Jump to content

MTA takes political correctness to new heights


Via Garibaldi 8

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

I may be in the minority with this, but I never cared for the computerized announcements to begin with; they go in one ear & out the other..... When I hear an announcement from the c/r's own mouth, I take it more seriously.....

While I'm not wild about the computerized announcements they are much clearer and consistent. The other ones are just as garbled as ever.

10 hours ago, Fresh Pond said:

Not like people listen to the announcements anyway 

lol... True. Look at the people in any subway car and most of them have some sort of device covering their ears.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Also, to the whole money talk.

If I recall correctly, the talents from Bloomberg Radio donate their voices. Ergo, do not get paid and are volunteers. 

Sound equipment costs a few hundred bucks. I mean, the MTA could just use a simple Zoom and LAV combo for cheaper, but clarity. 

My point? The expense is almost nil. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Skipper said:

Yeah, I don't need to be addressed by the (MTA); just tell me what's wrong with the train.

If I were the construction manager, I'd say "I promise to change the sign once a single one of my on-site workers isn't a man."

A lot of construction contracts have requirements that the contractor try to hire a certain number of women (and/or minority workers). Most jobs I'be been on haf at least one woman working (even if she was just a flagger for the traffic). I do agree that it would be stupid to change the sign. After all, aren't humans often referred to as mankind? Or are the PC idiots going to change that too?

In any case, if I were a conductor, I'd begin the announcement "What's up y'all" since that''s not forbidden. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

A lot of construction contracts have requirements that the contractor try to hire a certain number of women (and/or minority workers). Most jobs I'be been on haf at least one woman working (even if she was just a flagger for the traffic). I do agree that it would be stupid to change the sign. After all, aren't humans often referred to as mankind? Or are the PC idiots going to change that too?

Yes, requirements.... As in, affirmative action based quota hires :lol:....

Now I don't claim to have a background in HR, but I'd like to meet the foreman and/or owner of any construction company actively undergoing & fostering any type of a diversity initiative!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/11/2017 at 5:55 PM, CenSin said:

Then they will picket the construction site and make loud noises about how there are transgenders hiding amongst the workers.

That sure is one way to piss off the workers and make them defensive about their masculinity. "What? You sayin' some of us is fairies? Get the f**k outa here!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, RR503 said:

Terminology: gynocentrism = women-centrism. This is more like social justice warrior on acid centrism...

I just want them to start the announcements with “peeps!” like an old teacher of mine

You're right actually.... I must've been half asleep when I posted that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎11‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 11:33 PM, paulrivera said:

Because having every announcement begin with "Hello Everyone" just sounds goofy.

You can use something else like "May I have your attention please" or "Attention Passengers/Customers". Boston uses "Attention Passengers" and while it accomplishes the same purpose they're trying to achieve at the (MTA) , it doesn't sound as weird as having a recorded announcement greet you in a non-social setting.

Exactly. "Hello everyone" coming from the MTA sounds like those stupid corporate events you're forced into and the higher-ups always want to talk to you like you're best buddies. I don't know you like that. Why are you trying to be so friendly? It's freaking me out. Seriously though, not only does "attention passengers" sound more authoritative, it's more esthetically pleasing to the ears. On a side note, the MTA probably shouldn't use "may I have your attention please" as that phrase has become synonymous with either Showtime or someone selling candy for their basketball team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This "Hello everyone" phrase is just something that it not professional to be said. Tell me if this sounds right at all.

"Hello everyone. Because of construction, (7) trains are not running between 34 St and Queensboro Plaza."

Spoilers, there are other words you can use to make this change work and it can be more pleasant. One of my conductors yesterday used "good morning everyone" and it felt better than hearing "hello everyone." Why the MTA never thought of using good morning, good afternoon, and good evening is beyond me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, MysteriousBtrain said:

This "Hello everyone" phrase is just something that it not professional to be said. Tell me if this sounds right at all.

"Hello everyone. Because of construction, (7) trains are not running between 34 St and Queensboro Plaza."

Spoilers, there are other words you can use to make this change work and it can be more pleasant. One of my conductors yesterday used "good morning everyone" and it felt better than hearing "hello everyone." Why the MTA never thought of using good morning, good afternoon, and good evening is beyond me.

 

Just saying "Attention passengers" like my conductor did this evening sounds a lot better and less weirder than saying "Hello everyone"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The responses in this thread (and the NYPost's blatant anti-LGBTQ+ slant to it) prove exactly why this change is needed. Nonbinary people exist, and they deserve recognition and respect. The MTA's action is small, but it makes sense and goes a long way, especially now that we live under Trump's bigoted, anti-LGBTQ+ administration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I took the subway last night and boy was it something.  Our (1) train got stuck at 191st street due to an "investigation". The police were called and while we waiting, we had people coming over the loud speaker using "Hello Everyone" and emphasizing everyone sarcastically. <_< I've never saw people so pissed before. The frustration was quite noticeable.  People got off of the train and was cursing out the workers, yelling that it was BS that they had held the train up for a good 20 minutes (this was quite late at night I may add). When we got to 231st I got off for the bus since I didn't feel like walking up the hills to get home from 238th or 242nd, and some people were still giving the guy an ear full.  I don't think that announcement helped because it just made people angrier. It came across as very condescending.  That's probably the best way I can describe it.  I think passengers works a little better, and perhaps in a more serious tone.  The people that came over the loud speaker in the station and on the train sounded so damn happy for a situation that was so annoying that it just made things worse.  Oh and only Northbound trains were held.  Southbound trains were running as usual.  This was after my morning commute was a disaster on the express bus, taking well over an hour and 30 minutes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, RTS CNG Command said:

The responses in this thread (and the NYPost's blatant anti-LGBTQ+ slant to it) prove exactly why this change is needed. Nonbinary people exist, and they deserve recognition and respect. The MTA's action is small, but it makes sense and goes a long way, especially now that we live under Trump's bigoted, anti-LGBTQ+ administration.

n4ahdLw.png

This is a quick and dirty chart done by me. Let me know if it is accurate.

I think our beef with this whole movement is that it “pulls the rug up from under us” by uprooting the very language we use. Other cultures that acknowledge more than one anatomical gender and social gender do so—but not at the expense of the other.

If, let’s say, an app like Tinder were to allow for an arbitrary definition of man and woman, who would find it useful?

Quote

“Hey. I’m a transgender (woman->man) with a vag. I’m looking for a woman with a shlong. (Transgender man->woman need not apply.)”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But...muh seahorses!

Here's a useful binary: XX and XY. Those who have XXY can be accommodated on a case-by-case basis, as they are a stark minority, and don't necessarily identify as intersex (I believe most choose male or female).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Skipper said:

But...muh seahorses!

Here's a useful binary: XX and XY. Those who have XXY can be accommodated on a case-by-case basis, as they are a stark minority, and don't necessarily identify as intersex (I believe most choose male or female).

It is not always that useful. AIS can cause a genetically-male to be anatomically female. But in most such cases, such people socialize as females and have all of the expected features except that they are infertile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, CenSin said:

This is a quick and dirty chart done by me. Let me know if it is accurate.

I think our beef with this whole movement is that it “pulls the rug up from under us” by uprooting the very language we use. Other cultures that acknowledge more than one anatomical gender and social gender do so—but not at the expense of the other.

If, let’s say, an app like Tinder were to allow for an arbitrary definition of man and woman, who would find it useful?

This is more or less the case, although there is a neutral gendered pronoun already in use: they/them/their. We use it all the time already in the (general) singular, for example in the sentence "Somebody left their umbrella in the office."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

This is more or less the case, although there is a neutral gendered pronoun already in use: they/them/their. We use it all the time already in the (general) singular, for example in the sentence "Somebody left their umbrella in the office."

The singular 'they' works in some cases and not others. It works when the person is nonspecific/general, as with 'someone', but not when talking about a specific person. For example, Facebook looks ridiculous when it says "It's Sam's birthday today! Write something on their wall! Let them know you care!" or whatever. It just looks incorrect, or Sam would be a group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/13/2017 at 7:55 PM, LegoBrickBreaker101 said:

 

Just saying "Attention passengers" like my conductor did this evening sounds a lot better and less weirder than saying "Hello everyone"

Agreed! Just say, “Attention passengers” (or even customers, riders or commuters) just like they used to before they said “Ladies and gentlemen”. This “Hello everybody” thing is ridiculous. Not to mention the (over)reaction to ditching “Ladies and gentlemen”. I got a dose of “Hello everybody, this is a Brooklyn-bound (Q) train, (Q) train” this morning on the R46 train borrowed from the (R) line (which by the way was signed up front and in back as an (R) train although the side signs were correctly set for the (Q) ). It just didn’t seem right. It sounded unprofessional and unauthoritative. Just say, “Attention passengers.” Though I did have a conductor this afternoon who announced to the “Ladies and gentlemen” that my (7) train was going to go express after 74th St due to maintenance work that wasn’t quite finished. Oh well. At least my train wasn’t local all the way to Main Street.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Skipper said:

The singular 'they' works in some cases and not others. It works when the person is nonspecific/general, as with 'someone', but not when talking about a specific person. For example, Facebook looks ridiculous when it says "It's Sam's birthday today! Write something on their wall! Let them know you care!" or whatever. It just looks incorrect, or Sam would be a group.

The wonderful thing about the English language is that we don't have a centralized authority dictating "correct" grammar. For example, the singular they is much more common in British English than in American English, and the practice itself dates from the 14th century and was used by notables such as Shakespeare. Nothing about that sentence for me sticks out - in fact, Sam is both a valid boys' and girls' name, so this makes the comparison even more apt.

It works in cases of nonspecific gender, and trans people are annoyed when people incorrectly specify their gender, hence the general preference for singular they unless otherwise noted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

The wonderful thing about the English language is that we don't have a centralized authority dictating "correct" grammar. For example, the singular they is much more common in British English than in American English, and the practice itself dates from the 14th century and was used by notables such as Shakespeare. Nothing about that sentence for me sticks out - in fact, Sam is both a valid boys' and girls' name, so this makes the comparison even more apt.

It works in cases of nonspecific gender, and trans people are annoyed when people incorrectly specify their gender, hence the general preference for singular they unless otherwise noted.

There's not a man I meet but doth salute me
As if I were their well-acquainted friend

Now leaden slumber with life's strength doth fight;
And every one to rest themselves betake,
Save thieves, and cares, and troubled minds, that wake.

It looks like Shakespeare is using the singular "they" correctly as I'd mentioned above.

In response to: "Can someone tell Sam that they parked their car in front of a fire hydrant?"

I would say: "Who are they? And what business is it of Sam's where they parked?"

Does "That person over there, who are they?" make any sense? Really now. Perhaps now that I'm 28, I'm getting a bit fuddy duddy and anachronistic, but language doesn't change that quickly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Skipper said:

There's not a man I meet but doth salute me
As if I were their well-acquainted friend

Now leaden slumber with life's strength doth fight;
And every one to rest themselves betake,
Save thieves, and cares, and troubled minds, that wake.

It looks like Shakespeare is using the singular "they" correctly as I'd mentioned above.

In response to: "Can someone tell Sam that they parked their car in front of a fire hydrant?"

I would say: "Who are they? And what business is it of Sam's where they parked?"

Does "That person over there, who are they?" make any sense? Really now. Perhaps now that I'm 28, I'm getting a bit fuddy duddy and anachronistic, but language doesn't change that quickly.

I'm gonna have to disagree with you - this change isn't new, you've likely just surrounded yourself with people who have resisted it. I'm not saying most people would say "That person over there, who are they?" but enough people would say that that most would understand it, at least in the under-25 age group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, quadcorder said:

I'm gonna have to disagree with you - this change isn't new, you've likely just surrounded yourself with people who have resisted it. I'm not saying most people would say "That person over there, who are they?" but enough people would say that that most would understand it, at least in the under-25 age group.

I’m pretty certain that American vernacular would, like British/Commonwealth vernacular, say “That person over there, who is that?” or “Those people there, who are they” because of subject-verb agreement.

I don’t even think you’d see that in patois languages when a subject is identified.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.