- Joined
- Oct 4, 2017
- Messages
- 5,362
- Reaction score
- 10,495
Anecdotally, very few strait white male ms4s on twitter are announcing an interest in radonc this year, so field defintely seems to becoming more diverse.
Why engage in honest debate when you can just shut it down?
We need to fight against illiberalism like this wherever and whenever it is found. The debates on this thread about race/sex/religion have been some of the more thoughtful I've seen on the topic, and I am glad a forum like this does exist where these ideas can actually be debated rather than simply worshipped.
When he was growing up, Howard Stern wasn't very pleased about where he lived and was embarrassed to tell people where he lived. Same thing with white male ms4s on Twitter? People still going into rad onc, just much less of a "humble brag" for some now. "So humbled to have been considered for the Nobel Prize" is a way more likely Tweet than "So humbled I was chosen to be first in line for the government cheese today." (A side note: there are two rad oncs my age I know to be unemployed right now... was in residency with both... They don't Tweet about it.)Anecdotally, very few strait white male ms4s on twitter are announcing an interest in radonc this year, so field defintely seems to becoming more diverse.
For the hell of it, I searched this thread for "race bait." It was not a part of this thread as far as I could tell until you said it this morning. Happy to admit if I'm wrong.There’s a way for these issues to be discussed in good faith, and then these isn’t. Throwing around terms like ‘race baiting’ puts a person squarely in one camp.
Hint to the ladies and URMs out there. If you ever see a large group of white American males fleeing from something.... you just might want to consider following them.Anecdotally, very few strait white male ms4s on twitter are announcing an interest in radonc this year, so field defintely seems to becoming more diverse.
White flight to the burbs to “better” wink wink schools?Hint to the ladies and URMs out there. If you ever see a large group of white American males fleeing from something.... you just might want to consider following them.
This is one of the first things listed in the terms of service:
- We believe diversity in health care is critical to good health care. We want students of every gender, race, social status, religion, and sexual orientation to become doctors. Having a diverse medical workforce ensures every American has a doctor that reflects their values and history. This improves the quality of health care for all.
Yet this thread remains open?
Agree, you can't derail it. I say keep pushing back if you have the stamina. Carbon is a master.this was not derailing (lol at the idea that this thread could possibly be derailed).
Yo, you up-to-date on the news homie. I will apply as chair if they get rad onc lol.Agree, you can't derail it. I say keep pushing back if you have the stamina. Carbon is a master.
But I think the thread being here is OK....and I defended ASTRO inviting Kendi to speak.
It's the venting that's important, the somewhat anonymity, the fact that the thread continues without a conclusion, that it reveals how much certain things bother people and how different our bogey-men are.
Wondering who here would want to join the newly formed University of Austin's imaginary radonc department if such a thing existed.
this thread needs some pushback. not like I have been doing it for weeks/page after page. as long as this thread exists, someone will push back/debate the issues. I'll leave it alone, but yeah, this was not derailing (lol at the idea that this thread could possibly be derailed).
the whole thread is one beef after another, race baiting was just the latest issue. I haven't seen any other specialty-specific subforum have this sort of ongoing discussion so clearly the subforum moderators have their interest.
my own personal opinion is that it is an easy thread to point to to (mis)characterize the people who frequent the rad onc section of SDN and it takes away from the inportant things we discuss in regards to the job market, residency expansion, and the loss of private practice autonomy.
Carbonionangle clowned the ideas in this thread more effectively than I can, so I will let him carry the torch.
I'm still not seeing where he was pushing back, or making a stand, other than just to say, "this thread should be closed." He cited nothing.Please push back we need the discourse. Yes there is some fun trolling on here on both sides and that's all good, but nothing more I would love then to discuss these issues openly and freely. Sadly, this is the only place in rad onc where it can even be broached "safely" b/c we are anonymous, which speaks volumes.
Excellent question and it lies at the heart of self-government. There are some that want to ban certain words and ideas labeling what they don't like as hate speech. The First Amendment has limitations to be sure but if a society is to solve the many problems that result from pluralism discourse is required. Unfortunately the Enlightenment ideals are under attack (reason, individualism, skepticism),When is debate not beneficial?
Health care a right? No quicker way for doctors to join the bread lines.Here are the terms of service:
I'm not seeing where term number 2 is violated in this thread. OTOH, I see a lot of respectful discussion in here about how the spirit of term number 5 is being violated by many of those publishing in this space.
- We believe health care is a right.
- We believe diversity in health care is critical to good health care. We want students of every gender, race, social status, religion, and sexual orientation to become doctors. Having a diverse medical workforce ensures every American has a doctor that reflects their values and history. This improves the quality of health care for all.
- We believe privacy is a right. That’s why we never sell or share member information.
- We believe that academics should be about education, not profit. That’s why all our resources are donor-supported and free for all students. That’s why we don’t promote a service or product, and we have no corporate affiliation.
- We believe in the scientific method and evidence-based medicine. Scientific debate is healthy, but anti-science conspiracy agendas are harmful to the advancement of medicine.
- We believe in the volunteer spirit and investing in our future. The vast majority of our team are volunteers; we have two part-time staff to help with coordination. All revenues generated by the organization are reinvested into enhancing services for students.
Canadian docs seem to be doing okHealth care a right? No quicker way for doctors to join the bread lines.
Scientific method and EBM? Couldn't even discuss the pros and cons of a certain Danish study (and others) on this site.
Health care a right? No quicker way for doctors to join the bread lines.
Not past it to be sure. SIngle payor is still advocated by the progressive caucus. ACA is a long way from single payor.i actually thought we were past this lol. what is this, 2010?
it's not even on the GOP platform anymore to try to undo the ACA.
gotta catch up man.
Not past it to be sure. SIngle payor is still advocated by the progressive caucus. ACA is a long way from single payor.
You need your margarita man. Tajin rim if you know whats up playa. You got the shakes?Health care a right? No quicker way for doctors to join the bread lines.
Scientific method and EBM? Couldn't even discuss the pros and cons of a certain Danish study (and others) on this site.
That's because they are able to work in a private system if they would like. The M4A plan as currently written would abolish the right of any private insurance to exist.Canadian docs seem to be doing ok
![]()
As Canada's Slow-Motion Public Health System Falters, Private Medical Care Is Surging (Published 2006)
The country's publicly financed health insurance system is gradually breaking down. Private clinics are opening at a rapid pace, and private insurance companies are about to find a gold mine.www.nytimes.com
Why would m4a be any different than m right now? It would simply expand eligibility. It doesn't outlaw private providers of care.That's because they are able to work in a private system if they would like. The M4A plan as currently written would abolish the right of any private insurance to exist.
For me, rights are inherent to nature and not provided by the government/anyone else, so I do not believe any service or good can be considered a right.
Not sure that a majority views health care as a right.past the idea of health care being a right, yes.
single payer is a completely different issue.
Harambe is that you?i actually thought we were past this lol. what is this, 2010?
it's not even on the GOP platform anymore to try to undo the ACA.
gotta catch up man.
Perfecting my jalapeno salt mix. Will be out of the photon mines soon.You need your margarita man. Tajin rim if you know whats up playa. You got the shakes?
past the idea of health care being a right, yes.
single payer is a completely different issue.
Health care is not a right. And no this is not settled not even close. I’m sympathetic to the idea, but let’s not pretend it’s settled.
I think you (well at least the general public) are confusing what a true inalienable right is ie something endowed by our Creator / something that comes with our ontological nature
vs
something that is really really really important.
It may be fair to say that (once again) different groups have different definitions for what we label “human rights.” I think that’s probably what’s going on here, but using the traditional definition healthcare is not an inalienable right.
Can someone more involved in DEI initiatives let me know if these groupings are normal now? I’m not trolling I promise but rad onc seems to have a lot of Asians, so is there an evolution in the DEI space to start lumping them in there with the whites? Or is this just a thing making the rounds on Twitter?
Carrying a gun?Least surprising post ever but I’m curious - what do you consider an ontological natural right?
That's because they are able to work in a private system if they would like. The M4A plan as currently written would abolish the right of any private insurance to exist.
For me, rights are inherent to nature and not provided by the government/anyone else, so I do not believe any service or good can be considered a right.
Can someone more involved in DEI initiatives let me know if these groupings are normal now? I’m not trolling I promise but rad onc seems to have a lot of Asians, so is there an evolution in the DEI space to start lumping them in there with the whites? Or is this just a thing making the rounds on Twitter?
Asians don’t fit the CRT narrative.
The CRT narrative as stated by the founders of CRTwhat is the CRT narrative?
CRT is a meaningless term.
How did that 2020 prediction work out for you?If the left continues to claim that CRT is a meaningless term (or better doesn't exist) then they can expect to wiped out in 2022.
Republican operatives have buried the actual definition of critical race theory: “a way of looking at law’s role platforming, facilitating, producing, and even insulating racial inequality in our country,” as the law professor Kimberlé Crenshaw, who helped coin the term, recently defined it. Instead, the attacks on critical race theory are based on made-up definitions and descriptors. “Critical race theory says every white person is a racist,” Senator Ted Cruz has said. “It basically teaches that certain children are inherently bad people because of the color of their skin,” said the Alabama state legislator Chris Pringle.
Many of the Asians who make it here are from the cream of the crop in their home countries. And while many may have awful backstories, many also came from highly successful families and were at the top of the class in well-regarded institutions back home (AIMS in India is well known).Grew up with a lot of Vietnamese many of whom had some awful backstory, but almost all were very successful.
US immigration policy became somewhat egalitarian around the late 1960s (immigration act of 1965). This represents the beginning of the period of overwhelming Asian and African and legal Latin American immigration. These are the parents of and sometimes the students themselves who have been highly represented in our medical school classes for the last couple decades.The Asian-American experience doesn't support this narrative as Asian Americans have the highest per capita income, lowest per capita crime rates, and highest rates of postsecondary achievement.
There are even Black counter-examples (native-born Nigerian and Ghanaian Americans do quite well) pdf attached.
Well, I'm guessing the main aim is to try to imagine the historic American experience through the eyes of a non-white person. I think this is hugely important.Further the claim is that America is fundamentally based on W(w?)hite supremacy (see 1619 project)
I don't want to bash America. I think its great but also deeply flawed (the best anyone or anything can be). But, a clear eyed look at the history of something like US immigration policy is going to be viewed as CRT by some when it's just the truth. The idea of American exceptionalism is just not that valuable IMO (although it is politically powerful).Agree but show me another nation state that doesn't have the same baggage.
Not viable legislation although i personally wouldn't mind seeing the squeeze on companies like Cigna and humana whose rationing and delay in approval of care rivals any boogeyman than UHC opponents could come up withWow a lot went down here since I was out. Just popping back in to say the M4A act as currently written absolutely does effectively outlaw private insurance. Anything that states otherwise is completely, verifiably, 100% incorrect. This is my main problem with it: The act would create a legal monopsony, which is inherently inefficient and would harm both patients and providers.
With “CRT being taught in schools”, there are really several debates. One is about whether we should teach “anti-racism” vs “color blindness” in school. This debate I see both perspectives.Right, for some reason when the govt goes after rich companies to help people, we’re socialist but when those companies need a bail out, govt involvement is all good! God forbid, we use resources to try to help poor people. I get it, I don’t want my taxes to go up and I know how inefficient the govt can be, but keeping the billionaires happy and well fed can not be what’s best for this country.
By the way, the VA elections was lost because Dems can’t get anything done with all the power and loss momentum from the last election. The problem with the left is that they need to elect the “perfect candidate” while the right just wants to maintain power by any means necessary.
I just wish Dems would act out and claim that the election was rigged and storm the governor’s mansion!
My thoughts on CRT is that it is an important topic to discuss but shouldn’t be a topic to use as a weapon or a political rod to make people angry.
Why do certain things like masks, vaccines, equal rights, education, diversity, social justice, etc stir up so much anger?
I figured I’ll just let it all out on this post and to conclude:
![]()
Opinion | Kyle Rittenhouse sobbing shows what's wrong with America — NBC News
If convicted, he'll become a right-wing martyr. If he is freed, it's a message to others like him that prison won’t be in their future.apple.news
Least surprising post ever but I’m curious - what do you consider an ontological natural right?
This is a thoughtful assessment…Classic definition of those things intrinsic rights endowed by our Creator emanating from the imago dei. Which are life, liberty, pursuit of happiness and property (more?). I use the word intrinsic because these rights come from us by virtue of us being human and not given to us by an external agency ie government.
Practically speaking, a right is something to be defended by the government with imprisonment or force. If someone tries to take your life, liberty, or property, the authorities will use their power to ensure you keep your human rights. These are things worth fighting for.
Again, health care is very very important so the arguments, for let’s say universal healthcare, to provide the needs for society from poor to rich, and arguments from compassion and societal responsibility make sense. It does not need to extend to the human right category because 1) rights generally speaking are things humans in the past could enjoy and healthcare was not always there ie no right for 30 isocenter SRS 2) Physicians expertise and skills should not be legally demanded by others and enforced by the government via threat and imprisonment.
This is a thoughtful assessment…
But what of a fireman’s expertise, or a lawyer’s? Why is it reasonable to have universal access to emergency services (certainly bereft in the past) and for criminals to have “a right” to legal expertise… but not guarantee that a child has access healthcare.
'rights generally speaking are things humans in the past could enjoy'
generally speaking is really being stretched here lol.