Dare you to reply!
Started by RadOncMegatron
Get help with your application
Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.
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.)
Last edited:
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
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.
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.
White flight to the burbs to “better” wink wink schools?
It's been open for 23 (on my screen) pages. You are not the first person to challenge whether this thread should remain open. It has reached the precipice at times, yet it remains open.
It seems like the word 'race baiting' is your main beef with the discussion here. You and I (along with the rest of the mod staff of SDN, even those outside of this forum) seem to have discrepant opinions on whether use of that word should nuke a whole thread.
If you are not interested in the topic, you are under no obligation to engage in it. Continuing to ask why the thread remains open is not productive and derailing of threads that may lead to warnings.
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.
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.
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.
Yo, you up-to-date on the news homie. I will apply as chair if they get rad onc lol.
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.
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.
I guess I've only kept up with the subject matter as it pertains to rad onc bc of this thread. Do other specialties have such a relatively large number of pubs in this area?
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),
Consider the open letter at the link below
A Letter on Justice and Open Debate
July 7, 2020 The below letter will be appearing in the Letters section of the magazine’s October issue. We welcome responses at [email protected] Our cultural institutions are facing a moment of trial. Powerful protests for racial and social justice are leading to overdue demands for police...
harpers.org
That this diverse group of advocates felt compelled to write this speaks volumes
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.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
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.
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.
past the idea of health care being a right, yes.
single payer is a completely different issue.
I believe health care is a right.
You need your margarita man. Tajin rim if you know whats up playa. You got the shakes?
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
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.
A slight majority believes that the federal government should provide health coverage.
Healthcare System
What would you say is the most urgent health problem facing this country at the present time? [Open-ended] Do you think it is the responsibility of the federal government to make sure all Americans have health care coverage, or is that not the responsibility of the federal government?
news.gallup.com
Maybe semantics but no one is telling the public what this will cost.
Furthermore a majority doesn't support outlawing private health insurance.
Harambe is that you?
Perfecting my jalapeno salt mix. Will be out of the photon mines soon.
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.
Least surprising post ever but I’m curious - what do you consider an ontological natural 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?
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Seems to be lumping together in other situations
U.S. sues Yale for alleged bias against Asian and white applicants
The U.S. Department of Justice sued Yale University on Thursday, accusing the Ivy League school of illegally discriminating against Asian and white applicants in undergraduate admissions.
Carrying a gun?
Asians don’t fit the CRT narrative.
The CRT narrative as stated by the founders of CRT
CRT founder Richard Delgado writes, “critical race theory questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law.”
Further the claim is that America is fundamentally based on W(w?)hite supremacy (see 1619 project)
For a meaningless term much has been written about CRT
Amazon product ASIN 147980276X
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.
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.
Race is a socio-political construct and we need to teach our children about the horrible acts against racial, ethnic minorities in our history but we should steer clear of racial essentialism (identity politics).
How did that 2020 prediction work out for you?
There Is No Debate Over Critical Race Theory
Pundits and politicians have created their own definition for the term, and then set about attacking it.
Grew up with a lot of Vietnamese many of whom had some awful backstory, but almost all were very successful.
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).
Many make the mistake of assuming all Indians/vietnamese/Chinese must be that successful based on their evaluation of the sliver of folks who they actually see in the states
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.
We all understand selection bias. This is selection bias. This is history not being history but being present. These are Jewish immigrants from early 20th century winning ridiculous numbers of Nobel Prizes from CUNY; Huguenot refugees being disproportionately influential away from France, Syrian Christian refugees being disproportionately affluent, ascendant Cuban refugees who were themselves elite before the revolution.
Of course the definition of white is terribly, inherently racist, but it is also somewhat flexible (not sure how much for Black Americans). It is a construct.
Imagine if we had a one drop white rule?
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.
Constitution in original form: Codified racism. 3/5 compromise. Tremendously elitist act (done largely in secret). IMO, tremendously important and largely good.
Amendments: Largely an expansion of rights beyond the initial definition of citizen (women, younger Americans, people of color). Adjudicated over many, many decades with mixed results; (Plessy vs. Ferguson---> 60+ years-->Brown vs. Board).
Fed had to rely on commerce clause to make civil rights act actionable:
Today: States behaviors in context of recently denuded Voting Rights Act speak for themselves.
But you know all this.
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).
I do think the left has made several recent, significant cultural mistakes.
1. It is a huge mistake to let law enforcement and the military be symbols of right leaning America. These are public sector, middle class jobs that I could not do myself. Should be valorized by the left as well (while pursuing meaningful reform).
2. The left has made a huge mistake by not promoting exceptionalism in education. I would much rather see reinstitution of G&T programs in mostly black NY schools than what seems to be going on now.
3. There obviously can be a tyranny from the left in terms of political correctness that can stifle discourse.
However...in it's present incarnation, the right is venal and has largely demonstrated fealty to Trump.
1. While progressive hoards of online youngsters may try to "cancel" someone like Dave Chappelle, Republican politicians and state leadership receive death threats from their own constituents for voting for an infrastructure bill or supporting a 1/6 investigation.
2. While Dems sacrificed someone like Al Franken to the altar of "Me Too" (Cuomo really did need to go), Republicans can't censure Gosar?
3. It becomes politically advantageous on the right to forbid common sense public health initiatives in FL schools, while claiming government overreach by the more local body that is the school board?
Where I live, I have seen confederate flags go down and be replaced by Blue Lives Matter flags overnight. (This is not hyperbole). Which side really represents the most pressing danger at this juncture?
As an aside, my career is most likely to be threatened by upper level hospital management, the types that may well have voted for both Romney and Biden.
Wow 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.
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:
apple.news
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.
Last edited:
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.
The other debate is about the teaching of American history. My personal opinion is that traditional curricula fail to tell history from the perspective of subjugated. We learned about the voyage of the Santa Maria, but less so about what it was like for those who encountered Columbus. It’s not just important to learn what happened TO natives, slaves, immigrants, and the working class (as @Chartreuse Wombat points out), it’s ALSO important to learn about American history from their perspective. After all, history is just a telling of stories… and should include not just the story of the signing of the constitution, but also the stories of the slaves who built the White House. Both are American History
I say teach American Exceptionalism ALONGSIDE Zinn.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
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.
Because it wasn’t in the constitution!
Well, I’m leaving some wiggle room, for the rare case (I can’t think of an example) we missed something… main point being I am against the concept of the inflation of human rights that is the promulgation of newly invented rights ie if people say everyone has the “right” for internet access. Again important, but not a right.
Obviously, you are a very smart person. I would love to hear what your definition of human rights are, what is their grounding, and what are they? You got some trolling skillz but let’s see what you come up with here 😛
Last edited:
