These folks need to be stopped.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Didn't we have to put up with enough whining about this the first time around?

In the three years since, has the sky fallen? Has literally anything changed at all? No, didn't think so.
How would you know? Do you spend much time on the other side of the locked door as a member of an ALPA represented airline?
 
It doesn't, and that's not the point. I'm talking 'bout the bigger picture -- the same folks driving this are the ones who'd like to eliminate free speech, etc.
I’m still not following your point.

The same civilian folks who are requesting that their private members don’t make dick jokes on the job are in the government trying to arrest you for saying what??

Isn’t 1st amendment free speech supposed to allow what is basically a private club to create their own speech protocols for their own organizations?

Or are these different folks and not the same folks?
 
It doesn't, and that's not the point. I'm talking 'bout the bigger picture -- the same folks driving this are the ones who'd like to eliminate free speech, etc.

Honestly bugs me when people point at something small like this and confuse it with free speech issue, or freedom in general. The people who points at speech they don't like call it woke tells people that is wrong they shouldn't say those things are basically the pot.

You know what real elimination of free speech looks like? It looks like being arrested for playing a tune on a harmonica. Not some association suggesting inclusive language usage.

I mention the harmonica thing because that's where I was born and in a few short years it went from people being able to stage mass protest against the government to any small public voicing of dissent being next to impossible. Real freedoms can be lost really quickly even when the people knows that's happening. When individuals instead miss the forest for the tree, it means the risk to real freedom is even more due to being mistakenly concerned about unimportant thing and missing out the real threats.
 
They only have the power and attention you give them. The old “Everyone has to act and speak and think like me” crowd hasn’t changed in forever.

There is also the "everyone has to do what I think they should do" crowd
 
How would you know? Do you spend much time on the other side of the locked door as a member of an ALPA represented airline?
Because if literally anything had changed, there'd be legions of pilots whining on social media about how they are being oppressed.
 
Don’t forget to ‘abort’ the takeoff with engine failure below V1 speed.
The term ‘man-hole’ cover needs to be changed, it’s not just men that may go down to work in the sewer.


Even though I like them, not sure where the term ‘mannlicher’ came from for a rifle stock. That should be changed, as it implies something else.
 
By my calculations, we're only a few language tweaks away from utopia. And then everybody will be happy!
 
"Flight deck" seems a bit pretentious for a spam can.
I don't believe I have ever referred to the "cockpit" in my plane. I just call it the cabin, or the pilot/copilot seat of the front seats. Even calling it a cockpit seems a bit pretentious to me when referring to a plane that has so few seats.
 
I’m confused.

How does the 1st amendment apply to an internal ALPA memo politely asking its own members to not make dick jokes while on the job in mixed company?

And yes, that’s exactly what the cockpit section is calling out.

Or are you looking for the government to restrict free speech of private citizens … err, never mind.
I’d respect a memo plainly stating that dick jokes are not appropriate. Forcing people not to use traditional terms is not that, and I have no respect for it exactly because it’s avoiding the problem instead of confronting it head on. No pun intended. Playing word games does not fix any social problem one tiny bit. Policing language does nothing to stop sexism, racism, or any other ism. But it lets someone feel like they did something. Even though it was useless. Want to fix it, then say “stop telling dick jokes”.

Not a single person feels better because nobody uses the word cockpit anymore. Those that were offended by sexist behavior are still being offended by sexist behavior. So what was the point?
 
Last edited:
Because if literally anything had changed, there'd be legions of pilots whining on social media about how they are being oppressed.
So you don’t know. That checks.

The issue is not oppression. That’s just the popular whining of those not directly involved. Much like your opinion that there is no issue. Neither one is based on direct knowledge of how these policies actually impact operations on a flight deck.
 
I'll call the cockpit the chuckle hut if they want, as long as my rather substantial paycheck that ALPA fought to get for me still cashes.
 
While I agree that language evolves, the fact that a few idiots use words in a derogatory way and some targets feel offended or diminished isn't necessarily a good reason to force evolution (which, by the way, can't really be forced). Maybe I'm an outlier (and I probably am), but if some idiot guy used the phrase "it's called a cockpit for a reason", I would, first, laugh him off as the jerk he is and, second, be even more determined to proceed to be a pilot (if I weren't one already). I've been distressed by what I perceive as the weakness of some women, but then again, I don't think I was raised the way most women, apparently, are--to blame themselves for men's idiocy when it comes to dealing with the opposite sex. Despite being in a male-dominated profession and enjoying male-dominated entertainments (flying, shooting, riding motorcycles), I've run into very little sexism despite the fact that when I started my profession, there were very, very few women in it--I'm that old. I've never been able to make up my mind whether it's because it's a lot less prevalent than so-called feminists claim or because I look like I could and would deck any jerk who'd try to pull something like that.
Pretty sure I would like working with you.
 
So you don’t know. That checks.

The issue is not oppression. That’s just the popular whining of those not directly involved. Much like your opinion that there is no issue. Neither one is based on direct knowledge of how these policies actually impact operations on a flight deck.

Educate us, then. Tell us about how the sky has fallen over the last three years.

The policy is pretty silly but anyone who doesn't have the emotional maturity to just shrug and say "yeah, whatever" has no place in the cockpit (sorry, flight deck) of an airliner.
 

Pixar will need to go back and fix this! I can't believe my parents let me watch this.
 
The first dictionary definition of "cockpit" is a place where rooster fights are held. Some might consider cruelty to animals to be more worthy of objection than the fact that the word also contains a vulgar slang term.
 
CHT = Cylinder Head Temperature.
EGT = Exhaust Gas Temperature.
Now what should we call Turbine Intake Temperature?
 
Educate us, then. Tell us about how the sky has fallen over the last three years.

The policy is pretty silly but anyone who doesn't have the emotional maturity to just shrug and say "yeah, whatever" has no place in the cockpit (sorry, flight deck) of an airliner.
I never said the sky was falling. Please don’t put words into my mouth.

I have observed these policies occasionally complicating crew communication. Anything that interferes with the Captains ability to effectively communicate is contrary to safety.

Whether or not DEI policy will be a significant contributor to an event is speculative. Saying it has no impact at all is naive.

I’ll also remind you that the crew is more than just the pilots and the interactions with direct impact on safe operations include gate agents, ramp, maintenance, dispatch etc.

Your sideways insult about maturity behind the door and trying to attribute a “chicken little” spin to my statements are amusing.
 
I've heard DEI actually stands for "Devastating Ending Inevitable", or in the case of lowering the standards for pilot qualifications - " Deadly Ending Inevitable".
 
I've heard DEI actually stands for "Devastating Ending Inevitable", or in the case of lowering the standards for pilot qualifications - " Deadly Ending Inevitable".
That’s funny but inaccurate.

Pilot minimum qualifications are always dynamic and are mostly driven by supply and demand.

Most of the noise about DEI and pilot qualifications is just that… noise. Pilot standards did drop significantly for a short time over the last three years but it had nothing to do with diversity.

Currently the demand for pilots at legacies is contracting and minimum qualifications to get called are significantly higher.
 

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”

 
The other day, I was reading an article in the NYT about a conflict between a gender neutral person and a group of people. It contained this sentence: "They said that they were uncomfortable with their view."

After about 5 minutes of trying to deduce who disagreed with who, I gave up.

I am a non-political person. But I really would like to be able to understand what I read.
 
The whole pronoun thing makes no sense. If you don’t like pronouns just ask people to use your proper name. Done.

Thats what’s funny to me. Saying she or he is just as offensive even if it’s right, since it’s just lazy. It’s the verbal equivalent of pointing, which most find distasteful as well. Use my name when you refer to me. Problem solved.
 
The other day, I was reading an article in the NYT about a conflict between a gender neutral person and a group of people. It contained this sentence: "They said that they were uncomfortable with their view."

After about 5 minutes of trying to deduce who disagreed with who, I gave up.

I am a non-political person. But I really would like to be able to understand what I read.

Since the gender-neutral singular pronoun is “it,” without further clarification I must assume that “they” refers to the group, so this says the group disagreed with the group’s own opinion. IOW, the group is quite confused.
 
Newsmax must be running out of things to get outraged about if they're digging back to stuff published in 2021 for material. Somehow the world hasn't fallen apart in the three years this document has been floating around.
 
Newsmax must be running out of things to get outraged about if they're digging back to stuff published in 2021 for material. Somehow the world hasn't fallen apart in the three years this document has been floating around.
As far as I can see, the original source was Hannah Grossman at Fox.

She must have been having a tough day generating new “Woke” content, which per her Fox page below is how she categories most of her articles. Plus a few “Critical Race Theory” stories thrown in.

The other look-alikes then ran with her cutting edge exposé on ALPA “wokeness.”

Must be a fun person to have as a neighbor.


 
Since the gender-neutral singular pronoun is “it,” without further clarification I must assume that “they” refers to the group, so this says the group disagreed with the group’s own opinion. IOW, the group is quite confused.
Thems might work here. Theys, thems, etc.

Edit: forgive any cultural appropriation
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top