Personal Callsigns

[digits_]

I would like to also point out the interesting evolution where you can now expect people to call you by your desired pronouns yet you have to accept they will change the name they use to refer to you.

[lownslow]

In lieu of the callsign actually being known, I’m going to guess it was probably something like Pedo.

[photofly]

Your callsign is something embarassing and sticks. It's tradition.

Why would a person expect another to be embarrassed about their chest size? Or - in the case of "Chocolate" - the colour of their skin? Being dark skinned is something to be ashamed of?

In lieu of the callsign actually being known, I’m going to guess it was probably something like Pedo.

Are there any posters from the more conservative wing wing who want to take a shot at justifying that as a callsign, in 2022?

[AirFrame]

Would this be an acceptable callsign today? It was fine for Wing Commander GIbson's dog, in 1944:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigger_(dog)

And yet M*A*S*H episodes run on repeats regularly featuring the black character "Spearchucker Jones." I'm amazed they're still allowed to broadcast those episodes.

[mmm...bacon]

^ 'cos if they were to cancel it - and state the reason why - there would be conniptions about 'erasing history' , 'cancel culture' and 'wokeism' from certain sectors of society...

[Bede]

Times change.

Would this be an acceptable callsign today? It was fine for Wing Commander GIbson's dog, in 1944:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigger_(dog)

It's never ok to say the n-word.
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/lloyd- ... n-academia

[bobcaygeon]

Times change.

Would this be an acceptable callsign today? It was fine for Wing Commander GIbson's dog, in 1944:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigger_(dog)

It still is if you're with the right crew from Philly or Compton.

[Bede]

https://nationalpost.com/news/national/ ... 7a536fb1b5

[digits_]

https://nationalpost.com/news/national/ ... 7a536fb1b5

Members of the military 2SLGBTQI (Two Spirit/Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgender/Queer/Intersex) consulted by this newspaper recommended details of the call sign be published to show the abuse they still had to deal with.

That list just keeps growing and growing with every article published! We should change it to 'ABH' (Anything But Hetero) to keep it manageable.

[tsgarp]

Your callsign is something embarassing and sticks. It's tradition.

Why would a person expect another to be embarrassed about their chest size? Or - in the case of "Chocolate" - the colour of their skin? Being dark skinned is something to be ashamed of?

In lieu of the callsign actually being known, I’m going to guess it was probably something like Pedo.

Are there any posters from the more conservative wing wing who want to take a shot at justifying that as a callsign, in 2022?

A callsign is a mark of acceptance. It says, ‘We see your imperfections, we don’t care about them, we think you’re strong enough to let this crap roll off your back and you’re one of us now.’ These concepts are tacitly understood by pretty much everyone on the inside and completely incomprehensible to anyone on the outside.

[photofly]

These concepts are tacitly understood by pretty much everyone on the inside and completely incomprehensible to anyone on the outside.

“Pretty much” everyone isn’t absolutely everyone, though, is it? Which is rather the point.

[Bede]

But in this case I see no evidence that the pilot who recieved the call sign didn't accept it, just 3rd parties who were offended.

[AirFrame]

That list just keeps growing and growing with every article published! We should change it to 'ABH' (Anything But Hetero) to keep it manageable.

Or you could just accept that it doesn't apply to you and move on.

[photofly]

But in this case I see no evidence that the pilot who recieved the call sign didn't accept it, just 3rd parties who were offended.

That's a good point. What would such evidence look like, and how hard have you looked for it?

Is it possible or likely that someone who objected to their callsign might not be or feel free to "not accept" it? I don't think work nicknames are only given and used to pilots; I think there are lots of group environments where the perceived need to be "accepted as part of the gang" leads to various unattractive behaviours, or worse. I understand Hockey Canada is having a bit of a look at itself at the moment for these kinds of issues.

More generally speaking, are we required to wait for the victims of bullying and intimidation themselves to come forward and state their objections in concise and unambiguous terms before doing anything to end it? Does just witnessing such activity give rise to either a right or an obligation to take action to prevent it? Or how about merely knowing it happens? Or perhaps just hearing rumours about it? Or even suspecting it occurs? Where is the ethical line?

[digits_]

That list just keeps growing and growing with every article published! We should change it to 'ABH' (Anything But Hetero) to keep it manageable.

Or you could just accept that it doesn't apply to you and move on.

That's quite the assumption you're making there. It doesn't matter that it might not apply to me. It's an acronym to refer to a group of people. It would be in anyone's interest to at least keep it somewhat pronounceable.

[digits_]

Is it possible or likely that someone who objected to their callsign might not be or feel free to "not accept" it? I don't think work nicknames are only given and used to pilots; I think there are lots of group environments where the perceived need to be "accepted as part of the gang" leads to various unattractive behaviours, or worse.

+1!

[Bede]

But in this case I see no evidence that the pilot who recieved the call sign didn't accept it, just 3rd parties who were offended.

That's a good point. What would such evidence look like, and how hard have you looked for it?

Is it possible or likely that someone who objected to their callsign might not be or feel free to "not accept" it? I don't think work nicknames are only given and used to pilots; I think there are lots of group environments where the perceived need to be "accepted as part of the gang" leads to various unattractive behaviours, or worse. I understand Hockey Canada is having a bit of a look at itself at the moment for these kinds of issues.

More generally speaking, are we required to wait for the victims of bullying and intimidation themselves to come forward and state their objections in concise and unambiguous terms before doing anything to end it? Does just witnessing such activity give rise to either a right or an obligation to take action to prevent it? Or how about merely knowing it happens? Or perhaps just hearing rumours about it? Or even suspecting it occurs? Where is the ethical line?

That reasoning is difficult to argue against. TBH I feel rather conflicted: on one hand I find military culture to be pretty much everything I'm not: drunken, arrogant, violent. I can't see myself ever feeling included there. On the other hand, I don't feel it's my place to tell others how they should conduct themselves, let alone those who will defend us should the circumstances arise. If you don't like it, don't participate.

[photofly]

But in this case I see no evidence that the pilot who recieved the call sign didn't accept it, just 3rd parties who were offended.

That's a good point. What would such evidence look like, and how hard have you looked for it?

Is it possible or likely that someone who objected to their callsign might not be or feel free to "not accept" it? I don't think work nicknames are only given and used to pilots; I think there are lots of group environments where the perceived need to be "accepted as part of the gang" leads to various unattractive behaviours, or worse. I understand Hockey Canada is having a bit of a look at itself at the moment for these kinds of issues.

More generally speaking, are we required to wait for the victims of bullying and intimidation themselves to come forward and state their objections in concise and unambiguous terms before doing anything to end it? Does just witnessing such activity give rise to either a right or an obligation to take action to prevent it? Or how about merely knowing it happens? Or perhaps just hearing rumours about it? Or even suspecting it occurs? Where is the ethical line?

That reasoning is difficult to argue against. TBH I feel rather conflicted: on one hand I find military culture to be pretty much everything I'm not: drunken, arrogant, violent. I can't see myself ever feeling included there. On the other hand, I don't feel it's my place to tell others how they should conduct themselves, let alone those who will defend us should the circumstances arise. If you don't like it, don't participate.

The Canadian military is still an employer; they still have to provide a 'safe' work environment, as much as that is reasonably
possible. Being shot at by the enemy is a necessary part of the work, but harassment or discrimination from one's colleagues isn't. At least, I think the burden of justification should be on the shoulders of anyone who claims that it's unreasonably difficult to build unit morale and confidence without abusive callsigns. Is it?

[Bede]

Fair but aren't the senior officers (the ones being charged) in the best position to make these judgements?

[photofly]

Fair but aren't the senior officers (the ones being charged) in the best position to make these judgements?

If that's their opinion, then I guess that will form the basis of the defence. Nobody has been found guilty of doing anything wrong so far, and it might be that nobody is ever found so. If offensive callsigns are really an indispensible and vital part of unit morale then shining light on the practice can do no harm.

[Donald]

Fair but aren't the senior officers (the ones being charged) in the best position to make these judgements?

If that's their opinion, then I guess that will form the basis of the defence. Nobody has been found guilty of doing anything wrong so far, and it might be that nobody is ever found so. If offensive callsigns are really an indispensible and vital part of unit morale then shining light on the practice can do no harm.

Two officers were found guilty.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton ... -1.6683800

[photofly]

Oh - well, there you go. I guess it's not a requirement for an effective military.

[Big Pistons Forever]

If this happened 20 years ago and they were going after a Col and LCol, I would have been pretty mad, but this happened a year ago. I get some young and dumb 2LT doing this but senior leaders should know better. This isn’t colouring close to the lines, this way over the top and you have to be utterly clueless to think this is OK, especially for the “adults” in the room.

They had the chance to redirect the call sign ceremony in a funny but non sexist way. There are tons of call signs that won’t make the news.

This not ultimately about the 2 leaders, it is about the damage to the institution. I served 37.5 years and watched the CAF try to come to grips with institutionalized racism and sexism. The reality is that to a large extent the CAF succeeded. However watching the news all the average Canadian citizen sees is a Military defined by abuse towards women. This is not true but it doesn’t matter.

These 2 clowns have now created a totally avoidable media feeding frenzy and the CAF gets another black eye. Good Job

[Schooner69A]

Civilian, not military:

Guy had one leg shorter than the other: he was nicknamed "The Sniper's Nightmare"...

[tsgarp]

Oh - well, there you go. I guess it's not a requirement for an effective military.

The incident under discussion was resolved IAW the legal orders of the civil authority, which is the way the system is supposed to work. That said, here are some items offered for consideration:

The military exists to succeed in situations where there are no enforceable rules and individuals will be required to endure hardships and hazards just not found in civil society. Preparing individuals to succeed in this environment, (and screening out individuals who will not succeed), is more of an art than a science.