Are medical schools also on this absurd PC train?

[GoodWillShunting]

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what just happened in your story.

At the beginning, you sounded outraged at what he said. Then somehow you would be able to fire him if you were black and from Washington. Then you go on to comment on the absurdity of PC culture and raising a generation of physicians that are too PC.

Which side are you for or against? I feel like I was just in a fistfight with myself. Maybe I'm just an idiot with poor comprehension secondary to all-day study fatigue. Who knows?

In any case, yes, many medical schools are very PC (mine is, at least).


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Barrel Proof]

Yes, OP, med schools are absolutely on board with the PC train. It's a sad reality. I just try my best to ignore it and brush it off as the liberal nonsense that it is. That interviewer was absolutely out of line - neither Trump nor Clinton should ever be mentioned in a medical school interview.

 

[Taco Time]

OP, I totally get where you are coming from, but you must admit, large parts of conservative ideology aren't tolerant and best for our patients. Hence, the PC/liberal ideologies reign supreme in med schools.

Can someone be conservative and be tolerant? Of course. But a good number are not and this spoils it for the rest. This leads to people typecasting you and demeaning you if you mention you are conservative/Republican.

I do think your comparison to it being black is valid due to being Black automatically makes you prone to certain prejudices which may or may not be true. ( Replace black with any group of people that can be typecasted. Doctors as being arrogant etc)

My advice to you OP is to keep your political beliefs to yourself except for the close friends you make in med school. But don't be afraid to speak your mind about politics if other people bring it up. Remain civil and respectful. If the other person gets offended, then they are not worth interacting with.

This is some of the most asinine, bent rhetoric I've ever come across on this forum. As someone who considers himself to be an independent, I'd like for you to explain to me why a doctor that identifies as a liberal is better for his/her patients then either a conservative or an independent physician. For the sake of discussion, I'd challenge you to support your claims.

If you can't support them, then you should take an introspective look and dig deep to unshelve and unhinge whatever asinine biases you have. The idea that some physicians due to their creed, beliefs, ethnic background, etc. cannot treat patients well is eugenic in nature. Why not only accept one type of med student (i.e., only progressives, only conservatives, only those with an Ivy League background) to treat patients then? After all, this would be best for patient care due to your beliefs.

The reason why this doesn't happen is because a physician needs to be competent, compassionate, and professional. Politics or religion do not determine these in the clinical setting. The world doesn't revolve around you or me as physicians or what I think about an election. It's always the patient.

 

[Taddy Mason]

What? I do. Its pathetic, its time to put on the big boy pants.

Then maybe not play the victim card if you despise victimization...

 

[Taco Time]

Then maybe not play the victim card if you despise victimization...

Since we're on the victimization train, might as well give the 1st place trophy to the interviewer who decided to 'jokingly' loathe about the results of the election in an inappropriate setting.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

This is some of the most asinine, bent rhetoric I've ever come across on this forum. As someone who considers himself to be an independent, I'd like for you to explain to me why a doctor that identifies as a liberal is better for his/her patients then either a conservative or an independent physician. For the sake of discussion, I'd challenge you to support your claims.

If you can't support them, then you should take an introspective look and dig deep to unshelve and unhinge whatever asinine biases you have. The idea that some physicians due to their creed, beliefs, ethnic background, etc. cannot treat patients well is eugenic in nature. Why not only accept one type of med student (i.e., only progressives, only conservatives, only this with an Ivy League background) to treat patients then? After all, this would be best for patient care due to your beliefs.

The reason why this doesn't happen is because a physician needs to be competent, compassionate, and professional. Politics or religion do not determine these in the clinical setting. The world doesn't revolve around you or me as physicians or what I think about an election. It's always the patient.

Here's 3 easy ones I pulled out. Feel free to answer and rebuttal to why these are non-issues in your perspective.


Do you think gay marriage legalization, protective clauses, and attitudes that encourage acceptance improves the quality of life, decreases violence against that community, reduce disease and pathology statistics, and improve outcomes?

Do you believe that a women's right to choose, access to contraceptives, education in using contraceptives lead to improved outcomes for patients and reduce risk of adverse events?

Do you believe that preventing insurance from knocking out individuals who are high risk customers with pre-existing conditions leads to poorer outcomes in a patient? And that supporting both in voting and in advocacy of preventing this is beneficial?

 

[Astra]

This is some of the most asinine, bent rhetoric I've ever come across on this forum. As someone who considers himself to be an independent, I'd like for you to explain to me why a doctor that identifies as a liberal is better for his/her patients then either a conservative or an independent physician. For the sake of discussion, I'd challenge you to support your claims.

If you can't support them, then you should take an introspective look and dig deep to unshelve and unhinge whatever asinine biases you have. The idea that some physicians due to their creed, beliefs, ethnic background, etc. cannot treat patients well is eugenic in nature. Why not only accept one type of med student (i.e., only progressives, only conservatives, only those with an Ivy League background) to treat patients then? After all, this would be best for patient care due to your beliefs.

The reason why this doesn't happen is because a physician needs to be competent, compassionate, and professional. Politics or religion do not determine these in the clinical setting. The world doesn't revolve around you or me as physicians or what I think about an election. It's always the patient.

I never claimed that a doctor who identifies as a liberal is better for his/her patients.

I stated that parts of conservative ideologies are not best for patients. For example, conservative views on abortion. That is all. I don't see why you need to go on a rant about liberal doctors when I clearly did not even talk about them.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Since we're on the victimization train, might as well give the 1st place trophy to the interviewer who decided to 'jokingly' loathe about the results of the election in an inappropriate setting.

Do you consider an individual who is dependent on ACA who is now afraid of losing insurance as victimizing by complaining and being worried? Or just when it's a platitude or a generalization?

 

[coldcase331]

Do you consider an individual who is dependent on ACA who is now afraid of losing insurance as victimizing by complaining and being worried? Or just when it's a platitude or a generalization?

Well considering that the fear of losing insurance is unfounded, I would call it victimization. Republicans would never repeal parts of the ACA without having something to put in its place, it's political suicide otherwise


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Well considering that the fear of losing insurance is unfounded, I would call it victimization. Republicans would never repeal parts of the ACA without having something to put in its place, it's political suicide otherwise


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app

Well... Donaldo ran on repealing ACA until recently...

 

[coldcase331]

Well... Donaldo ran on repealing ACA until recently...

And they're still going to repeal, but not until another plan is ready.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

And they're still going to repeal, but not until another plan is ready.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app

Well, I doubt it'll really ever get significant traction unless 2018 sees GOP gains maintained.

But I think you're missing the point. We don't know if the new plan will be good or bad or expensive or cheaper. That's something to be worried about for many dependent individuals.

 

[coldcase331]

Well, I doubt it'll really ever get significant traction unless 2018 sees GOP gains maintained.

But I think you're missing the point. We don't know if the new plan will be good or bad or expensive or cheaper. That's something to be worried about for many dependent individuals.

Ok I think I get it. When it's a democrat that proposes change, I'm supposed to just be ok with it. But when someone with an (R) in front of their name proposes a different plan, I'm supposed to be worried. Got it.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Ok I think I get it. When it's a democrat that proposes change, I'm supposed to just be ok with it. But when someone with an (R) in front of their name proposes a different plan, I'm supposed to be worried. Got it.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app

No. I think in general any change can warrant fear. Maybe the Donaldo plan will work well, I wish him best of luck.

But just saying, the the Democratic VP never advocated shocking me until I was straight ( I seen ppl who went through conversion therapy so that touches home for me). So you'll have to excuse some respectable fear even on my side.

 

[Taco Time]

Here's 3 easy ones I pulled out. Feel free to answer and rebuttal to why these are non-issues in your perspective.


Do you think gay marriage legalization, protective clauses, and attitudes that encourage acceptance improves the quality of life, decreases violence against that community, reduce disease and pathology statistics, and improve outcomes?

Do you believe that a women's right to choose, access to contraceptives, education in using contraceptives lead to improved outcomes for patients and reduce risk of adverse events?

Do you believe that preventing insurance from knocking out individuals who are high risk customers with pre-existing conditions leads to poorer outcomes in a patient? And that supporting both in voting and in advocacy of preventing this is beneficial?

Your entire premise for rebutting my claim does not make sense.

Doctors do not decide policy-making (1%ish of the American vote will not decide every single healthcare policy issue). Also a physician's job will always be to take care of patients that are in need. It will never be superseded where physicians will have sole authority to decide how the interplay of insurance and healthcare are intertwined; it'd be ideal for physicians to have an allotted voice and influence, but it'll never be under complete physician control. Therefore, you can't blame all of physicians or even a subset of physicians for a constant teetering in the logistics of healthcare.

Abortion? REALY? This is a rabbit hole that I'm not going to go down. But, I will say there is an ethical argument that late-term abortions are not acceptable. Even some on the left were denouncing those that were pushing for the legalization of these procedures under contraceptive care, which receives some government funding.

I think that a physician regardless of political beliefs should be able to treat each patient with respect just as much as any other physician. How many physicians do you think are always going to align perfectly with their patient's beliefs. The fact is that the alignments and contrasts do not and should not matter. I will treat a patient that believes that UFOs are causing earthquakes just as well as I treat the old, white conservative or the young, inner-city liberal.

 

[coldcase331]

No. I think in general any change can warrant fear. Maybe the Donaldo plan will work well, I wish him best of luck.

But just saying, the the Democratic VP never advocated shocking me until I was straight ( I know ppl who went through conversion therapy so that touches home for me). So you'll have to excuse some respectable fear even on my side.

Except that's not what Mike Pence did, he approved VOLUNTARY conversion therapy for those that didn't want to be gay. Big difference.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app

 

[Pepe18]

.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Your entire premise for rebutting my claim does not make sense.

Doctors do not decide policy-making (1%ish of the American vote will not decide every single healthcare policy issue). Also a physician's job will always be to take care of patients that are in need. It will never be superseded where physicians will have sole authority to decide how the interplay of insurance and healthcare are intertwined; it'd be ideal for physicians to have an allotted voice and influence, but it'll never be under complete physician control. Therefore, you can't blame all of physicians or even a subset of physicians for a constant teetering in the logistics of healthcare.

Abortion? REALY? This is a rabbit hole that I'm not going to go down. But, I will say there is an ethical argument that late-term abortions are not acceptable. Even some on the left were denouncing those that were pushing for the legalization of these procedures under contraceptive care, which receives some government funding.

I think that a physician regardless of political beliefs should be able to treat each patient with respect just as much as any other physician. How many physicians do you think are always going to align perfectly with their patient's beliefs. The fact is that the alignments and contrasts do not and should not matter. I will treat a patient that believes that UFOs are causing earthquakes just as well as I treat the old, white conservative or the young, inner-city liberal.

You didn't answer my question. If you attempt to, I imagine it would make more sense.

But regardless. It had to do with the stances conservatives have towards social policies. As a doctor you're a citizen and you will vote. Being pro-gay marriage means being in favor of the benefits it brings to LGBT patients and their families in society and in healthcare.

Yes, and that's why we have ethics and discriminatory clauses. To prevent abuses towards individuals at risk. Do remember that prior to gay marriage and civil unions gay individuals would not be allowed to have their partners be with them in the hospital or make medical decisions for them even in situations where heterosexuals would have. So lets not pretend that everyone is being kind and nice to each other either.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Except that's not what Mike Pence did, he approved VOLUNTARY conversion therapy for those that didn't want to be gay. Big difference.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app

There's no such thing as voluntary conversion therapy or any form of therapy that is done under emotional or societal coercion. Being gay is not a threat to one's self or the people around them.

Also supporting unsupported therapy that only is linked to harming oneself is unethical.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

And republicans whine about liberals whining when they are 100% just as whiny and babyish. and then complain about liberal brainwashing when most republicans have had some kind a familial/environmental brainwashing affecting their beliefs. etc. People just like polarization because it makes them feel like they belong to a group

People don't see their own biases. In hindsight it's rather funny.

 

[username456789]

OP, don't worry. Much like the catepillar metamorphosizes into a beautiful butterfly, most of your classmates will eventually grow up, mature, and understand what it means to be an adult in this world and their views/opinions will swing much more toward the center/right.

The others will remain in the liberal circlejerk that is academics.

 

[Taco Time]

You didn't answer my question. If you attempt to, I imagine it would make more sense.

But regardless. It had to do with the stances conservatives have towards social policies. As a doctor you're a citizen and you will vote. Being pro-gay marriage means being in favor of the benefits it brings to LGBT patients and their families in society and in healthcare.

Yes, and that's why we have ethics and discriminatory clauses. To prevent abuses towards individuals at risk. Do remember that prior to gay marriage and civil unions gay individuals would not be allowed to have their partners be with them in the hospital or make medical decisions for them even in situations where heterosexuals would have. So lets not pretend that everyone is being kind and nice to each other either.

Oh yeah let's uh tie up all these doctors to polygraphs, and if they don't agree with what we believe, we'll strip 'em of their licenses.

And I know some conservative docs who had no qualms with allowing a gay man's partner to have a voice for the partner's care and to be present. In fact, I don't know any conservative docs that were ready to block off the door or anything.

People don't see their own biases. In hindsight it's rather funny.

Biases do exist. But, they should not impact a physician's ability to treat patients. The first step to work with others is to realize that someone else has differing views from their own but still being able to put it aside and work with them. Or in the case of a physician, to help treat them. Your argument is that half of doctors shouldn't be allowed near patients because they voted different than you on some prop. Get over yourself.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Oh yeah let's uh tie up all these doctors to polygraphs, and if they don't agree with what we believe, we'll strip 'em of their licenses.

And I know some conservative docs who had no qualms with allowing a gay man's partner to have a voice for the partner's care and to be present. In fact, I don't know any conservative docs that were ready to block off the door or anything.



Biases do exist. But, they should not impact a physician's ability to treat patients. The first step to work with others is to realize that someone else has differing views from their own but still being able to put it aside and work with them. Or in the case of a physician, to help treat them. Your argument is that half of doctors shouldn't be allowed near to patients because they voted different than you on some prop. Get over yourself.

I'm not sure whether this was an issue in how I wrote my comments or a comprehension issue. I'll happily continue this over a PM if you want to because I'm not sure where you're getting the impression I want to fire conservative doctors. I simply spoke of liberal policies and their impact on health for communities.

 

[mistafab]

I feel like a victim of crap thread syndrome. I at least got a giggle from the ridiculous notion that being conservative is like being black.

Trump save us all.

 

[Pepe18]

.

 

[OsteopathyBlues]

Then maybe not play the victim card if you despise victimization...

You gotta raise a few eyebrows to get eyes on you these days. Don't get it twisted though, I did not come here to complain and get sympathy points about what the mean professor said to me, I came here to ask if all medical schools were quibbling liberal havens. I got my answer.

While we are on the topic though, a victim is someone who is given an outcome through no action of their own. By definition I am a victim. Is it my fault I was born in Idaho and lived there my whole life? If I went into the interview wearing a Trump hat that would be one thing, but I didn't. It was completely unwarranted. To make that assumption is no different than assuming a black customer in your store must be there to rob you. Not even just thinking it, but actually verbalizing it to them! I would defend my situation like I would racism, REAL racism, not the nonsensical buzzword that it is today.

I think we can all agree that prejudice based actions are a terrible thing for someone to commit. Whether it be race, gender, or ideology.

 

[OsteopathyBlues]

I'm not speaking for you. I'm paraphrasing you.

I'm not sure why you're assuming it's mutually exclusive to acknowledge social stigmas towards obese people and in helping people deal with their weight.

To put what you are saying into a more concrete and explicit example is HIV/AIDs treatment and stigma. As doctors we need to address stigma, social issues, and the medical condition itself so that our patient not only medically improves but has a good quality of life. Because when the stigma is lessened not only do people stay on their meds, people also get tested more often and communities end up more healthy.

Again, you are being extremely disingenuous, I can't tell if its intentional or not. You are comparing apples to oranges (obesity to having AIDS). What does a patient with HIV/AIDS have to work towards? If they take their medication religiously they may be able to stave off their inevitable doom. Some people don't want to be enslaved like that, its not my decision to make for them. I would work very hard with that patient, but the choice to take their medication is theirs to make and theirs alone. You are supplying your patient with a crutch by acting the way you are. I would be very upfront with them and tell them that if they don't take this medication they will most certainly die. If they are not willing to do this I am not going to grill them every time they show up to my office. I can't be there for them all the time, they on the other hand will be. What would you say to them? What is more empowering: "You made a poor decision, now it is vital that you start making good ones." or "Its not your fault"? What more is there to discuss? How will I stop the stigmas they will face in the real world? I can't do anything about that.

Look at it this way. Your patient has been seeing you for regular check ups because they are often having unprotected sex with random male partners. After months of this behavior one of his tests comes back positive for HIV/AIDS. Did you tell him during those months that HIV/AIDS is more prevalent in the gay community and he was at risk? How dare you assume that homosexual men are more likely to contract HIV than heterosexual men! Even more the percentage is even higher among black homosexual men. My god the colleges might string you up for such a suggestion.

 

[OsteopathyBlues]

Here's 3 easy ones I pulled out. Feel free to answer and rebuttal to why these are non-issues in your perspective.


Do you think gay marriage legalization, protective clauses, and attitudes that encourage acceptance improves the quality of life, decreases violence against that community, reduce disease and pathology statistics, and improve outcomes?

Do you believe that a women's right to choose, access to contraceptives, education in using contraceptives lead to improved outcomes for patients and reduce risk of adverse events?

Do you believe that preventing insurance from knocking out individuals who are high risk customers with pre-existing conditions leads to poorer outcomes in a patient? And that supporting both in voting and in advocacy of preventing this is beneficial?

No, I don't think those variables are specific enough to make a conclusion like that. Also, homosexuals that want to be monogamous don't need a marriage to do so. What do you think they are, children?

Yes, of course. Nobody would argue this. Contraception is widely accepted. Its what happens when that CONTRA becomes CON that I disagree with liberals. And shame on you if you would terminate an unborn child. You took an OATH to protect life! Don't try that religious stuff with me either, because I am not.

I think we should focus on convincing people to give a damn about their health throughout their lives - not turn them into high risk patients over 50 years that will end up costing a fortune to treat! You say you've been smoking for 60 years and are showing signs of lung cancer? Well maybe I haven't changed the oil in my car since I bought it, should insurance pay for my engine work? These people have gone into body owner's debt, and we are expected to bail them out. If you can reasonably prove you have been taking measures to treat your condition then I see no problem with allowing high risk patients on board the insurance, but asking taxpayers to hoof the bill for their life choices is completely unreasonable.

Welp I'm sorry guess we crossed the line of no return. It wasn't me though mods! T'were that pesky osteopath I'm afraid.

 

[OsteopathyBlues]

Do you consider an individual who is dependent on ACA who is now afraid of losing insurance as victimizing by complaining and being worried? Or just when it's a platitude or a generalization?

That person should have been worried the second they took their health and put it from their hands into those of bureaucrats. Not to mention there is nothing affordable about it, are not premiums higher than they have ever been?

 

[OsteopathyBlues]

I feel like a victim of crap thread syndrome. I at least got a giggle from the ridiculous notion that being conservative is like being black.

Trump save us all.

I never said that. I said being labeled a conservative on no basis other than where you are from is akin to being labeled a thug for having a darker shade of skin. It is completely baseless. And don't act like I wouldn't get strung up on the nearest LGBTQ flag-bearing pole if the hivemind that is an undergraduate university discovered I was conservative. It would be social, perhaps even professional, suicide at many campuses.

Merry Shaqmas, sir.

 

[68PGunner]

OP, you should have said Heil Trump and walk out like a boss.

 

[BruceWaynMD]

IMO you should report if you felt harassed don't be silent about it no truly knows what happened but you and him because how he said it and body language may play a role on why you feel such a way.

 

[Pepe18]

.

 

[tymont12]

OP, there's going to be countless individuals in your medical training with polarizing political views or quasi-racist ideology who have ample power to, "screw you over." The key though, is not being a target. AKA, being more professional than them. Nearly 20,000 med students a year successfully do this and graduate just fine. You can too. If you're so worried about being ruined because of your political views or personal ideology, then I would venture a guess that you share way too much in the completely wrong venue.

To be honest, your original statement made it seem like the interviewer was making a bad joke about the election and also making a bad joke about how he has never been to Idaho and thinks it's a small, rural, isolated place. Certainly not in the best taste, but I got similar comments about Oregon when interviewing on the east coast. If you think it was really egregious, report it and move on. Or, learn to deal. There's people in my class who turn every smoke signal into a dumpster fire. Don't. Be. That. Person.

 

[Donald Juan]

Ok, I'm very lost on this thread. OP, are you against victimization? Because you're making yourself out to be a victim for some very mildly un-PC comments. Also, do you know what PC means? The interviewer was not being PC. He was being mildly un-PC, and you say you hate the PC stuff........wtf?

 

[radsisrad]

Yes, they're extremely PC. And it doesn't get better in residency, from what I can tell. I've been to two interviews where politics were brought up by presenters - at one conference, the presenter made extremely unprofessional remarks about Trump (with accompanying immature PPT slides) that had no business being expressed by any high school graduate. In fact, when I told my (very) liberal relatives about the incident at Thanksgiving dinner, they were surprised that any physician would speak like that... especially to residency candidates.

You've just got to remember that most medical students in The Current Year grew up (phrase used loosely) with their worldview informed primarily by snark and clownishness. And subsequently had their beliefs ossified in the overwhelmingly Leftist college environment.

Grin and bear it, but never back down. I certainly never have.

 

[Donald Juan]

Yes, they're extremely PC. And it doesn't get better in residency, from what I can tell. I've been to two interviews where politics were brought up by presenters - at one conference, the presenter made extremely unprofessional remarks about Trump (with accompanying immature PPT slides) that had no business being expressed by any high school graduate. In fact, when I told my (very) liberal relatives about the incident at Thanksgiving dinner, they were surprised that any physician would speak like that... especially to residency candidates.

You've just got to remember that most medical students in The Current Year grew up (phrase used loosely) with their worldview informed primarily by snark and clownishness. And subsequently had their beliefs ossified in the overwhelmingly Leftist college environment.

Grin and bear it, but never back down. I certainly never have.

....does everyone here thinks PC means democrat? People keep saying their school is so PC...then go on to describe very un-PC actions. Making remarks that would offend people of certain political affiliations is the opposite of politically correct.

 

[evilbooyaa]

This thread hurts my brain. I can't take the misplaced overreactions anymore, and now it's turning into a full on political farce between Taco Time (new SDN troll?) and regular posters.

I think at the end of the day you all that are super pissed off about this slight need to report it if you feel the need and move on.

 

[deleted731525]

To be brief.
At the worst: Colleges are now echo chambers for liberal agendas, and dangerous killzones for conservatives, which propagate a new culture of victimhood and whiny cry baby "adults".
OR
At the best: I, and a large group of people, are paranoid crackpot misanthropes.

I guess its only a matter of time until the latter becomes the "reality".

Sounds exactly like what you are doing. One of my professors(who controls my grade) outright told me she supported Trump and was Republican and trashed Clinton. It was a bit awkward especially since I am liberal and it turned into a political discussion where it became quite clear I am liberal, but I dont care because I'm an adult.

 

[deleted731525]

What? I do. Its pathetic, its time to put on the big boy pants. If you have a problem you can't resolve yourself then see a shrink, get some meds, or if it REALLY is something you cannot fix then the least you can do is not make ME feel like crap too! Nobody likes dealing with unsolvable problems, there is no reason to make your problem everybody's problem - we already have our own.

 

[deleted731525]

Well considering that the fear of losing insurance is unfounded, I would call it victimization. Republicans would never repeal parts of the ACA without having something to put in its place, it's political suicide otherwise


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app

Well to be fair, that is pretty much what they campaigned on and still might happen. The current plan(last I read) is to repeal and have that repeal go into effect in 2-3 years so they can have time to come up with a new plan(which could bring its own problems that result in people losing insurance in the short term anyway). Some members of Congress want to have the repeal go into effect immediately with a free market based replacement(which would result in millions losing insurance). Trump himself has flip flopped on the issue. It is still very much up in the air as to what will happen, so I cant blame anybody who is dependent on the ACA for being worried.

 

[OsteopathyBlues]

Sounds exactly like what you are doing. One of my professors(who controls my grade) outright told me she supported Trump and was Republican and trashed Clinton. It was a bit awkward especially since I am liberal and it turned into a political discussion where it became quite clear I am liberal, but I dont care because I'm an adult.

You are very brave for standing up to your single Rep. teacher in a crowd of Liberal students, teachers, and administrators. Truly a warrior of social justice. You deserve a medal. He could have ruined your grade with no repudiation, I am sure.

The crowd I have attracted seems to have a hard time with irony and sarcasm so I will confess I mean the exact opposite. The desire to virtue signal is so strong you may actually convince yourself what I was saying was geniune. Give that teacher a medal for bravery, if they are still working there.

 

[evilbooyaa]

You are very brave for standing up to your single Rep. teacher in a crowd of Liberal students, teachers, and administrators. Truly a warrior of social justice. You deserve a medal. He could have ruined your grade with no repudiation, I am sure.

The crowd I have attracted seems to have a hard time with irony and sarcasm so I will confess I mean the exact opposite. The desire to virtue signal is so strong you may actually convince yourself what I was saying was geniune. Give that teacher a medal for bravery, if they are still working there.

So you're saying that this professor should be congratulated for discussing his/her political beliefs at work with a student, in a setting where there would be no professional benefit, because they were republican.

While the professor that discussed his political beliefs at work with an applicant, in a setting where there would be no professional benefit, should be villified, reported, and potentially face disciplinary action, because they were (potentially) democrat?

Either you're just trolling or you're the advocating for the dictionary definition of hypocrisy.

 

[appalachian_man]

You are very brave for standing up to your single Rep. teacher in a crowd of Liberal students, teachers, and administrators. Truly a warrior of social justice. You deserve a medal. He could have ruined your grade with no repudiation, I am sure.

The crowd I have attracted seems to have a hard time with irony and sarcasm so I will confess I mean the exact opposite. The desire to virtue signal is so strong you may actually convince yourself what I was saying was geniune. Give that teacher a medal for bravery, if they are still working there.

I refuse to believe you are actually this stupidly hypocritical. Obvious troll is obvious.

 

[SpacemanSpifff]

People DON'T assume you are Republican if you are from a hellhole like Idaho or Indiana or Mississippi. That is why we don't understand why you are so offended by this interview.

Yeah... what a terrible place Idaho is

 

[IlDestriero]

It sounds like he was trying to make a lame joke and your got your jimmies all in a jam over nothing. Go to your safe space and calm down, then go and get that humorless monster fired!


--
Il Destriero

 

[GoodWillShunting]

Serenity now, serenity now!


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[OsteopathyBlues]

I do encourage to reflect on how perhaps your biased views of liberalism is clouding your thinking.

You're assuming so many things about what other people are thinking and doing and how they would react if you said X or Y. Don't read between lines, stop trying to predict other people's responses because it is causing you to see yourself as a victim and everyone else as an enemy.

1) You keep assuming why the pt has HIV when there are many ways to acquire it 2) Many of the pts getting HIV have very little education on the mstter 3) You don't grill the patient or tell them they made a poor decision- you find out why they aren't taking the medication and try to break whatever barriers are facing them if possible. That's part of your job, and actually, now outcomes will influence your pay, so you'll have financial motive to assist your pt.

And no one gets angry if someone says HIV rates are higher in the gay population- literally every gay event and clinic talks about HIV. The problem is when you fail to acknowledge that whether or not a gay person is high risk varies from person to person and that there are many high risk straight groups as well. Not all gay men are more likely than straight men to contract HIV and there are many straight people who are at very high risks for HIV (I volunteer at HIV clinic is almost 100% straight minorities). And the issue with HIV stigma is much more common in HIV+ straight people.

Me telling them it is their fault likely wouldn't come up unless the person were incessantly complaining about how it isn't. What does that do for the problem at hand? And yes, people do get angry when a non-gay person says things like that, especially if you are on the right. I am not assuming anything btw that was the hypothetical situation I put forward. I said he was having unprotected sex often, he acquired HIV/AIDS. It doesn't take a genius/bigot to start with that. Your argument is completely irrelevant when attempting to make a structured understanding of the world. May as well get rid of the entire practice of statistics, "oh, some variance exists from the mean, the results are useless."

 

[OsteopathyBlues]

This thread hurts my brain. I can't take the misplaced overreactions anymore, and now it's turning into a full on political farce between Taco Time (new SDN troll?) and regular posters.

I think at the end of the day you all that are super pissed off about this slight need to report it if you feel the need and move on.

The realization that medical school is no different than my undergraduate is the real concern. Forget my experience.

 

[Goro]

I would LOVE to see the reaction if you did that at UCSF or Yale!

YES. lots of libs.

just gotta ignore the noise.

I wear "make america great again" hats to school at least once a week. I even wore a shirt that said "Save us Donald you're our only hope" that had him dressed as a Jedi right after he won the election to school just cause I know it will trigger somebody in my class...