I am finally home, with a lot of unpacking to do and affairs to settle. Plus we may have a nesting mallard (probably Dorothy, as Honey hasn’t been seen in two weeks). Putin, her beau, sits in the pond quacking forlornly, which probably means she’s built a nest on a ledge. So far we have only a single pair of ducks.
But I digress: here are three items I noticed on the short bus trip from downtown to Hyde Park.
A.) Look who’s making a lot of dosh headlining at the famous Chicago Theater! (Note red arrow.) Not only that, but he bills himself as “DR. Jordan Peterson,” despite the fact that he has a Ph.D., not an M.D. (and he shouldn’t be using Dr. in either case). I’m not jealous, as I don’t need dosh or want that kind of fame, but I was vastly amused. He’s becoming the Deepak Chopra of Generation Z. (I have to say, though, that his advice to stop and pet any cat you encounter is very sound.
B.) I’ve posted about this grammatical error before, though I think some misguided readers defended its use. It’s on all the Chicago buses.
It’s wrong because you can’t sit there if you have both a disability and are accompanied by a senior. What it should have said is simply “for seniors or people with disabilities.” In fact, that’s exactly what it says on the similar Chicago subway (“el”) sign, where they clearly employed someone who knew their grammar.
C). For some reason the sign below, which was on the bus right above the seat shown in “B”, offends me. Look at that: “Send referrals and make money.” That is, you get PAID if you send somebody for an HIV test to the University of Chicago Hospital. Yes, the test may be free, but if you’re diagnosted as positive, somebody, including the hospital, is going to make some money. And the person who sent you gets a bounty!
Notice, too, that two black gay men are depicted in the background, which shows whom this ad is targeting. I didn’t like that, either; why do they need a picture? Lots of people from all walks of life get HIV tests.
In fact, why shouldn’t the hospital offer bounties to those who refer anybody who might have a disease, like diabetes or heart disease? Why just HIV? It’s unseemly, I tell you, these bounties.
Solid ground at last – enjoy the lawn!
… I forgot to ask … it isn’t exactly jet lag, but is that a problem traveling from a pole? I never thought of that before… lag-wise…
Surely just tiring travelling & sleeping in a seat not a bed?
You go from light most of the day to about 1/2, I estimate. Depending. So I was struck by the notion.
This time of year, everywhere on the planet gets pretty close to 12 hours of daylight in each 24. Jerry’s cruises straddled the equinox
Peterson is on tour; he will also be at Seattle’s Paramount theater May 3rd and 4th (2 shows means he must be fairly popular). But on the 3rd, I’ll be watching Paul McCartney at the stadium where I think the real fun in Seattle will be. Though I don’t like stadium venues…but it’s PAUL, and I’ve never seen him live, so I couldn’t pass it up.
I looked into seeing one of McCartney’s San Francicso bay area shows, but the ticket price was too much. Surely Sir Paul, one of the wealthiest rock stars of all time, could tell the ticket companies to allow the plebs a few nosebleed seats.
$550! F’n ridiculous. And that wasn’t even for the best seats. This is probably his last big tour, so why not just break even or even lose some dosh? A bit lame, Sir Paul…
I don’t think performers have a lot of say about ticket prices. Its all jacked up by Ticketmaster or something like it.
Check out John Oliver’s episode on this topic. He reports that in many cases, the performers are also doing the scalping and are quite happy to have Ticketmaster take the heat:
https://youtu.be/-_Y7uqqEFnY
I’m not so sure that’s really the case here. Sure, a bit of the ticket cost is outside of the artists’ control, but once venue and other costs are covered (easily less than 10% of the $550), most of the money goes to the artist. I don’t usually begrudge artists earning from touring, streaming doesn’t allow them to make the money they used to make from record sales. However, I become a bit peeved when comparing the ticket prices for stars with those of less well known acts.
In the stadium closest to where I live (in the UK), big stars often charge 3-4 times as much as lesser known artists, even when both acts sell the stadium out. For the big stars, there is no reason to charge so much, they do it cause they can – people will pay it.
When I see people like McCartney charging $550 and more, it leaves me quite appalled, because it’s just greed. He’s got more money than he could ever spend, it’s probably his last tour and he knows there are people out there who are desperate to see him. Yet, he’s quite happy to either show them two fingers because they can’t afford it, or make them pay 2 weeks of their earnings to have the privilege. This isn’t just PM, the Stones and other classic acts charge silly money for their gigs.
I think PM is a unique and wonderful talent, but there is no way I would be paying that sort of cash to see him. Is money that important to him at this stage in life that he feels the need to effectively extort it from people who love him as an artist?
$550? You’re having a laugh Paul!
Yeah, at $550, it does look like the performer is just grabbing what the market will bear. Even if I could afford it, no concert is worth this much to me.
Incidentally, an ad popped up earlier for the Rolling Stones playing in London’s Hyde Park this summer. The tickets range from around £200 to £700! I’ve been to a couple of concerts at Hyde Park, and it is a great venue for a concert, but it’s just basically a field in a nice location. It’s an exercise in money grabbing.
This is the first time I hear any issue about using “Dr.” when addressing PhDs. That said, I confess I am not too familiar with American customs in that regard.
There was a small discussion of that here once with me – I found that good writers’ names for a general audience appear with no credentials whatsoever on their books:
Jerry Coyne
Richard Dawkins
Steven Pinker
Steven Weinberg
… and so on. Then, some writers’ names for different audiences e.g. “parenting” books can appear either way.
And of course “Dr. Jill Biden” is well-known at this point.
But I sorta learned what I needed from that at the time. It depends…
Peterson also writes textbooks related to the clinical psychology field, such as “Maps of Meaning”. In that context, I agree that it would be appropriate. With respect to his general audience books, neither “12 Rules” nor the most recent address Peterson with the honorific.
Yeah I got no problem with Peterson using his title (I’m assuming he earned it and it’s not honorary. If honorary, he shouldn’t).
The one example I know of that is used in a professional context :
Dr. Eng. h. c. Ferdinand Porsche
“h. c.” means “honoris causa”
Funny. I read the seat as saying that only people who both have a disability and a senior with them can use the seat, precluding people who have only one, and also precluding the actual senior from sitting there (unless they have both a disability and another senior with them).
The correct form is “for the disabled or elderly” but both adjectives became prohibited many years ago.
Indeed, the sign is most certainly incorrect. Substitute the qualifier nouns and the stricture undoubtedly requires both:
Or, if one insists on the second qualifier being people:
Oh wait, there’s my stop! 🙂
There’s absolutely nothing wrong with the sign except that it provides an opportunity for pedants to mock it. If you swap round the two classes to get “for seniors and people with disabilities”, there is no way to make an ambiguity out of it (excepting that, being in Chicago, it means that final year college and high school students have priority use of the seat).
As it stands, you can parse the sentence in two ways:
– people with (disabilities and seniors)
– (people with disabilities) and seniors
It is obvious from the context that the latter parsing is correct.
Edited to add: I note that the “Oxford comma” won’t help here, but I would argue that the formatting of the message on the seat absolutely makes the meaning clear.
““DR. Jordan Peterson,” despite the fact that he has a Ph.D., not an M.D. (and he shouldn’t be using Dr. in either case)”
If he wanted to stand out in the crowd of Ph.D.’s – which is large – “F.P.” would do the trick, and serve his schtick as a renegade – “former professor”.
“Former professor” is disingenuous, and implies that he was ousted. On the contrary, he is a retired professor emeritus, who resigned from a tenured position after a long-standing career. Despite your impression of him, I don’t think it is respectful to stain a person’s credentials with those kind of remarks, in a forum that is presumably popular amongst professionals in the academic fields.
““Former professor” is disingenuous, and implies that he was ousted. ”
No it does not.
Mark Rober is credited – credited – as “former” NASA engineer.
“Former” is used by many individuals to claim (rightly) some “former” position.
I do not have time to scrape the internet for cases, I thought it was evident and plain fact.
Maybe I misinterpreted your comment, but following with “supports his schtick as a renegade” does little to alleviate the allusions that I initially inferred. Your statement wasn’t as unequivocal as you purport, but we can leave the discussion there.
Well no, because now I looked up he is in fact emeritus.
So if I had understood that from the get go, that’d be completely different. Its then stupid to say the “former professor” thing!
PCC(E) wrote a post in which Peterson “hangs it up” as professor, and I overlooked the emeritus detail in the ensuing discussion. I confabulated Peterson was, effectively, giving the university the middle finger – his criticism of university suggested that to me.
I was wrong! He didn’t reject his university, if he’s emeritus. That’s different! I also thought he was really young to retire.
Apologies!
The notice suggests you need disabilities, not just one disability. “People with a disability, or a senior citizen” (aged over what???).
How about “This seat is reserved for seniors and for people with disabilities”? Is that ambiguous for you, too?
I’d have said that the sign is formally grammatically okay, although one can debate whether it’s good style. “People with disabilities” and “seniors” are not parallel constructions (unlike, for example, “people with a disability and baggage”), so it doesn’t really feel ambiguous to me.
Welcome back!
I have no doubt part of you is sad to be home. But also, sometimes it is good to have a vacation from your vacation. 🙂
I see your point that using the title where it isn’t appropriate is perhaps to be avoided, but why the difference between PhD and MD?
Because very few MD have earned a doctorate by research – a PhD. The typical MD’s highest degree is BMCh – Bachelor of Medicine and Chirurgy.
M.D./Ph.D. is combined research and medicine of a type commonly associated with the honest term as in “is there a doctor in the house?!”
True for the UK, but not North America. You have to already have (or be about to graduate with) a baccalaureate degree to apply competitively to medical schools here. A North American-trained MD (the person) has an MD — the degree is Doctor of Medicine — plus her previous undergrad degree. It is not a research thesis degree and it is not a doctorate as academics correctly understand the term. Medical students studying for the MD are still called undergraduates, even if they have higher degrees than a Batchelor’s, as many now do. The term “Doctor” for a physician is a historical honorific. Laypeople understand that if someone is “studying to be a doctor”, they mean physician. “Doing a PhD in ____” (or a British research thesis MD) is a different animal.
It used to be considered gauche for a person with an academic doctorate to style himself as “Doctor” in ordinary social intercourse. Unfairly, the social status of physicians among laypeople was enormously higher than that of academics or PhD psychologists. The punishment was to be hit up for free medical advice at cocktail parties and then have to stammer and mumble, “Um, well, actually I’m not a medical doctor….” The other punishment was to be made to listen to (and take the right side in) some tale of woe about malpractice visited upon someone’s second-cousin’s hairstylist’s grandmother twenty years ago. These vital social roles are privileged to proper doctors with medical licenses, dammit!
Another historical honorific involving “doctor”: the piano player in a brothel, hence the origin of the name of the musician Dr. John.
OK, but in that case wouldn’t a PhD calling himself “Doctor” (even if socially gauche) be more appropriate than an MD doing so?
There are some physicians who don’t have any sort of doctoral degree, neither an MD or equivalent nor any other type. I always refer to physicians as physicians.
To add to that, in the UK, when a physician specialises in a surgical discipline, becomes a surgeon, he/she loses the ‘Dr’ and becomes a ‘Mr’/’Ms’ again.
The big question for me about the signs on the seats is, Does the able-bodied young lout sprawled over both seats blasting his music out through leaky earbuds stand up and move his backpack off the other seat when a disabled senior hobbles onto the bus?
Alternative hypothesis : one person did both jobs, and they know they don’t know their grammar well, so guess randomly on different jobs. At least some jobs they get right, just by chance. See also : “I scored 10% on a test with 5-option multiple-choice questions.”
If both corporations are part of Chicago City “Inc”, why would “Chicago Inc” employ two “signage designers”. Is there that much design work to do?
A lot of people here in New Zealand dislike Dr. Jordan Peterson. One may wonder whether the profound dislike of him we see here and there contains a drop or two of virtue-signalling. He makes money and that’s a fact. But he stands up to university bullying and the inane woke school of thought that has taken root in the US and elsewhere. In debate he appeals to the research evidence and surely that is to be lauded because lots of others skate over the truth and are happy to gild the lily.
Female friends of mine assure me that he is mysogynist but I see no evidence of it and his interview with Cathy Newman on the gender pay gap contains some wisdom. After all, it is indeed a multi-variable problem and, as a statistician might put it, there is only a pay gap if something tangible remains after controlling for critical variables such as choice of profession, years of experience (admittedly, that’s difficult, given that most women take time out to raise kids), degree of agreeableness (!), level of determination and ambition – and so forth. If we find a significant difference in remuneration after doing our homework, then we have reason to suspect discrimination. Of course, that could be the case (and may well be), but it’s not true simply because people shout it loudly. The same applies for claims of racism in the sciences (could be – but not easy to prove) and the blame we place on colonialism for many of the ills of the world (quite possibly the remnants of colonialism are still with indigenous people and minorities, for example – but we now live in a different world from the nineteenth century).
Perhaps he is not convinced that a world run by women would be a better world than that run by men. We may never know, but one suspects that it might be a kinder world but not by much. I have mentioned the issue of workplace bullying in other blogs. We have a lot of it in New Zealand and it seems that women and minorities are just as likely to be on the receiving end as white males. However, my personal observation in this country is that women, people of color and gay people in positions of power are every bit as capable of bullying as white males. In fact – the worst bullies I have encountered were women and one or two gay men.
In any case, what’s wrong about telling people to clean up their bedrooms before embarking on crusades to change the world? Good advice, Dr Peterson!
David Lillis
“In debate he appeals to the research evidence and surely that is to be lauded because lots of others skate over the truth and are happy to gild the lily.”
My biggest problem with him is the peddling of mysticism/spiritualism/Christianity, which you left out of your post and which makes up a significant portion of his talking points. This is further compounded by his more reasonable and evidence-based arguments, as he often smuggles in the spiritual BS at the same time, thus making it seem more “reasonable” to the listener. If he is so driven by evidence, where does all of this come from? I’ve watched many of his lectures, and his “research evidence” seems to be myths and the idea that, ultimately, these things are somehow “healthy” for people to swallow in his learned estimation.
I’m glad he’s prominently stood up to forced-speech mandates and politicization of certain segments of society/institutions, and I value what he brings to the public square in other subjects, even if I don’t always agree with him. But I can’t ignore that he not only peddles spiritual garbage, but that he’s done so increasingly as his reputation and profile have grown.
Someone like Richard Dawkins doesn’t regularly spout anything that I find intellectually offensive and seemingly at complete odds with his evidence-based beliefs. Even Christopher Hitchens, with whom I disagreed on many subjects, at least had opinions that one can consider to be evidence-based or up for legitimate disagreement (e.g. his support for the War on Terror, which is a real-world circumstance on which reasonable minds can have policy-based disagreements). Spiritualism and Christianity are not based on “research evidence.”
Hi Carbon Copy.
Agreed! – some spiritualism etc is present in his discourse but humans are spiritual, are they not? In debating how people, especially young people, should live their lives, a spiritual dimension is a relevant point of discussion, so long as it does not take over the conversation.
If someone asks whether the net outcomes of Dr. Peterson’s effort over the last five or ten years have been positive or negative, then I would say positive. Why? Standing up to woke culture, telling people to take responsibility for their own lives, basing our perspectives on evidence etc.
I do not agree that his evidence consists of myths. As a professional statistician and quantitative researcher, I have done some (admittedly light-handed) digging around his stated evidence (pay gaps, social, political and economic issues etc) and his assertions appear to me to be well-founded.
David Lillis
“. As a professional statistician and quantitative researcher, I have done some (admittedly light-handed) digging around his stated evidence (pay gaps, social, political and economic issues etc) and his assertions appear to me to be well-founded.”
I agree! Which is exactly why this paragraph was in my post:
“I’m glad he’s prominently stood up to forced-speech mandates and politicization of certain segments of society/institutions, and I value what he brings to the public square in other subjects, even if I don’t always agree with him.”
And this sentence: ” This is further compounded by his more reasonable and evidence-based argument.”
I do not agree that we are “spiritual beings.” There are tons of atheists out there. Who says we need to be “spiritual” in an age of science?
Also, thanks for your friendly and reasonable reply. I appreciate the civil debate, regardless of where we each land on the subject 🙂
You have a problem with him spouting his belief in Christianity and other spiritual clap trap. I agree completely, because that stuff is utter nonsense. However, if a speaker differs to you in terms of their religious beliefs, is it a valid reason for labelling that person and all their other perspectives and arguments as less valid? BTW, Hitchens’ position on the Iraq war wasn’t evidence based; he and others knew the mega / biological gun didn’t exist, he supported invasion because he supported getting rid of the monster who was Saddam Hussein.
The best ever science teacher I ever had was a young earth creationists. He was a biology teacher and refused to teach evolution at all, but his mind, enthusiasm and knowledge were second to none. He is the man that inspired me to study biochemistry at university. We all have a few stupid beliefs – including you and I – and for many people religious indoctrination was unavoidable when they were kids. but that doesn’t diminish our abilities in other areas.
I hate the fact that I have to risk sounding like a men’s rights activist in order to defend Peterson, but, in my opinion, he should be defended. He has the bravery to stand up and declare what he thinks, even though it may be unpopular and cause him much flak. He has stood up to the forced language bill from the Canadian govt, and was unfairly and ridiculously, labelled transphobic as a result.
He became famous because of that story, but it has very little to do with his main message. That message is about evidence, empathy, fairness and kindness. He is extremely well read and qualified to teach others on tyranny and totalitarianism – important in this day and age. His Cathy Newman interview was a perfect example of who he is – a calm collected, studious guy with reams of evidence and reason to support his view. He stood up to Newman constantly, while she was insistent on putting, defended his own position, and did so while she was constantly interrupting and being purposefully contrary and difficult.
My nephew has been going through some mental health issues recently, and to help him I bought his ’12 Rules for Life’ book. This helped him massively; it offers common sense, compassion, and good advice. I would recommend the book to anyone interested in their own mental health. Give it a read, you might be surprised. Peterson isn’t a saint, he has some strange ideas, but that doesn’t mean ALL of what he says is rubbish. He talks with immense authority on many important issues that are currently facing our societies.
I would advise that everyone listen to him carefully, read his work, and don’t jump to unwarranted conclusions. He has has much wisdom to impart.
Thoughtful perspective on someone I don’t know as much about as I ought to. Best wishes to your nephew.
Thanks.
Thanks Leslie, that’s very kind, he’s doing a heck of a lot better thank you.
He has mostly got his mojo back and is home from university for the next few weeks. He will be staying with us for a week and I can’t wait. He’s doing a degree in Comp Sci (which is my day job) so I absolutely love talking with him about what he’s learning. I’ll show him this comment and I’m sure he’ll be quite touched. Thanks again, much appreciated!
This is another reason I have a problem with Peterson: his fan base. You chose a bunch of subjects on which I largely agree with him, and simply dismissed the spiritualism, which makes up a significant portion of his public lectures, as “some stupid beliefs.” You’re so committed to defending him that you end up assuming that I don’t agree with him in other areas, despite my clearly saying that I do in my original post (as shown below). You make so many points in this post that I’m not going to address every one; instead, I’ll choose the first three, just so it doesn’t seem like I’m cherry-picking.
1. You — “However, if a speaker differs to you in terms of their religious beliefs, is it a valid reason for labelling that person and all their other perspectives and arguments as less valid? ”
Me in the post to which you responded — “I’m glad he’s prominently stood up to forced-speech mandates and politicization of certain segments of society/institutions, and I value what he brings to the public square in other subjects, even if I don’t always agree with him.” Further, “My biggest problem with him is the peddling of mysticism/spiritualism/Christianity, which you left out of your post and which makes up a significant portion of his talking points.”
Me in this post — So what makes you think I disagree with him on subjects like the pay gap, wokeness in institutions, and forced-speech for pronouns? Where did I label “all [his] other perspectives and arguments as less valid” because of his religious beliefs? And let’s be clear here: I wasn’t talking about his beliefs, I was talking about him proselytizing. I very clearly only disagreed with him on spirituality/Christianity, and said that I agree with and find him valuable in many other areas! I agree with him on the subject of the gender pay gap, for example, which has tons of research behind his assertions on the matter.
2. You — “BTW, Hitchens’ position on the Iraq war wasn’t evidence based; he and others knew the mega / biological gun didn’t exist, he supported invasion because he supported getting rid of the monster who was Saddam Hussein.”
Me in the post to which you responded — “Even Christopher Hitchens, with whom I disagreed on many subjects, at least had opinions that one can consider to be evidence-based or up for legitimate disagreement (e.g. his support for the War on Terror, which is a real-world circumstance on which reasonable minds can have policy-based disagreements).”
Me in this post — First, I didn’t say, “the Iraq War,” I said “The War on Terror.” Second, Hitchens supported the entire War on Terror, rather than just the Iraq War. Third, Hitchens didn’t “know” that the evidence of WMDs in Iraq was false when he gave his support to that war. Fourth, Hitchens understandably continued his support for that war anyway, as he believed the entire War on Terror was justified based on the idea of removing volatile dictators. Hell, you even say yourself in your own post that he agreed with the Iraq War based on this! I disagreed and continue to disagree with this reasoning, but it’s still a legitimate policy position.
3. You — “We all have a few stupid beliefs – including you and I – and for many people religious indoctrination was unavoidable when they were kids. but that doesn’t diminish our abilities in other areas.”
Me in this post — Yes, but we don’t all go around giving lectures and writing books spreading these beliefs as if they’re factual, with enormous influence.
You appear to be really put out by my comment, and I’m sorry that you feel like that, but I don’t quite understand why you do. My comment mentioned several positions on which I feel Peterson is misunderstood, but I never implied that you hold any of them.
Your reply makes me think you are taking my points way too personally, which was certainly not my intention. I wished to point out that Peterson is not merely the sum of his spiritual opinions and proclamations. He has a lot more to offer, much of it controversial, and some of it worth listening to.
There are also other parts of your comment that I take issue with, but I don’t take them personally, here they are:
You said: ”This is another reason I have a problem with Peterson: his fan base”. Really? First of all it’s a bit much to blame Peterson for the difficulty you have with his fans. But apart from that, implicit within your comment is the suggestion that I am one of his ‘fans’. I’m not a ‘fan’ of his at all. However, he is an accomplished academic, and I believe his ideas should be assessed independently of his spiritual beliefs.
Then: ”You’re so committed to defending him”. Erm… no I’m really not, but I think he should have a fair hearing. He is often maligned for religious or political views that he holds, leading to many dismissing his other contributions outright. By suggesting that his views are assessed on their merits does not make me ‘so committed to defending him’; I believe it makes me rational and fair.
For anyone doubting his humanity and compassion, read or listen to his denunciations of Nazism and Stalinism. There are many of them. The Audible audiobook, The Gulag Archipelago has a wonderfully sensitive and compassionate spoken intro by JP and there are many examples of that sort.
Then: ”You make so many points in this post that I’m not going to address every one; instead, I’ll choose the first three, just so it doesn’t seem like I’m cherry-picking”. That’s exactly what you are doing, you’re cherry picking, it just so happens that (conveniently for you), the first three points are the ones you most readily feel able to take issue with and argue against.
Finally you said: Me in this post — So what makes you think I disagree with him on subjects like the pay gap, wokeness in institutions, and forced-speech for pronouns?. But I never suggested you did.
My comment was intended merely to point out that Peterson is much maligned, and I believe unfairly so much of the time. He causes consternation in people due to his perceived religious and political views, yet he’s neither a politician or a theologian. He is a psychologist, a very good one, with H-Index off 55.
More importantly, he has the bravery to stand up and tell the world about his views, even if they are unpopular, or controversial. We are all too well aware of the current political and ideological hegemony to which academics must align themselves. Peterson is different in that he has the guts and conviction to stick his neck out.
Sorry, I forgot to say that this passage:
3. You — “We all have a few stupid beliefs – including you and I – and for many people religious indoctrination was unavoidable when they were kids. but that doesn’t diminish our abilities in other areas.”
Me in this post — Yes, but we don’t all go around giving lectures and writing books spreading these beliefs as if they’re factual, with enormous influence.
Strikes me as very similar to the ‘little people’ argument that Richard Dawkins and Prof Ceiling Cat have often spoken about. Those people who read his books and watch his lectures – are they unable to decide on these religious claims for themselves? Is the average reader so dumb that they require insulation from them? Is Peterson gonna trick them into believing that nonsense just because he has a large readership? Come on now.
Welcome home. I applaud your dedication to public transport, despite it’s linguistic issues. If I had to schlep a month’s worth of baggage across town on a journey that involved switching from trains to buses (I assume) I’m pretty sure a taxi or an uber would be in my plans.
Don’t immediately discount Peterson as most of the media prefer we do – he’s not a super magic Nazi. He is annoying with his “use of religion” ideas (even though he is supposedly an atheist, I think he is actually) but his tad right of center political ideas aren’t terrible and his clinical psych work (about alcoholism in part) is good/sound. In the land of woke he is a monster. So that’s nice.
D.A.
NYC
Genuine question: do you have a video or interview where he says he’s an atheist? I would accept agnostic as well (I’m technically agnostic, in the sense that I won’t 100% completely discount the idea of some “prime mover” that is beyond our comprehension and which was the force that “started” the universe. Kind of like Dawkins). This would raise my respect for him, though it would also confuse me.
I certainly respect him a lot more than most activist academics.
Jerry, are you open to renaming Dorothy’s swain?
But “for people with disabilities and seniors” means “for people with disabilities and FOR seniors, not for people ACCOMPANIED by a senior!
Never mind the wording! If someone is seated in the priority seat the message will not be visible to anyone. Is there some other sign that remains visible and informs seniors/people with disabilities who board the bus that they are entitled to request use of the seat if it is occupied by a more able bodied person?
Saying that everybody has an HIV status is the same as saying everybody has a tooth fairy status, either you believe in the tooth fairy or you don’t