• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

UK - Train firm apologise for "ladies and gentlemen" announcement

Checkmite said:
Whether management sympathizes with the customer's complaint isn't necessary. Acting on it is an acknowledgement that the problem exists and needs to be dealt with.
Click to expand...

Think it is more an acknowledgement that some weirdos complaint is so stupid it will probably make the Sun causing bad publicity, which needs to be dealt with.
 
Checkmite said:
Every decision made by a business is a business decision, by definition.
Click to expand...

Now you're just playing games, man. Once again, that's not true unless you're using a silly definition of "business".

I also note you sidestepped my response to your earlier argument. Are you retracting it now?
 
Checkmite said:
In 1787, many American Congressmen questioned the premise that black slaves were "people" for governmental purposes. They eventually decided that it would be okay to consider them three-fifths of a person.
Click to expand...
This isn't quite what happened, though. Abolitionists were rooting for a smaller fraction (so as to reduce the power of slave states) while slavers pushed for a larger fraction, preferably one-to-one. Rooting for the larger fraction wasn't the right side of history, as it happens, since the fraction was disconnected from the franchise.
 
Last edited:
cullennz said:
Think it is more an acknowledgement that some weirdos complaint is so stupid it will probably make the Sun causing bad publicity, which needs to be dealt with.
Click to expand...

You are free to write all the speculative fiction you want, of course.
 
Checkmite said:
No, it's not. You want that to be true because it has to be in order for your assertion that dropping the superfluous "ladies and gentlemen" greeting before an announcement is an undue burden on "someone" to carry any water; but it isn't, and it doesn't.
Click to expand...

If someone can be offended by not getting affirmation of their nonbinary feelings, why can't a trans person be offended by not being acknowledged as their true gender?
 
Checkmite said:
Whether management sympathizes with the customer's complaint isn't necessary. Acting on it is an acknowledgement that the problem exists and needs to be dealt with.
Click to expand...

Nobody said anything about sympathizing with the complaint.

Acting on it is an acknowledgement that a problem exists, but not necessarily the problem the customer claims. Management appeases wrong-headed customers all the time. Not because management thinks the complaint has merit, but simply because it's bad for business to fight about it.

Karening works not because management thinks Karens are in the right, but because management thinks it's better business to go along with it than to call Karen out on her bull ****.
 
Last edited:
Checkmite said:
Yes it is? Your objection here is nonsensical.
Click to expand...

A "business decision" is not simply "a decision by a business". I meant a decision about the bottom line rather than taking a moral stand, like moving out of Georgia.

What response?
Click to expand...

That it wasn't a moral decision and thus it doesn't necessarily see "a problem" to be resolved; rather a PR problem to be avoided.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
Nobody said anything about sympathizing with the complaint.

Acting on it is an acknowledgement that a problem exists, but not necessarily the problem the customer claims. Management appeases wrong-headed customers all the time. Not because management thinks the complaint has merit, but simply because it's bad for business to fight about it.

Karening works not because management thinks Karens are in the right, but because management thinks it's better business to go along with it than to call Karen out on her bull ****.
Click to expand...

Agree with the clarification.
 
On one hand.. meh. On the other, is this kind of the happy holidays/merry christmas complaint reframed?
 
d4m10n said:
This isn't quite what happened, though. Abolitionists were rooting for a smaller fraction (so as to reduce the power of slave states) while slavers pushed for a larger fraction, preferably one-to-one. Rooting for the larger fraction wasn't the right side of history, as it happens, since the fraction was disconnected from the franchise.
Click to expand...

That is not quite what happened either, though. "Abolitionists" were not involved in the debate as such; southern slave states only began pushing for higher representation as an expression of outrage against the northern-backed proposal that all states' tax burdens should be apportioned based on the total number of inhabitants, minus Natives. The south viewed this as (correctly) disfavorable to southern states by comparison to northern states, and made a separate proposal that slaves should not count for tax purposes but should count for representation purposes. Of course the northern states would not concede to this "have our cake and eat it too" policy, which resulted in the compromise.

"Three-fifths" was the original number proposed at the Constitutional Convention. There was no rooting over larger or smaller fractions; both sides wanted both all AND nothing in opposite cases, although the northern states' stance at least made logical sense.
 
cullennz said:
If someone can be offended by not getting affirmation of their nonbinary feelings, why can't a trans person be offended by not being acknowledged as their true gender?
Click to expand...
Because an additional factor, which has been repeatedly pointed out to you, exists in one scenario but not the other.

That you continue repeating your question in the face of that clarification becomes hard to understand.
 
Checkmite said:
That is not quite what happened either, though. "Abolitionists" were not involved in the debate as such; southern slave states only began pushing for higher representation as an expression of outrage against the northern-backed proposal that all states' tax burdens should be apportioned based on the total number of inhabitants, minus Natives. The south viewed this as (correctly) disfavorable to southern states by comparison to northern states, and made a separate proposal that slaves should not count for tax purposes but should count for representation purposes. Of course the northern states would not concede to this "have our cake and eat it too" policy, which resulted in the compromise.
Click to expand...
According to the relevant wiki:
Delegates opposed to slavery proposed that only free inhabitants of each state be counted for apportionment purposes, while delegates supportive of slavery, on the other hand, opposed the proposal, wanting slaves to count in their actual numbers.
Click to expand...
Which is to say that the anti-slave folks wanted a lower fraction (zero-fifths) and the pro-slave folks wanted a higher one (five-fifths) when talking about apportionment rather than taxes.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
A "business decision" is not simply "a decision by a business". I meant a decision about the bottom line rather than taking a moral stand, like moving out of Georgia.

That it wasn't a moral decision and thus it doesn't necessarily see "a problem" to be resolved; rather a PR problem to be avoided.
Click to expand...

I didn't respond to it because it was just a "yes-huh" re-assertion of your earlier statement, which I already had responded to. The motivation behind the decision is irrelevant; the decision was still made, and the result of that decision still publicly and positively addresses the customers' complaint as if the company agreed morally with the complainants, whether they privately did or not.

It is a simple matter of fact that the advancement of civil rights, by necessity, tramples over the feelings of those who hold contrary opinions and always has. Not everyone in every state or federal government office in 1920 believed that women should be allowed to vote, or would have agreed that women suffered any disadvantage by virtue of not being allowed to vote. But what they personally thought about the subject did not matter; once the highest government machinery certified the Nineteenth Amendment, they were thenceforth required to carry out their election duties as if they concurred with women's suffrage as policy (and indeed, there would've been penalties for not doing so).
 
Delphic Oracle said:
Because an additional factor, which has been repeatedly pointed out to you, exists in one scenario but not the other.

That you continue repeating your question in the face of that clarification becomes hard to understand.
Click to expand...

What additional factor
 
Belz... said:
Checkmite, a moment ago you argued that it wasn't irrelevant; that it denoted an acknowledgment of a problem. Why is it now irrelevant?
Click to expand...

The action - the fact that a decision was made that resulted in some kind of change to address the problem - matters. What underlies the decision is what's irrelevant.

The customers complained, and the company decided that they will now no longer use a superfluous "ladies and gentlemen" greeting that will make them feel excluded or marginalized. Whether the individual(s) in the company who made that decision did it because they agreed with the complainants morally, or just wanted to appease them so they would go away, or did it purely to head off any potential publicity, doesn't matter - they made the decision anyway, and the result is the same: the complainants got what they wanted, and the problem has, objectively, been solved.
 
Checkmite said:
The action - the fact that a decision was made that resulted in some kind of change to address the problem - matters. What underlies the decision is what's irrelevant.

The customers complained, and the company decided that they will now no longer use a superfluous "ladies and gentlemen" greeting that will make them feel excluded or marginalized. Whether the individual(s) in the company who made that decision did it because they agreed with the complainants morally, or just wanted to appease them so they would go away, or did it purely to head off any potential publicity, doesn't matter - they made the decision anyway, and the result is the same: the complainants got what they wanted, and the problem has, objectively, been solved.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. At the end of the day, true.

One train that they know they will be on will have a different greeting.

Big ups for being so special that non binary person.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom