves as a “Doctor”.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

In fact, law schools reached out to alumni, offering them the option of converting their LLBS to JDs. It has never been suggested, afaik, that a lawyer would be entitled to style themselves as a “Doctor”.

Well, it is a "juris doctor". I have heard of ambitious young graduates in the US styling themselves as Dr., although that was some time ago... not sure if that's still the case.

[jonny24]

As someone with no connection to anyone with a doctorate except my own GPs (who I've always referred to as Dr. Lastname), my assumption was that anyone with a doctorate of any kind went by Dr. by default. So this has all been very bewildering

[lio45]

Originally Posted by flar

But you didn't get one, and you don't have one

I know that (Maybe I can buy a honorific one someday? Haven't looked into that yet.)

I wouldn't trade places with any of my doctor friends, though. Before deciding not to continue in academia, I weighted everything and don't regret my choices at all.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by esquire

Well, it is a "juris doctor". I have heard of ambitious young graduates in the US styling themselves as Dr., although that was some time ago... not sure if that's still the case.

I find it inappropriate, since a JD is an undergrad degree, but it wouldn’t totally surprise me in the States, given their status consciousness and love of honorifics. In Canada, I assume one would be laughed out of town.

[Andy6]

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.

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?"

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

I find it inappropriate, since a JD is an undergrad degree, but it wouldn’t totally surprise me in the States, given their status consciousness and love of honorifics. In Canada, I assume one would be laughed out of town.

They claim it isn't because you can't get in anymore without a previous degree, at least not in many schools. It's just absurd. It's a trade school diploma.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by jonny24

As someone with no connection to anyone with a doctorate except my own GPs (who I've always referred to as Dr. Lastname), my assumption was that anyone with a doctorate of any kind went by Dr. by default. So this has all been very bewildering

I'm sure some people use it when the alternative is "Mr." or "Ms.", although I never do. In other words, if everyone in a group is being referred to by some title or other, they might then say "I'm Dr. so and so" (although Prof. would be more common) rather than going by "Mr.". But in a situation where people are normally referred to by just their given name and surname, it's a little different -- an example being news reports and public discussion, in which (say) Melania Trump is generally referred to as "Melania Trump", not "Ms. Melania Trump". People are claiming that Jill Biden deserves an honorific where none would normally be used, because she has an Ed.D.

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Interesting you should mention that.

While I haven't yet encountered it in a workplace setting, I've been to a couple of volunteer/community meetings over the past year or so where people introduce themselves, and are asked to identify as she/her, he/him, etc. as well.

I definitely complied, but afterwards I thought how truly cringeworthy it is to ask (actually it's more "compel" - you're put on the spot in front of a crowd of people) to out themselves in terms of gender and sexual identity in front of a bunch of strangers.

Really, a person's gender or sexual identity is their own business and no one else's, just like their sexual orientation, religion, and host of other personal characteristics.

(BTW that sound you hear is the sound of two contemporary woke principles bumping against each other.)

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.

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by esquire

Well, it is a "juris doctor". I have heard of ambitious young graduates in the US styling themselves as Dr., although that was some time ago... not sure if that's still the case.

In my experience I've rarely seen a lawyer in the US use it. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen, but it's rare. There are PhDs in law though so maybe some professors might?

The more pretentious lawyers use "Esq." at the end of their name, but even that's not common.

Flaunting like that is kind of gauche in the professional managerial class (notwithstanding recent nonsense re Jill Biden).

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by someone123

SSP is not really the land of robust female representation. For all the apparent attention paid to diversity, do we have a bunch of guys who have implicitly decided that the women's rights angle of this is not important? It's easy to imagine a bunch of males accepting to live with the loss of women's sports leagues for example.

From what I can tell, female identified trans vs. certain feminists is the biggest fault line that has clearly articulated conflicts of goals and values associated with it.

The scary thing is that there are a lot of men who are passionate and even violent trans activists. They get so riled up about dismantling cisgendered women's safe spaces. I think they're just finding a way to launder their misogyny in the garb of trans rights.

[Hackslack]

THIS is f’n hilarious!!!

Vancouver Canucks face calls to retire orca logo over cultural appropriation

The Vancouver Canucks are facing accusations that their primary logo is an example of cultural appropriation.

Sean Carleton, a historian and Indigenous Studies scholar at the University of Manitoba, said the orca logo’s “Coast Salish-inspired imagery was designed without Indigenous consultation.”

“As a Canucks fan and a historian of Indigenous-settler relations in B.C., the orca logo is, without a doubt, cultural appropriation,” Carleton wrote on social media on Monday.

The Canucks introduced the orca logo, which was created by artist Brent Lynch, in 1997.

Global News has reached out to the Canucks for comment.

The comments come after new Canucks goaltender Braden Holtby apologized for a design on his mask that was created by a Swedish artist and included Indigenous imagery.

Carleton asked why Holtby faced criticism for the design while his team continues to use Indigenous imagery in its primary logo.

“The Canucks are branding their team with appropriated Indigenous imagery while being part of the process of profiting from doing business on stolen Indigenous land – without working with Indigenous peoples in meaningful ways,” he wrote. “That’s how settler colonialism works.”

Carleton suggested the team should retire the Orca logo and bring back its classic skate-and-rink design.

He went on to say the NHL franchise should develop more meaningful partnerships with local First Nations.

“At the very least, the Canucks should… work with Indigenous peoples to develop iconography in appropriate ways, giving Indigenous artists a platform and a way to participate and benefit.”

Grand Chief Stewart Phillip of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs said the NHL franchise has a good relationship with local First Nations.

“They haven’t taken issue with the Canucks logo, so I have no problem with it,” he said.

“I have a Canucks jersey.”

As for Holtby’s mask, Phillip said it’s “unfortunate” that local First Nations weren’t contacted about cultural protocols.

https://globalnews.ca/news/7523720/c...XsENqmbecA0VFA