Lieberman Suspended

[Mass Effect]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

Just being a little pendantic, but in the adult fetish community, it is indeed a term of endearment for many people. There's even a bestseller with multiple editions. "The Ethical Slut." They define it is "a person of any gender who has the courage to lead life according to the radical proposition that sex is nice and pleasure is good for you." I imagine these people may be offended by the assumption that they are immature and cannot be professionals.

I don't really care what they're offended by. There are also people who consider the n word to be a term of endearment. I'm sure there are those who consider the c word to be a term of endearment too. I don't care that they're offended by opinion either. Slut is not a term of endearment and never will be in my book. And I don't expect to see the Chair of Psychiatry anywhere using it as such without repercussions.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

I don't really care what they're offended by. There are also people who consider the n word to be a term of endearment. I'm sure there are those who consider the c word to be a term of endearment too. I don't care that they're offended by opinion either. Slut is not a term of endearment and never will be in my book. And I don't expect to see the Chair of Psychiatry anywhere using it as such without repercussions.

I think that's an important point. Even if some people use various "bad" words as terms of endearment, a public Twitter account is not the place to use it.

 

[MisterKitty]

Every one feel free to refer to me as a freak of nature based on the size of my man meat. I will take no offense

 

[WisNeuro]

I don't really care what they're offended by. There are also people who consider the n word to be a term of endearment. I'm sure there are those who consider the c word to be a term of endearment too. I don't care that they're offended by opinion either. Slut is not a term of endearment and never will be in my book. And I don't expect to see the Chair of Psychiatry anywhere using it as such without repercussions.

I just find it hypocritical that you are deriding individuals for being offended for an ambiguous term, while being offended at the use of an ambiguous term.

 

[calvnandhobbs68]

I mean even toss the whole "was he actually trying to be racist or not" thing out (not that you should, but just for sake of argument). The fact that the chair of the department of PSYCHIATRY couldn't figure out that this was probably an inappropriate thing to say in a publicly identifiable forum shows such a ridiculous lack of judgement that, yeah, he should be forced to step down because how could anyone take him seriously after something like that?

I like to use this analogy for things that you say online that are easily linked to your real life person, if you have a professional job that this could harm in any way (so the vast majority of medical professionals). If you wouldn't stand up and share in front of a crowd, you probably shouldn't post it (cause that's what you're basically doing). I find that to be a pretty safe rule generally, as it means that if you have opinions that you wouldn't mind sharing publicly or political stances, awesome, let everyone know about it. If you wouldn't stand up in front of an audience in an APA meeting, point to a black woman and say "whether a work of art or a freak of nature she’s a beautiful sight to behold"...ya probably shouldn't do it online either and it should be treated about the same way.

 

[Mass Effect]

I just find it hypocritical that you are deriding individuals for being offended for an ambiguous term, while being offended at the use of an ambiguous term.

It's not ambiguous. And this is exactly what I mean by minimizing words and phrases to defend those who use them. Ask any woman and she knows what slut means. She isn't suddenly confused and wondering if she's being called "dear" instead. There's nothing ambiguous about it and frankly, there's nothing ambiguous about "freak of nature" in reference to someone's looks either. Would you call an amputee a "freak of nature"? Likely not, because you would have appropriately assessed the implication in using that phrase. So why in the world would anyone think it appropriate to use it to refer to the blackness of someone's skin in 2022?

 

[WisNeuro]

It's not ambiguous. And this is exactly what I mean by minimizing words and phrases to defend those who use them. Ask any woman and she knows what slut means. She isn't suddenly confused and wondering if she's being called "dear" instead. There's nothing ambiguous about it and frankly, there's nothing ambiguous about "freak of nature" in reference to someone's looks either. Would you call an amputee a "freak of nature"? Likely not, because you would have appropriately assessed the implication in using that phrase. So why in the world would anyone think it appropriate to use it to refer to the blackness of someone's skin in 2022?

I wholeheartedly disagree with the ambiguity of the phrases, because they unequivocally have different meanings in different contexts. And, there is definitely some ambiguity about using freak to describe someone's looks. In Lieberman's case, context is likely pretty bad. In other cases, not so much.

 

[nexus73]

It's not ambiguous. And this is exactly what I mean by minimizing words and phrases to defend those who use them. Ask any woman and she knows what slut means. She isn't suddenly confused and wondering if she's being called "dear" instead. There's nothing ambiguous about it and frankly, there's nothing ambiguous about "freak of nature" in reference to someone's looks either. Would you call an amputee a "freak of nature"? Likely not, because you would have appropriately assessed the implication in using that phrase. So why in the world would anyone think it appropriate to use it to refer to the blackness of someone's skin in 2022?

But it’s a conflict of terms. Calling someone a freak because they have an amputation is highlighting a negative quality, and horrible to say. Calling someone a freak because they are a beauty to behold is highlighting a positive…or is ambiguous I suppose. Is freak always negative? Or is it often negative and sometimes positive? Or is it neutral?

 

[Mass Effect]

I wholeheartedly disagree with the ambiguity of the phrases, because they unequivocally have different meanings in different contexts. And, there is definitely some ambiguity about using freak to describe someone's looks. In Lieberman's case, context is likely pretty bad. In other cases, not so much.

Unless you're a woman, I give very little to your opinion on whether or not "slut" is offensive or endearing. Frankly, even if you were a woman, I'd tell you any opinion that tells me slut is a term of endearment is pure crap.

 

[WisNeuro]

Unless you're a woman, I give very little to your opinion on whether or not "slut" is offensive or endearing. Frankly, even if you were a woman, I'd tell you any opinion that tells me slut is a term of endearment is pure crap.

Slut is not gender specific in the aforementioned communities.

 

[Mass Effect]

But it’s a conflict of terms. Calling someone a freak because they have an amputation is highlighting a negative quality, and horrible to say. Calling someone a freak because they are a beauty to behold is highlighting a positive…or is ambiguous I suppose. Is freak always negative? Or is it often negative and sometimes positive? Or is it neutral?

He called someone a "freak of nature" because her skin was blacker than another black person. Let's get it in context.

 

[Mass Effect]

Slut is not gender specific in the aforementioned communities.

It doesn't need to be. I repeat " Unless you're a woman, I give very little to your opinion on whether or not "slut" is offensive or endearing. Frankly, even if you were a woman, I'd tell you any opinion that tells me slut is a term of endearment is pure crap. "

 

[WisNeuro]

He called someone a "freak of nature" because her skin was blacker than another black person. Let's get it in context.

I believe that there are two arguments going on. One of the very specific Lieberman case, and one about the terms in general. Most people are arguing about the latter.

It doesn't need to be. I repeat " Unless you're a woman, I give very little to your opinion on whether or not "slut" is offensive or endearing. Frankly, even if you were a woman, I'd tell you any opinion that tells me slut is a term of endearment is pure crap. "

I again, I disagree with your rank hypocrisy.

 

[Mass Effect]

I believe that there are two arguments going on. One of the very specific Lieberman case, and one about the terms in general. Most people are arguing about the latter.

I again, I disagree with your rank hypocrisy.

You can disagree all you want, but there is nothing about my opinion that is hypocritical.

 

[WisNeuro]

You can disagree all you want, but there is nothing about my opinion that is hypocritical.

We'll agree to disagree 🙂

 

[MisterKitty]

Would Lieberman be offended if people said that he had a freakishly sized penis? Lieberman if you are here, can you comment on this??

 

[Alemo]

Man some people here LIVE to argue. Not in the “let’s understand each other” sense—more the “you absolutely need to know just how wrong you are” variety.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

But it’s a conflict of terms. Calling someone a freak because they have an amputation is highlighting a negative quality, and horrible to say. Calling someone a freak because they are a beauty to behold is highlighting a positive…or is ambiguous I suppose. Is freak always negative? Or is it often negative and sometimes positive? Or is it neutral?

I have never heard freak of nature being used to describe someone's beauty in a good way.

 

[Ironspy]

If you’re a white person and post something about another race that members of that community feel is racist and ask you to delete, you should delete apologize and reflect. This is not complicated

 

[birchswing]

If you’re a white person and post something about another race that members of that community feel is racist and ask you to delete, you should delete apologize and reflect. This is not complicated

Or . . . you could deny it was you. Then offer to do a moon dance at a press conference to prove you're not racist.

And keep your job.

(That was my governor.)

Edit: Excuse me, after looking it up to confirm my memory, it turns out it's called the "moonwalk" not moon dance.

 

[whopper]

I don't get the references to Dr. Oz either. Oz as far as I am aware has not been accused of racism or misogyny. In fact, for a republican he has been quite active in raising awareness of racism in medicine, He has been accused of peddling quackery, which for better or worse, is protected as a form of academic freedom. It would have been very hard to Columbia to discipline him because they would have violated their own academic freedom policies to do so (similar to institutions that have refused and been unable to discipline academics peddling controverisal ideas and treatments for COVID). Professors are allowed to express controversial views. Lieberman's conduct was not protected by academic freedom, since his position does not give him any expertise to be making comments about models. Oz has also not been working clinically for some years, and no longer holds an active appointment at Columbia (he is emeritus faculty now). I'm also assuming that Columbia made a calculated decision that Oz's affiliation was positive for the institution, regardless of what they thought of his views.

Does it say in Columbia's by-laws that "peddling quackery" is a form of academic freedom? Cause in most medical institutions you aren't supposed to do that or face consequences.

Tenure in virtually all academic institutions is not unlimited. One cannot for example, sexually assault someone else, and claim it helped your research. You could lose tenure and should.

I don't think the "academic freedom" argument would apply, and if so then why does this also not extend to Lieberman? After all he's a physician and mentioned something about a physical characteristic. I'm not saying this to defend Lieberman, I'm saying the argument must be used to defend both or not be allowable to be used to defend both.

Professors are allowed to express controversial views.

Lieberman is a professor. He got in trouble for expressing a "controversial view" and yet you defend Oz and in the same breath say Lieberman isn't allowed the same defense despite that your own argument sets out parameters that fit both Oz and Lieberman.

 

[WisNeuro]

Does it say in Columbia's by-laws that "peddling quackery" is a form of academic freedom? Cause in most medical institutions you aren't supposed to do that or face consequences.

Tenure in virtually all academic institutions is not unlimited. One cannot for example, sexually assault someone else, and claim it helped your research. You could lose tenure and should.

And then why does this also not extend to Lieberman? After all he's a physician and mentioned something about a physical characteristic. I'm not saying this to defend Lieberman, I'm saying the argument must be used to defend both or not be allowable to be used to defend both.

The ideological purity tests and inconsistency in positions in are what has made me distance myself from either political party and embrace the independent title. These people prosecute based on the expediency of the moment, rather than by any coherent, consistent logical base.

 

[whopper]

. Oz has also not been working clinically for some years, and no longer holds an active appointment at Columbia (he is emeritus faculty now). I'm also assuming that Columbia made a calculated decision that Oz's affiliation was positive for the institution, regardless of what they thought of his views.

Several of Oz's "peddling quackery" was in areas outside his expertise too, I addressed that he is no longer "active" in that he's been peddling quackery for over 10 years without consequences from Columbia, and his emeritus position is highly respected one and only given weeks ago. Institutions don't give that title as if the person was demoted, and it's all in the same house-they have the same administration over them, and work in the same buildings

I do agree that that Columbia likely (and this is my own speculation) kept Oz because his general image was more positive than negative, as you mentioned, although he has garnered tremendous negative controversy especially with him saying children dying but the benefits could be "appetizing" in the same sentence, but even more so I speculate it's because they're taking in a cut of the money he's bringing in. Every academic institution I've seen has it in their contracts that they can get a cut of what a professor produces such as a bestselling novel, TV show etc. Which if anything suggests Columbia is completely about turning the other way so long as enough money comes in.

The ideological purity tests and inconsistency in positions in are what has made me distance myself from either political party and embrace the independent title. These people prosecute based on the expediency of the moment, rather than by any coherent, consistent logical base.

Such as say....wanting a specific football player fired for expressing his views, but then the same person condemning Kaepernick calls the Left "cancel culture" and that they can't stomach people of opposing views in the same breath? Or someone thinking it's okay to burn down a federal courthouse in protest but not okay to be violent at the Capitol (and vice-versa)? Or people all being for the Goldwater Rule, but only if it didn't apply to Trump, and when it's about Trump all of a sudden so many of those same people say the rule is BS.

Completely agree.

 

[Stagg737]

You can disagree all you want, but there is nothing about my opinion that is hypocritical.

Dude, what? You've moved the goalposts so much you're arguing against yourself...

Your entire starting argument was that the word "freak" could not be used in a positive way, with a clause specifically about looks:

Never say this to any woman about how she looks. You will (and should) get your ass handed to you. "Freak" of any kind is not a positive connotation and whoever said it was when referring to how someone looks lied to you.

Freakishly beautiful is not the same thing as a freak of nature. Just because the word "freak" is used doesn't mean it's saying or inferring the same thing. Freak of nature is equivalent to side-show freak, not freakishly beautiful.

Then you switched it to "it's not the word freak, it's the phrase 'freak of nature' can't be positive":

I think those of you applying it to athletics aren't making the distinction between applying to someone's "ability" vs someone's "looks". You don't call someone a "freak" based on their looks. Just think of it a different way. Say there was someone who was born without any limbs and he called them a "freak of nature". Doubt anyone would even bring up any potential positive connotations there.

Which then leads to "it's not just the term 'freak of nature', it's the context":

He called someone a "freak of nature" because her skin was blacker than another black person. Let's get it in context.

You went from 'freak' (the etiological root) being always inappropriate, to specifically the phrase 'freak of nature', to the phrase 'freak of nature' in specific contexts. The first statement was that context doesn't matter and the last is arguing that we should "get it in context" Those are mutually exclusive arguments, you're literally arguing against yourself. If not, you should be clear about what you actually mean instead of playing a six degrees of Kevin Bacon game of moral ethics and philosophies...

 

[Stagg737]

It doesn't need to be. I repeat " Unless you're a woman, I give very little to your opinion on whether or not "slut" is offensive or endearing. Frankly, even if you were a woman, I'd tell you any opinion that tells me slut is a term of endearment is pure crap. "

As long as you're admitting you believe your egocentric view is more valid than the person accepting a phrase and that you know what's best for other people, I think I understand your arguments in their specific context much better. I also believe it's an incredibly dangerous thought process that exemplifies the problem with "cancel culture" very well.

 

[Stagg737]

I agree. However I posit that social media is not new, and this is not early social media like 2015 or what have you. Stories about careers being ended due to stupid mistakes on social media are not new to people, young or old. People on the platform are aware of potential consequences, and we see people "cancelled" every day. No room for mistakes in 2022. Make a mistake and you're fired.

True, but this is the exact problem that we're seeing. Beliefs and practices become engrained into a person whether they're ethical or not. People who grew up in a racist culture that promoted those views can't erase them, they're a part of that person permanently at some level. I could see someone in their 70's or 80's saying something like this believing the intent of their message is good, when it's really not. Personality and core beliefs can be extremely difficult to change, and a lot of times the situation warrants an actual investigation instead of just a knee-jerk emotional reaction.

Think of it like cancer, some of them should absolutely be cut out, but some can also be treated with less extreme options like chemo or radiation. The problem with the direction things seem to be moving is that society ran out of chemo meds, someone smashed the EBT, and now everyone thinks they're a surgeon and is running around with scalpels and cutting on anyone whose labs come back abnormal.

People may be "aware" of the consequences, but many are still relatively new to some of these platforms (2015 is not that long ago) and probably have never had major repercussions from past problems. These people also trained 40+ years ago when the culture of medical training and medicine was uniformly more malignant and uncensored even at the most progressive places. Not that this excuses events like this, but it's fairly easy to understand why some of those beliefs and behaviors still persist. It's also easy to understand why younger generations or anyone who is the target of persistent discrimination like that would be fed up and fall into a knee-jerk and sometimes vengeful cancel culture. It's almost always easier to just remove someone and oftentimes it's warranted.

I'm not surprised by his tweet or the outcome, more disappointed that someone in his academic position would be so thoughtless and insensitive as well as how quickly actions are taken before an investigation. Though in this case it seems like this was a long time coming based on past statements and actions related to this tweet and other unrelated issues between him and Columbia, so the suspension/firing seems completely appropriate.

 

[Mass Effect]

Dude, what? You've moved the goalposts so much you're arguing against yourself...

Hold up, what? I didn't move the goalposts. Do you not see the difference between those two? Perhaps I misspoke when I said "freak of any kind" and should have added "freak of nature" or similar. Frankly, I think both are bad, but "freakishly beautiful" I could at least understand a bit better than "freak of nature" for two reasons: first, it isn't in reference to her skin tone being "abnormal" and second it's describing how beautiful she is rather than how abnormal she is.

"She's (abnormally) beautiful" vs "She's abnormally black". If you don't see the difference, that's on you.

I will also say that even if he'd used the term to describe someone beautiful without a focus on skin tone, I'd still object to the term "freak of nature" but using it to describe the skin tone (whether he finds it beautiful or not) is even worse.

Then you switched it to "it's not the word freak, it's the phrase 'freak of nature' can't be positive":

Addressed above.

Which then leads to "it's not just the term 'freak of nature', it's the context":

Uh, no. You're mischaracterizing what I said so you can argue against it. What I said was " I think those of you applying it to athletics aren't making the distinction between applying to someone's "ability" vs someone's "looks". You don't call someone a "freak" based on their looks. Just think of it a different way. Say there was someone who was born without any limbs and he called them a "freak of nature". Doubt anyone would even bring up any potential positive connotations there."

I said something very similar in my very first post which you managed to quote, but didn't read or comprehend I guess? ""Never say this to any woman about how she looks. You will (and should) get your ass handed to you. "Freak" of any kind is not a positive connotation and whoever said it was when referring to how someone looks lied to you""

It IS just the term "freak of nature" but it's also the context which needed to be pointed out because some of you have normalized it by applying it to athletic ability and even if YOU feel it's appropriate in describing athletic ability (which I don't), you don't get to just say "hey, it's normal because athletics" when we're not even talking about athletics.

You went from 'freak' (the etiological root) being always inappropriate, to specifically the phrase 'freak of nature', to the phrase 'freak of nature' in specific contexts. The first statement was that context doesn't matter and the last is arguing that we should "get it in context" Those are mutually exclusive arguments, you're literally arguing against yourself. If not, you should be clear about what you actually mean instead of playing a six degrees of Kevin Bacon game of moral ethics and philosophies.

Again, don't mischaracterize what I'm saying and then lecture me on getting clear about what I'm saying. What part of "Never say this to any woman about how she looks. You will (and should) get your ass handed to you. "Freak" of any kind is not a positive connotation and whoever said it was when referring to how someone looks lied to you" suggests to you that I'm making the argument that context doesn't matter?

 

[Mass Effect]

As long as you're admitting you believe your egocentric view is more valid than the person accepting a phrase and that you know what's best for other people, I think I understand your arguments in their specific context much better. I also believe it's an incredibly dangerous thought process that exemplifies the problem with "cancel culture" very well.

It's not an egocentric view anymore than a black person telling you the n-word is offensive is an egocentric view. Society doesn't get to use the word slut to degrade and disparage women for centuries, just to turn around and get on its hind legs and say "but it's not a negative word" and that it's my egocentric view that it is.

 

[FlowRate]

I think the freak of nature thing and allegations of racism and misogyny are somewhat aside from the more mundane point that adult professional men shouldn't be retweeting pictures of women commenting on their body. That's the lapse of judgement that I find most surprising in the first place. That he found such an awkward/inappropriate way to phrase it is just the accelerant on that fire.

A few people ITT shared that he has "a history" of this. Is that lore from the various comment threads or does anyone have actual examples? Completely out of curiosity regarding whether this "fact" is one that is born of its own convenient assertion or if there is extant evidence.

 

[nexus73]

I think the freak of nature thing and allegations of racism and misogyny are somewhat aside from the more mundane point that adult professional men shouldn't be retweeting pictures of women commenting on their body. That's the lapse of judgement that I find most surprising in the first place. That he found such an awkward/inappropriate way to phrase it is just the accelerant on that fire.

A few people ITT shared that he has "a history" of this. Is that lore from the various comment threads or does anyone have actual examples? Completely out of curiosity regarding whether this "fact" is one that is born of its own convenient assertion or if there is extant evidence.

But if old white men can’t be creepy online and face no consequences what privilege do they have left?

 

[Stagg737]

Hold up, what? I didn't move the goalposts. Do you not see the difference between those two? Perhaps I misspoke when I said "freak of any kind" and should have added "freak of nature" or similar. Frankly, I think both are bad, but "freakishly beautiful" I could at least understand a bit better than "freak of nature" for two reasons: first, it isn't in reference to her skin tone being "abnormal" and second it's describing how beautiful she is rather than how abnormal she is.

"She's (abnormally) beautiful" vs "She's abnormally black". If you don't see the difference, that's on you.

I will also say that even if he'd used the term to describe someone beautiful without a focus on skin tone, I'd still object to the term "freak of nature" but using it to describe the skin tone (whether he finds it beautiful or not) is even worse.



Addressed above.



Uh, no. You're mischaracterizing what I said so you can argue against it. What I said was " I think those of you applying it to athletics aren't making the distinction between applying to someone's "ability" vs someone's "looks". You don't call someone a "freak" based on their looks. Just think of it a different way. Say there was someone who was born without any limbs and he called them a "freak of nature". Doubt anyone would even bring up any potential positive connotations there."

I said something very similar in my very first post which you managed to quote, but didn't read or comprehend I guess? ""Never say this to any woman about how she looks. You will (and should) get your ass handed to you. "Freak" of any kind is not a positive connotation and whoever said it was when referring to how someone looks lied to you""

It IS just the term "freak of nature" but it's also the context which needed to be pointed out because some of you have normalized it by applying it to athletic ability and even if YOU feel it's appropriate in describing athletic ability (which I don't), you don't get to just say "hey, it's normal because athletics" when we're not even talking about athletics.




Again, don't mischaracterize what I'm saying and then lecture me on getting clear about what I'm saying. What part of "Never say this to any woman about how she looks. You will (and should) get your ass handed to you. "Freak" of any kind is not a positive connotation and whoever said it was when referring to how someone looks lied to you" suggests to you that I'm making the argument that context doesn't matter?

I literally quoted you and took the interpretations at the most basic level, there was no mischaracterization. Your own arguments were contradictory. If you want to call it "narrowing the goalposts" instead of moving them, fine, but the actual words you wrote and the arguments formed by them changed and became much more specific which completely changed the nature of the conversation. If you had spoken more clearly from the start, none of this would be an issue and half of this thread wouldn't even exist.

I agree that context matters and that "freak of nature" when referring to someone's looks, especially skin color, pretty much always has negative connotations. I think an important distinction that is the source of ongoing debate is the idea of connotations vs. intent. Neither are simple black and white and I think is the source of a lot of the contention in these situations. I'd say minimally relevant in this particular situation, but still worth considering when judging stuff like this.

It's not an egocentric view anymore than a black person telling you the n-word is offensive is an egocentric view. Society doesn't get to use the word slut to degrade and disparage women for centuries, just to turn around and get on its hind legs and say "but it's not a negative word" and that it's my egocentric view that it is.

It is. Your opinion that a word cannot be used in an endearing way regardless of how society views the word/phrase is your own belief. Generalizing and applying your own belief to situations as the "correct" approach regardless of others' views and perceptions is the definition of egocentrism.

I don't think anyone here (or really any logical person) would argue that 'slut' is not a negative word. Saying it's a negative word and saying that there is no situation where it can be used or perceived in a positive manner are very different statements and the source of a lot of contention with your arguments.

 

[littlefred]

I literally quoted you and took the interpretations at the most basic level, there was no mischaracterization. Your own arguments were contradictory. If you want to call it "narrowing the goalposts" instead of moving them, fine, but the actual words you wrote and the arguments formed by them changed and became much more specific which completely changed the nature of the conversation. If you had spoken more clearly from the start, none of this would be an issue and half of this thread wouldn't even exist.

I agree that context matters and that "freak of nature" when referring to someone's looks, especially skin color, pretty much always has negative connotations. I think an important distinction that is the source of ongoing debate is the idea of connotations vs. intent. Neither are simple black and white and I think is the source of a lot of the contention in these situations. I'd say minimally relevant in this particular situation, but still worth considering when judging stuff like this.



It is. Your opinion that a word cannot be used in an endearing way regardless of how society views the word/phrase is your own belief. Generalizing and applying your own belief to situations as the "correct" approach regardless of others' views and perceptions is the definition of egocentrism.

I don't think anyone here (or really any logical person) would argue that 'slut' is not a negative word. Saying it's a negative word and saying that there is no situation where it can be used or perceived in a positive manner are very different statements and the source of a lot of contention with your arguments.

I think the user in question (the one moving the goal posts) is what they call a troll, don't feed it.

 

[Mass Effect]

I literally quoted you and took the interpretations at the most basic level, there was no mischaracterization. Your own arguments were contradictory. If you want to call it "narrowing the goalposts" instead of moving them, fine, but the actual words you wrote and the arguments formed by them changed and became much more specific which completely changed the nature of the conversation. If you had spoken more clearly from the start, none of this would be an issue and half of this thread wouldn't even exist.

I agree that context matters and that "freak of nature" when referring to someone's looks, especially skin color, pretty much always has negative connotations. I think an important distinction that is the source of ongoing debate is the idea of connotations vs. intent. Neither are simple black and white and I think is the source of a lot of the contention in these situations. I'd say minimally relevant in this particular situation, but still worth considering when judging stuff like this.

My very first post in this thread specifically says "freak of nature" should not be applied to one's looks. Every single post after that mentioned looks and/or skin color. That is not moving the goalpost in any way. The goalpost since post 1 was always on this particular context. The only post that even could have been objectionable is when I separated "freak" from "freak of nature" which I already said I shouldn't have done in my prior post.

It is. Your opinion that a word cannot be used in an endearing way regardless of how society views the word/phrase is your own belief. Generalizing and applying your own belief to situations as the "correct" approach regardless of others' views and perceptions is the definition of egocentrism.

It isn't my "belief" that slut is a negative word. It's a fact that the definition of the word and the origin/history of the word is negative.

I don't think anyone here (or really any logical person) would argue that 'slut' is not a negative word. Saying it's a negative word and saying that there is no situation where it can be used or perceived in a positive manner are very different statements and the source of a lot of contention with your arguments.

I am voicing my opinion that there is no situation in which it can be used in a positive way, and this is particularly true when used by a professional on his "Dr" Twitter account. Over and out. You can call that egocentrism if you like, but then you'd have to apply it to all words in which there is a basic societal understanding that it has no place in professional discourse, including the n word and the c word.

 

[Old&InTheWay]

This is a ridiculous discussion that makes this place less interesting/useful.

 

[whopper]

A Racist Tweet by Columbia Psychiatry Chair Ripples Through New York’s Elite Medical Circles

Dr. Jeffrey Lieberman was suspended from the Department of Psychiatry at Columbia and asked to resign from the New York State Psychiatric Institute. Some say the reckoning is just beginning.

www.thecity.nyc

The above is an article where they do cite that Lieberman's suspension was possibly due to more than just the tweet and that there's been more going on at Columbia than simply the tweet.

A problem with the article (and that's not saying it's not true-I really don't know) is all of the accusations against Lieberman are hearsay. That's not to say it isn't true. Hearsay sometimes is true but we as readers can't tell if it is or not, which is why it's called hearsay. At least some of the negative comments are made by people who were willing to attach their names to it adding some credibility but those same people, we really don't know how much they really know about the doctor.

E.g. Elle Lett, this person has several impressive credentials, none of which are at Columbia. So how well does Elle Lett actually know Lieberman? I don't know. Just cause this person has a blog doesn't make this person an authority on this situation. It seems to me I'm as much an expert on Lieberman as is this Dr. Lett. I don't even know if Lett even spent over 30 seconds talking to Lieberman.

An anonymous source complains that if you wrote a grant Lieberman has to write a letter of support. Whoa, this person's upset cause Lieberman's got to do his job as the head of the department? What's wrong with that? So if I'm part of an institution where there's rules saying the chair has to do something, that's grounds to condemn that person?

Bandy Lee, yes that Bandy Lee, the same psychiatrist who violated the Goldwater Rule is cited in the article attacking Lieberman but saying nothing enough to give me an objective frame. She says he barged into a lecture? What does she mean by that? (Like did he interrupt the lecture or just walk in? Barge is a very non-descript term that could be misleading). She's long criticized Lieberman for endorsing the Goldwater Rule when she claimed to know more about Trump than others because she's a psychiatrist, a rule that existed long before she's been a psychiatrist.

But Bandy Lee in no where in the above opinion-piece gives fairness to Lieberman who has used the same rule against those attacking Biden and Obama simply and transparently to score political points.

What It Took for a Fox News Psychiatrist to Finally Lose His License (Published 2019)

Keith Ablow was a popular fixture on the cable channel until 2017, and a high-profile therapist. He left a trail of vulnerable female patients who claim he abused them.

www.nytimes.com

Medical Experts Condemn Fox's Keith Ablow: "Shameful" And "Unfortunate That He Is Given A Platform"

www.mediamatters.org

Fox’s Keith Ablow Doubles Down on Psychoanalyzing Obama as a ‘Narcissist’

Dr. Keith Ablow, a regular on Fox News, today defended himself against criticisms from people who think his psychoanalysis of President Obama is about narcissistic self-promotion instead of sound science.

www.mediaite.com

Dr. Jeffrey Lieberman, the chairman of psychiatry at Columbia University's College of Physicians and Surgeons and past president of the American Psychiatric Association (APA), told the AP that “it is shameful and unfortunate that he is given a platform by Fox News or any other media organization,” adding that “he is a narcissistic self-promoter of limited and dubious expertise.”

Wait, so he uses the rule fairly on any political side of the aisle, including those who violated the rule against Biden and Obama, but despite this per Lee he's Trump's accomplice? And then connects dots linking Trump to Lieberman because Lieberman was once a President of the APA (which receives federal funds) and Trump was the president so they're in a planned conspiracy? Seriously, WTF? (And in her next blog, she writes that that the Goldwater Rule is an example of "White Supremacy" and "Male Superiority" again connecting dots that don't prove her hypothesis. such as branding people guilty by association.)

On a side note this is the exact reason why there is a Goldwater Rule. So that we psychiatrists don't get the idea that we have entitlement to character-destroy people simply because we're psychiatrists. The science isn't well established enough to do so, the ethics don't allow for it, and the history of what we've done isn't on our side in that regard.

No where in this thread-even the people who disagree in their arguments have I seen anyone jump on a high horse and claim they're better than anyone else or their opinion is because they're a psychiatrist, and obviously they're debating another psychiatrist which kind of cancels it out but it clarifies we don't have special powers nor the moral/ethical/scientific high-ground to do so.

 

[WisNeuro]

Wait so he uses the rule fairly on any political side of the aisle, including those who violated the rule against Biden and Obama, but despite this per Lee he's Trump's accomplice? And then connects dots linking Trump to Lieberman because Lieberman was once a President of the APA (which receives federal funds) and Trump was the president so they're in a planned conspiracy WTF? (And in her next blog, she writes that that the Goldwater Rule is an example of "White Supremacy" and "Male Superiority" connecting dots that don't prove her hypothesis.)

I'm genuinely interested, in a nutshell, what are the arguments for this assertion? It's like calling common sense ethical guidelines a product of the KKK or the patriarchy. Can I just start saying that it's ok to sleep with my patients stating that the APA ethics code is a product of nazism?

 

[Mass Effect]

A Racist Tweet by Columbia Psychiatry Chair Ripples Through New York’s Elite Medical Circles

Dr. Jeffrey Lieberman was suspended from the Department of Psychiatry at Columbia and asked to resign from the New York State Psychiatric Institute. Some say the reckoning is just beginning.

www.thecity.nyc

The above is an article where they do cite that Lieberman's suspension was possibly due to more than just the tweet and that there's been more going on at Columbia than simply the tweet.

A problem with the article (and that's not saying it's not true-I really don't know) is all of the accusations against Lieberman are hearsay. That's not to say it isn't true. Hearsay sometimes is true but we as readers can't tell if it is or not, which is why it's called hearsay. At least some of the negative comments are made by people who were willing to attach their names to it adding some credibility but those same people, we really don't know how much they really know about the doctor.

E.g. Elle Lett, this person has several impressive credentials, none of which are at Columbia. So how well does Elle Lett actually know Lieberman? I don't know. Just cause this person has a blog doesn't make this person an authority on this situation. It seems to me I'm as much an expert on Lieberman as is this Dr. Lett. I don't even know if Lett even spent over 30 seconds talking to Lieberman.

An anonymous source complains that if you wrote a grant Lieberman has to write a letter of support. Whoa, this person's upset cause Lieberman's got to do his job as the head of the department? What's wrong with that? So if I'm part of an institution where there's rules saying the chair has to do something, that's grounds to condemn that person?

Bandy Lee, yes that Bandy Lee, the same psychiatrist who violated the Goldwater Rule is cited in the article attacking Lieberman but saying nothing enough to give me an objective frame. She says he barged into a lecture? What does she mean by that? (Like did he interrupt the lecture or just walk in? Barge is a very non-descript term that could be misleading). She's long criticized Lieberman for endorsing the Goldwater Rule when she claimed to know more about Trump than others because she's a psychiatrist, a rule that existed long before she's been a psychiatrist.

But Bandy Lee in no where in the above opinion-piece gives fairness to Lieberman who has used the same rule against those attacking Biden and Obama simply and transparently to score political points.

What It Took for a Fox News Psychiatrist to Finally Lose His License (Published 2019)

Keith Ablow was a popular fixture on the cable channel until 2017, and a high-profile therapist. He left a trail of vulnerable female patients who claim he abused them.

www.nytimes.com

Medical Experts Condemn Fox's Keith Ablow: "Shameful" And "Unfortunate That He Is Given A Platform"

www.mediamatters.org

Fox’s Keith Ablow Doubles Down on Psychoanalyzing Obama as a ‘Narcissist’

Dr. Keith Ablow, a regular on Fox News, today defended himself against criticisms from people who think his psychoanalysis of President Obama is about narcissistic self-promotion instead of sound science.

www.mediaite.com

Wait, so he uses the rule fairly on any political side of the aisle, including those who violated the rule against Biden and Obama, but despite this per Lee he's Trump's accomplice? And then connects dots linking Trump to Lieberman because Lieberman was once a President of the APA (which receives federal funds) and Trump was the president so they're in a planned conspiracy? Seriously, WTF? (And in her next blog, she writes that that the Goldwater Rule is an example of "White Supremacy" and "Male Superiority" again connecting dots that don't prove her hypothesis. such as branding people guilty by association.)

On a side note this is the exact reason why there is a Goldwater Rule. So that we psychiatrists don't get the idea that we have entitlement to character-destroy people simply because we're psychiatrists. The science isn't well established enough to do so, the ethics don't allow for it, and the history of what we've done isn't on our side in that regard.

No where in this thread-even the people who disagree in their arguments have I seen anyone jump on a high horse and claim they're better than anyone else or their opinion is because they're a psychiatrist, and obviously they're debating another psychiatrist which kind of cancels it out but it clarifies we don't have special powers nor the moral/ethical/scientific high-ground to do so.

Not for nothing, but if Lieberman called Ablow a narcassist, isn't he also violating Goldwater? I don't really understand the point you're making by bringing Lee, Goldwater and political aisles into it.

 

[whopper]

Bandy Lee writes that Lieberman is Trump's accomplice based on dots that don't really connect the two, and as I mentioned Lieberman has endorsed the Goldwater Rule fairly across anyone who violated it whether it be against Trump, Biden or Obama.

She then connects dots in her next blog that not only don't make sense, but are objectively provable as lies.

One does not have to hypothesize: President Barack Obama was repeatedly described as a “narcissist” by right-wing psychiatrists during his tenure, and the APA did not once bring up “the Goldwater rule.”

Lieberman on more than one occasion, as I mentioned above, with objective proof, condemned Keith Ablow for psychoanalyzing Obama and violating the Goldwater Rule.

Lee goes from A to B to C then making conclusion G without being able to link E or F, and then throwing in things that are provably false.

Not for nothing, but if Lieberman called Ablow a narcassist, isn't he also violating Goldwater?

You can make that argument. I think Lieberman's point what Ablow was violating Goldwater, but to your comment you could say he could've done so in a more limited manner that didn't leave him open to your criticism.

Point is the political spin-off BS. We psychiatrists are not immune to it. Throwing in another tangent-Al Franken is forced to leave the Senate and almost every Democrat who called on his removal from the Senate admitted to later regretting taking such a hot-head stance. IT's going on here. It happened with Lee and to quote her own blog, she said she still has no understanding why the Goldwater Rule has any merit while she goes off making conspiracy theories without any objective proof.

 

[Mass Effect]

Bandy Lee writes that Lieberman is Trump's accomplice based on dots that don't really connect the two, and as I mentioned Lieberman has endorsed the Goldwater Rule fairly across anyone who violated it whether it be against Trump, Biden or Obama.

She then connects dots in her next blog that not only don't make sense, but are objectively provable as lies.



Lieberman on more than one occasion, as I mentioned above, with objective proof, condemned Keith Ablow for psychoanalyzing Obama and violating the Goldwater Rule.

Lee goes from A to B to C then making conclusion G without being able to link E or F, and then throwing in things that are provably false.


You can make that argument. I think Lieberman's point what Ablow was violating Goldwater, but to your comment you could say he could've done so in a more limited manner that didn't leave him open to your criticism.

Point is the political spin-off BS. We psychiatrists are not immune to it. Throwing in another tangent-Al Franken is forced to leave the Senate and almost every Democrat who called on his removal from the Senate admitted to later regretting taking such a hot-head stance. IT's going on here. It happened with Lee and to quote her own blog, she said she still has no understanding why the Goldwater Rule has any merit while she goes off making conspiracy theories without any objective proof.

I mean, Goldwater is controversial in psychiatric circles, beyond politics and beyond Bandy Lee whom I've never met and don't give a **** about. But it's both poor form and a spectacular example of how "easy" it is to violate Goldwater that in condemning Ablow for violating Goldwater among other things, Lieberman also violated Goldwater which makes me think Goldwater maybe should be re-examined though I accept that will never happen.

I still don't think it's related to Lieberman's latest except that Lee has now weighed in and has a history of criticizing the guy. I expect Lee will weigh in whenever one of these guys is in trouble for something since they all jumped on the anti-Lee bandwagon when she was in the fire.

But anyway, I'd be curious what Lieberman's other transgressions are. I don't blame Columbia for distancing itself.

 

[whopper]

Said this before. Anyone wants Lieberman out I get it, and I respect it if the person throwing the stones are innocent at least in the racism department. His comments were stupid. I'm not neutral. I think he deserves to get punished and criticized, just that I am still very impressed with his overall contributions to the field and I question if getting rid of him is going to far. Almost everyone I've seen has some bad side of them that shouldn't unilaterally condemn them from making further contributions to society. To that end I also question those that are jumping on the high horse and wanting to cast stones as if they're completely innocent. Yeah I think he made a stupid comment. Someone putting me under the microscope will find I made a stupid comment too at some time. He deserves punishment just as I'd deserve punishment cause it'll make us and society better, but let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Quoting another psychiatrist and I don't have the exact line, but I'm paraphrasing to my fallible ability, "I don't have to be a psychiatrist to say anything about Trump. The proof is there in black and white where a layman can see it. So I'm not violating the Goldwater rule." There was no need for a psychiatrist to take a marketable, self-promoting, talking-head on various talk-shows, self-declared expert stance on it when she offered no objective proof, or evidenced based idea that met the Daubert Standard. And quite the contrary she has a provable history of connecting unconnectable dots and coming up with conclusions that are on par with whacko conspiracy theories.

I mean, SERIOUSLY, the Goldwater Rule and the APA are part of a White Supremacist conspiracy? WTF? I was able to prove her blog had lies in it based on 5 minutes of looking into her assertions. I'm wondering what kind of forensic psychiatrist she is putting up public comments that are so easily provably wrong.

If Columbia wants to get rid of someone for writing something inappropriate- you got your next target-Bandy Lee. She's allegedly faculty now at Columbia.

 

[whopper]

Not for nothing, but if Lieberman called Ablow a narcassist, isn't he also violating Goldwater?

Adding to what I wrote above and changing my opinion, Lieberman doesn't claim to make this assertion because he has psychoanalytic ability. Narcissism doesn't require someone be a professional to come to the conclusion. E.g. I don't like someone and call that person whatever derogatory term. That's not a Goldwater Rule violation. It's a violation if I add that because I'm a psychiatrist my opinion must be taken with more validity than a laymen and that this was based on professional level evaluation.

One could, however, could argue as I did above it would've been cleaner had he not attached the term.

 

[Mass Effect]

Said this before. Anyone wants Lieberman out I get it, and I respect it if the person throwing the stones are innocent at least in the racism department. His comments were stupid. I'm not neutral. I think he deserves to get punished and criticized, just that I am still very impressed with his overall contributions to the field and I question if getting rid of him is going to far. Almost everyone I've seen has some bad side of them that shouldn't unilaterally condemn them from making further contributions to society. To that end I also question those that are jumping on the high horse and wanting to cast stones as if they're completely innocent. Yeah I think he made a stupid comment. Someone putting me under the microscope will find I made a stupid comment too at some time. He deserves punishment just as I'd deserve punishment cause it'll make us and society better, but let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Quoting another psychiatrist and I don't have the exact line, but I'm paraphrasing to my fallible ability, "I don't have to be a psychiatrist to say anything about Trump. The proof is there in black and white where a layman can see it. So I'm not violating the Goldwater rule." There was no need for a psychiatrist to take a marketable, self-promoting, talking-head on various talk-shows, self-declared expert stance on it when she offered no objective proof, or evidenced based idea that met the Daubert Standard. And quite the contrary she has a provable history of connecting unconnectable dots and coming up with conclusions that are on par with whacko conspiracy theories.

I mean, SERIOUSLY, the Goldwater Rule and the APA are part of a White Supremacist conspiracy? WTF? I was able to prove her blog had lies in it based on 5 minutes of looking into her assertions. I'm wondering what kind of forensic psychiatrist she is putting up public comments that are so easily provably wrong.

If Columbia wants to get rid of someone for writing something inappropriate- you got your next target-Bandy Lee. She's allegedly faculty now at Columbia.

I have a controversial take on cancel culture that most don't agree with, but I think institutions sometimes need to distance themselves from controversial people to protect their reputation. In cases like this, the separation doesn't mean Lieberman can't continue to contribute to the field if he wants to. It just means he won't do it with Chair of Psychiatry at Columbia behind his name.

Adding to what I wrote above and changing my opinion, Lieberman doesn't claim to make this assertion because he has psychoanalytic ability. Narcissism doesn't require someone be a professional to come to the conclusion. E.g. I don't like someone and call that person whatever derogatory term. That's not a Goldwater Rule violation. It's a violation if I add that because I'm a psychiatrist my opinion must be taken with more validity than a laymen and that this was based on professional level evaluation.

I think that's a bit of a reach and exactly why Goldwater should be re-examined. He didn't have to say "I'm a psychiatrist" because his title is prominently displayed in the quote and on screen. So you have a psychiatrist calling someone a derogatory term that just so happens to appear in the Bible of psychiatric diagnoses while calling out a psychiatrist for calling someone else a term that also appears in the book. Complicated, but I think Lieberman is just as guilty as Ablow.

 

[whopper]

but I think Lieberman is just as guilty as Ablow.

Fair. There's the type of disagreement where I cannot say it's wrong because all of it's tenets are based on valid foundations. It certainly wasn't the sharpest thing for Lieberman to say although I back that he was doing the right thing criticizing Ablow (and Bandy Lee). The Columbia thing is exactly why I find it inappropriate that they looked the other way with Oz-but I'm just repeating myself and kicking the dead horse.

I'm actually open to Goldwater being upgraded to something where a professional can say something but the comment has to be based on something substantive that meets a Daubert standard but it has to be in the public interest. E.g. let's say a guy who is my patient is an alcoholic and one of the guys who turns the nuclear keys. Or a on the Joint Chiefs of Staff has early stage dementia.

But in the above cases I can bring up information that meets a Daubert standard such as good neuropsych testing, an MRI, a MOCA test, etc.

Bandy Lee's comments were really nothing more than someone venomously attacking anyone that disagreed with her and then attaching a very drama-catching label such as "White Supremacist" and to falsely make it sound valid connect dots that have any real connection, and then embellishing the venom with the "I'm a forensic psychiatrist at an Ivy League so you have to take me seriously" brand. I don't see much difference with what she's publicly been doing vs DC Comics G Gordon Godfrey.

 

[HowlPrenderghast]

Can't believe I just read the use of term "slut" as a term of endearment in a psychiatry subforum. lmao.

 

[Stagg737]

Can't believe I just read the use of term "slut" as a term of endearment in a psychiatry subforum. lmao.

Why? Outside of certain sub-cultures psych is probably the most likely place you’d hear something so seemingly ridiculous….

 

[WisNeuro]

Why? Outside of certain sub-cultures psych is probably the most likely place you’d hear something so seemingly ridiculous….

Not sure why this is such a foreign concept. Slurs such as the n-word, queer, etc was reclaimed in certain contexts, and that is fairly widely accepted. People love to be willfully ignorant and dismissive of others.

 

[Mass Effect]

Not sure why this is such a foreign concept. Slurs such as the n-word, queer, etc was reclaimed in certain contexts, and that is fairly widely accepted. People love to be willfully ignorant and dismissive of others.

I don't think it's either ignorant or dismissive of others to voice your opinion that the word has no place in professional discourse. Many would say the same about the n-word and I don't feel it would be my place to say to them that their opinion on the level of offensiveness of that word is wrong.

 

[Mass Effect]

Fair. There's the type of disagreement where I cannot say it's wrong because all of it's tenets are based on valid foundations. It certainly wasn't the sharpest thing for Lieberman to say although I back that he was doing the right thing criticizing Ablow (and Bandy Lee). The Columbia thing is exactly why I find it inappropriate that they looked the other way with Oz-but I'm just repeating myself and kicking the dead horse.

I'm actually open to Goldwater being upgraded to something where a professional can say something but the comment has to be based on something substantive that meets a Daubert standard but it has to be in the public interest. E.g. let's say a guy who is my patient is an alcoholic and one of the guys who turns the nuclear keys. Or a on the Joint Chiefs of Staff has early stage dementia.

But in the above cases I can bring up information that meets a Daubert standard such as good neuropsych testing, an MRI, a MOCA test, etc.

Bandy Lee's comments were really nothing more than someone venomously attacking anyone that disagreed with her and then attaching a very drama-catching label such as "White Supremacist" and to falsely make it sound valid connect dots that have any real connection, and then embellishing the venom with the "I'm a forensic psychiatrist at an Ivy League so you have to take me seriously" brand. I don't see much difference with what she's publicly been doing vs DC Comics G Gordon Godfrey.

I think you're in dangerous territory when you're trying to so broadly restrict what others say based on ethical principles the field isn't even in agreement on. Lee's institutions can choose to distance themselves from her, as Lieberman's did with him. But I don't think that as a profession, we should all be required to subscribe to some principle that the APA decided was good. Anecdotally, I find the people most vehemently arguing for Goldwater are those most likely to break it as in the above example with Lieberman and Ablow.

Heard a resident the other day call another resident a borderline after a heated disagreement about call schedules. I don't know what was said before or after and I didn't get involved except to wonder if the resident doing the name-calling should be in trouble for escalating the conflict or for "breaking Goldwater".

 

[nexus73]

I don't think it's either ignorant or dismissive of others to voice your opinion that the word has no place in professional discourse. Many would say the same about the n-word and I don't feel it would be my place to say to them that their opinion on the level of offensiveness of that word is wrong.

Yes some things should absolutely be off limits for discourse. We should all work to only engage in “right speech”.

 

[WisNeuro]

I don't think it's either ignorant or dismissive of others to voice your opinion that the word has no place in professional discourse. Many would say the same about the n-word and I don't feel it would be my place to say to them that their opinion on the level of offensiveness of that word is wrong.

The ignorant part is being unaware that these once slurs have been reclaimed and are used with positive connotations in certain contexts by a good number of people. The dismissive part is implying that they are childish or stupid for doing so.