Med school apologizes to students "triggered" by a test question

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Been threatened to be "canceled" because I made a comment suggesting people respect the wishes of those who do not wish to protest, especially if they are living with the elderly, because the pandemic isn't gone lol.

Oh yeah, I forgot about the guy I saw get ripped to shreds for suggesting that the pandemic is way more likely to kill a lot of black people than a cop, so maybe we should make sure the protests are all safe with masks and distancing, etc.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[frenchyn]

So you're talking about agitated withdrawal. And yes, they do often have to intubate because of the meds, but they're not intubating to keep you safe. They're giving the drugs to keep the patient (and everyone else) safe and the drugs then necessitate intubation. The way you worded it is very misleading and not accurate.
[/QUOTE]

Not just withdraw but also those who are as high as a kite lol...such as bath salt...they can be very competitive...the dude pulled an IO out of his leg

Intubation is for patients and everyone else including me lol...this was me working at bed side before medical school. I should be safe too lol

 

[Mass Effect]

Right except saying people should stop rioting isn’t something that would have cost anyone their job until recently. That is relatively new.

There are plenty of people who've said this without backlash, myself included, publicly. Anyone who has lost their job for saying this, I would question how they said it and what exactly they said.

 

[Mass Effect]

Intubation is for patients and everyone else including me lol...this was me working at bed side before medical school. I should be safe too lol

No, it isn't. Intubating a patient because he's violent and you can't deal with it is malpractice.

 

[Lawpy]

I'm confused what we're talking about now

 

[frenchyn]

No, it isn't. Intubating a patient because he's violent and you can't deal with it is malpractice.

So if he pull out his IO...high as a kite...6 securities had to hold him down to restraints with four points leather restraints...still hitting the bed and rails...what would do you? Let him walk out of the hospital high, unsafe to himself and incapable of making decision or keep him, continue to put him and others in danger? You work w these patients before lol? Either way you will get sue worse than intubating and sedating the patient until the drug wear off...the only and last option.

 

[Mass Effect]

So if he pull out his IO...high as a kite...6 securities had to hold him down to restraints with four points leather restraints...still hitting the bed and rails...what would do you? Let him walk out of the hospital high, unsafe to himself and incapable of making decision or keep him, continue to put him and others in danger? You work w these patients before lol? Either way you will get sue worse than intubating and sedating the patient until the drug wear off...the only and last option.

Dude, I'm a psychiatrist. Have I worked with these people before? These people are all I work with. You don't intubate to keep staff safe. You MEDICATE to keep staff safe and if the medication then necessitates intubation, then you intubate. Words matter and how you choose to phrase this will bite you in the ass if you don't learn what's actually happening.

 

[frenchyn]

Dude, I'm a psychiatrist. Have I worked with these people before? These people are all I work with. You don't intubate to keep staff safe. You MEDICATE to keep staff safe and if the medication then necessitates intubation, then you intubate. Words matter and how you choose to phrase this will bite you in the ass if you don't learn what's actually happening

You think you can talk to a patient who max out on propofol fent versed precedex and Valium Q1 and is still agitated lol? We actually have toxicology specialist so if they have to intubate these patients trust me it is not a place for a psych to talk lol. Make sure you are also the one who hold the patients down because no one wants to do that while you talk to these patients There are those who you can talk to and those who you can’t...

 

[Mass Effect]

You think you can talk to a patient who max out on propofol fent versed precedex and Valium Q1 and is still agitated lol? We actually have toxicology specialist so if they have to intubate these patients trust me it is not a place for a psych to talk lol. Make sure you are also the one who hold the patients down because no one wants to do that while you talk to these patients There are those who you can talk to and those who you can’t...

Wow.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

There are plenty of people who've said this without backlash, myself included, publicly. Anyone who has lost their job for saying this, I would question how they said it and what exactly they said.

That’s not really a logical argument. It is obviously happening since multiple people here have experienced it, myself included. I obviously didn’t lose my job, but I was called racist and insulted several times for extremely benign comments.

If someone loses their job, I am also curious how they worded it but I also would not be surprised if it was innocuous given the current climate.

 

[7331poas]

Dude, I'm a psychiatrist. Have I worked with these people before? These people are all I work with. You don't intubate to keep staff safe. You MEDICATE to keep staff safe and if the medication then necessitates intubation, then you intubate. Words matter and how you choose to phrase this will bite you in the ass if you don't learn what's actually happening.

 

[Mass Effect]

That’s not really a logical argument. It is obviously happening since multiple people here have experienced it, myself included. I obviously didn’t lose my job, but I was called racist and insulted several times for extremely benign comments.

If someone loses their job, I am also curious how they worded it but I also would not be surprised if it was innocuous given the current climate.

I was talking about job backlash, not just random people. Of course random people are going to have opinions and say so, but I have yet to meet someone/see someone who said something benign and got in trouble at work or lost their job over it. I have a feeling a lot of people who do end up in trouble at work think they said something benign when in reality what they said was incredibly offensive (and I saw this happen 2 weeks ago on social media). It's kind of like when a resident posts they were fired for doing absolutely nothing and then the truth comes out.

 

[deleted480308]

I was talking about job backlash, not just random people. Of course random people are going to have opinions and say so, but I have yet to meet someone/see someone who said something benign and got in trouble at work or lost their job over it. I have a feeling a lot of people who do end up in trouble at work think they said something benign when in reality what they said was incredibly offensive (and I saw this happen 2 weeks ago on social media). It's kind of like when a resident posts they were fired for doing absolutely nothing and then the truth comes out.

Ok, the elementary principal story noted in this thread. Fired. Why?

 

[Damson]

In the name of free speech, I'd like business owners to protect employees' rights to voice controversial, even "incredibly offensive" opinions, by not punishing or firing them. This is what we need, but rarely what happens. If you're detrimental to the cash flow, you're out.

Outrage does not actually imbue virtue.

 

[Iz_FtB]

In the name of free speech, I'd like business owners to protect employees' rights to voice controversial, even "incredibly offensive" opinions, by not punishing or firing them. This is what we need, but rarely what happens. If you're detrimental to the cash flow, you're out.

Outrage does not imbue virtue.

If you come to work rocking a swastika and slinging racial epithets, no one is going to cry over you getting canned.

This isn't at all what's under discussion here.

 

[Mass Effect]

Ok, the elementary principal story noted in this thread. Fired. Why?

Because what she posted was, in fact, tone deaf and offensive. I have no doubt why she lost her job.

 

[Damson]

If you come to work rocking a swastika and slinging racial epithets, no one is going to cry over you getting canned.

This isn't at all what's under discussion here.

I'm not directly addressing what's being discussed between those two.

There's a difference between reasonable yet possibly offensive opinions and symbols of illogical hatred and mass genocide.

 

[Mass Effect]

I'm not directly addressing what's being discussed between those two.

There's a difference between reasonable yet possibly offensive opinions and symbols of illogical hatred and mass genocide.

And employers get to decide where that line is. All companies have social media policies and most of these people who get in trouble for social media posts are in violation of it.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Because what she posted was, in fact, tone deaf and offensive. I have no doubt why she lost her job.

What was offensive about it? I didn’t see the actual posts.

 

[Leon'sMom]

Yup. I've noticed among my own students, and on SDN as well, the stifling mentality of "most students did not seem personally offended by it, but rather were worried that others were offended.

All we end up doing is prolonging people's childhoods.

BUT, on there other hand, put yourself into the shoes of a student of color. How do you think they might feel.

So, unfortunate timing for a test question.

Regarding the bolded above...

The article states: "The exam question was as follows: "A patient who missed dialysis suddenly becomes pale, diaphoretic, and screams, 'I can't breathe!' You glance at the monitor and notice the following rhythm. You are unable to palpate a pulse and initiate immediate CPR. The most appropriate next step in therapy is…"

The medical students were taking an exam in which they were given a clinical scenario with objective and subjective data with which to make a clinical assessment. The students were asked to answer with the most clinically appropriate action to be taken next. There was nothing wrong with the question. It was a medical question from a medical school professor. There should have been no apology because there was nothing wrong with the question. Context is key.

When you are taking a med school exam, you should be focused on the presentation of objective and subjective data and on learning how to medically treat a patient, because when you are a doctor you will be focusing on the presentation of objective and subjective data to care for a patient. Practicing medicine is not about how you emotionally feel about the medical symptoms or subjective descriptors that a patient gives. You must be simultaneously vested in improving/saving a life and maintaining a level of emotional detachment that allows for that care.

The last thing that the medical profession needs are doctors who cannot give their focus wholly to their patients' care. How you personally feel about a patient should never impact your care. You are to treat all patients equally regardless of your personal values and feelings (and how they either align with or conflict with your patient's). In order to function in high stress environments in which clear thinking and quick decision-making are required, doctors must be emotionally stable. If they have suffered past traumas themselves, they need to heal thyself first before considering healing others. I'm certainly not making light of any past traumas. A lot of people have gone through a lot of very unpleasant things in their lives. I am just saying that they must seek counseling and develop strategies to cope with any inflammatory (triggering) situations. A triggered doctor is a malfunctioning doctor.

I actually think that the medical professor in this article missed a great teachable moment. Instead of reflecting on the purpose of the question in the training of his students, he seems to have had the knee-jerk reaction to apologize for any offense taken. Even when proper context would dictate that offense is not warranted. Instead of reminding his students of what his job is (to clinically train them) and what their future jobs will require of them, he let both himself and the student off the hook. His apology did nothing to help the student or the profession. His apology only served as a shield to the angry mob that may or may not be coming for him over this perceived gaff. Unfortunately, academia has become a mob-mentality- ruled environment in which administrators will fire professors if they do not toe the established PC line. Many examples of this can be found. The professor in this article probably felt an apology was the self-preserving action to take. The apology, however, was the wrong thing to do on many levels. In fact, he only reinforced the submissive stance of the faculty, which will just continue to worsen and drift further from any semblance of common sense, context, and the purpose of medical education.

 

[Mass Effect]

What was offensive about it? I didn’t see the actual posts.

You don't go into this particular situation that has been bubbling to the surface for years (race relations and law enforcement) and finally exploded and speak up for law enforcement while the fire is still raging. She said she wants to get behind BLM, but what about law enforcement or all the other people we should advocate for? As a principal, she should have read the room. What she said comes across as minimizing what the issue is truly about. It's tone deaf and at this particular time, it's offensive.

 

[Damson]

Because what she posted was, in fact, tone deaf and offensive. I have no doubt why she lost her job.

And employers get to decide where that line is. All companies have social media policies and most of these people who get in trouble for social media posts are in violation of it.

We know that the school board / employers have the right to draw that line and fire her. We're saying that they shouldn't have.

To you, it is tone deaf and offensive because it evoked cognitive dissonance upon your reading of an opposing viewpoint. Your reaction is that she should be and was rightly fired.

To another, it evokes the same dissonance, but instead assesses the post as reasonable, and sheds a unique, important insight.

Opposing viewpoints have to be heard regardless of what you make of it. Waving the club of personal harm when someone makes their dissent known to you, is fascism. Unless one is uttering senseless hatred and violence, do not raise that club to silence someone.

 

[Lawpy]

In the name of free speech, I'd like business owners to protect employees' rights to voice controversial, even "incredibly offensive" opinions, by not punishing or firing them. This is what we need, but rarely what happens. If you're detrimental to the cash flow, you're out.

Outrage does not actually imbue virtue.

Why are you telling business owners what to do? They care more about the public image and reputation of their company, so they can fire employees making offensive comments if they want.

 

[Mass Effect]

We know that the school board / employers have the right to draw that line and fire her. We're saying that they shouldn't have.

To you, it is tone deaf and offensive because it evoked cognitive dissonance upon your reading of an opposing viewpoint. Your reaction is that she should be and was rightly fired.

To another, it evokes the same dissonance, but the instead assesses the post as reasonable, and sheds a unique, important insight.

Opposing viewpoints have to be heard regardless of what you make of it. Waving the club of personal harm when someone makes their dissent known to you, is fascism. Unless one is uttering senseless hatred and violence, do not raise that club to silence someone.

Lots of assumptions in your post and my assumption is that you'll likely be surprised to learn you're wrong. It isn't offensive because it's an opposing viewpoint. There are plenty of things that are said/done on the other side that are just as offensive to me, including the rioting. The point is, she's a principal. If she wants to be someone anonymous on SM and say what she wants, that's fine, but when she's on SM as herself, she needs to read the room. That post likely would have gotten most employees with powerful jobs in hot water.

I'd also like to add that her opposing viewpoint was heard, but I have every right to have an opinion of it and respond to it, as does her employer.

And for the record, I think the med school test question was perfectly fine.

 

[Lawpy]

Also is it hard for people to be professional and not make dumb, offensive comments about others in workplace settings? People complain about cancel culture and social media getting toxic, but the deeper problem lies in continued structural racism, sexism, homophobia and other forms of discrimination in US. And i can safely say that the discrimination these groups of people face regularly is far far far worse than whatever cancel culture is doing.

 

[bananafish94]

@bananafish94 your argument that because it's a sensitive career + the nation is heated about it, she should keep her "controversial" opinions private

My view is that the issue isn't whether or not it's controversial. Tons of things are controversial. I could make a Facebook post that says we should abolish taxes and privatize the whole country - controversial to be sure, but that's not going to get anyone fired. What it comes down to for me is that this isn't some nebulous, theoretical thing. It's a very real danger and fear that unfortunately exists for a specific community. Black friends and acquaintances of mine have independently described getting pulled over by police as one of the scariest moments of their lives. And of course we have all heard the stories and seen the data. And now, finally, the whole country is actually talking and maybe even addressing this issue but the principal takes this opportunity to say "what about the law enforcement?" So I'm not going to put words in anybody's mouths or act like I know anything about this school or community but I personally find that to be a very insulting, ignorant comment that calls into question whether or not she is an advocate for her students.

Last year, a decade ago, two decades ago - whatever point in time we return to, there will always be heated discourse over some social issue. Yet, controversial or not, anytime one speaks publicly about something important, someone's feelings WILL be hurt anyway. Even statements like "you are responsible for your actions" will offend someone. There's no way to avoid this. It's important we open our minds and ears to contrary viewpoints in order for us as a society to discover the truth. And it is precisely in the middle of George Floyd protests that someone who disagrees with the ideologies espoused by BLM (abolish the police department) to speak up, so that we can find out whether or not we're supporting the right cause.

I think you and I might be talking past each other. I'm not saying anything about offending people or hurting feelings. I mean, I think we should try and be mindful of trying not to offend people purposefully, but this isn't about hurt feelings. It's about when people say things that cause people to legitimately question their motivations and if their views are compatible with a certain position.

I was watching a video a while back by Chubbyemu on yt. He cited an example off the top of his head in order to support the main point he was making, but it made me feel ****ty personally for a moment because it was exactly something I did. I let my offense fade and concentrated on his lecture, because I know that 1. he didn't mean to offend me 2. i'm here to listen and think, not to take everything personally.

It's important to be mentally flexible. No matter how correct I think I am, it's still important that I hear what someone who disagrees has to say, no matter who you are or what occupation you have. Because in anything I believe with certainty, I can certainly be wrong about it. @bananafish94 Sensitive career, hurt feelings, heated nation...are counterproductive, unacceptable reasons to silence anyone. Your comments show us that you are a kind, empathetic person, which we appreciate. But it is not always right nor feasible to avoid offense. Do not cross the line into "you hurt our feelings with your opinions? it's okay for us to intentionally sabotage your life."

As above. I'm really not talking about offending people or hurt feelings.

No. If you've been doing the job just fine, you can do the job.

I can't agree with this. Let's take it to an extreme example and say that someone in an important, public job (teacher, police officer, local politician, doctor, nurse, etc.) was a member of a white supremacist organization. Do you really want this person doing that job, just because nothing bad has happened yet? Do you really have confidence that they can perform their job without bias or discrimination? I certainly would not want that person in the job.

 

[Mass Effect]

My view is that the issue isn't whether or not it's controversial. Tons of things are controversial. I could make a Facebook post that says we should abolish taxes and privatize the whole country - controversial to be sure, but that's not going to get anyone fired. What it comes down to for me is that this isn't some nebulous, theoretical thing. It's a very real danger and fear that unfortunately exists for a specific community. Black friends and acquaintances of mine have independently described getting pulled over by police as one of the scariest moments of their lives. And of course we have all heard the stories and seen the data. And now, finally, the whole country is actually talking and maybe even addressing this issue but the principal takes this opportunity to say "what about the law enforcement?" So I'm not going to put words in anybody's mouths or act like I know anything about this school or community but I personally find that to be a very insulting, ignorant comment that calls into question whether or not she is an advocate for her students.


I think you and I might be talking past each other. I'm not saying anything about offending people or hurting feelings. I mean, I think we should try and be mindful of trying not to offend people purposefully, but this isn't about hurt feelings. It's about when people say things that cause people to legitimately question their motivations and if their views are compatible with a certain position.


As above. I'm really not talking about offending people or hurt feelings.


I can't agree with this. Let's take it to an extreme example and say that someone in an important, public job (teacher, police officer, local politician, doctor, nurse, etc.) was a member of a white supremacist organization. Do you really want this person doing that job, just because nothing bad has happened yet? Do you really have confidence that they can perform their job without bias or discrimination? I certainly would not want that person in the job.

So much all of this. There are just certain things that are incompatible with the type of job she is doing. Taking this opportunity to talk up law enforcement shows horrible judgment.

 

[deleted480308]

Lots of assumptions in your post and my assumption is that you'll likely be surprised to learn you're wrong. It isn't offensive because it's an opposing viewpoint. There are plenty of things that are said/done on the other side that are just as offensive to me, including the rioting. The point is, she's a principal. If she wants to be someone anonymous on SM and say what she wants, that's fine, but when she's on SM as herself, she needs to read the room. That post likely would have gotten most employees with powerful jobs in hot water.

I'd also like to add that her opposing viewpoint was heard, but I have every right to have an opinion of it and respond to it, as does her employer.

And for the record, I think the med school test question was perfectly fine.

But as a govt employee, how do you fire someone for literally not saying anything racist? She is an actual example of where the first ammendment matters.

and “sure she didn’t say anything objectively bad but she should have known it would make people mad” isan indictment of their inabilty to process words logically and not in any way showing that she has been doing her job poorly. You don’t get to have govt act against someone for tone deafness

 

[deleted480308]

Because what she posted was, in fact, tone deaf and offensive. I have no doubt why she lost her job.

^ as above. Govt doesn’t get to act against someone for being tone deaf. And now you don’t get to act like no one is being fired for benign statements

 

[Lawpy]

But as a govt employee, how do you fire someone for literally not saying anything racist? She is an actual example of where the first ammendment matters.

and “sure she didn’t say anything objectively bad but she should have known it would make people mad” isan indictment of their inabilty to process words logically and not in any way showing that she has been doing her job poorly. You don’t get to have govt act against someone for tone deafness

Yes i agree 1st amendment has a lot more importance for government employees

 

[Damson]

@Mass Effect @bananafish94

See it this way. A woman is exposed to the george floyd situation for the first time and does some research. She arrives at the conclusion that

What happened to george floyd was horrible, motivated by either racism, personal strife, or a combination of both. Either way, we should take this opportunity to speak out about racism and police reform. But it looks like the media and BLM is painting a picture that cops are widely racist and the entire department should be abolished. I want to address this error - and she makes the fb post.

She is not trying to minimize the suffering endured by george nor undercutting the racism that exists in america. She wants to address a problem in the public reaction to this incident, because people can sometimes accept things they are fed without questioning it. She is not detracting from the important issue of racism in order to make her own political statement, but adding to the discussion a very relevant concern for secondary victims of the protests.

This is what we call having a conversation. Not "you gotta read the room, if everyone has accepted a popular opinion and you speak otherwise, you ded and you deserve it. read the room, don't defend the side being censured while the fire is still raging."

Alright. She has done a fine job as a principal in the past. Today, she felt like making a post addressing her unpopular opinion about a social issue. Suddenly she becomes ignorant, tone-deaf, a questionable advocate for her students, unfit for moving forward up the ladder. Time to discuss a severance package with her.

The school has a right to fire her. But we should try to move away from this kind of reaction, and let people, whatever their occupation is, speak their mind while the debate is ongoing. And the reaction be "I disagree. But let's pick apart what she said and find out if it holds any merit." Instead of defaulting to character attacks and getting her fired.

 

[Iz_FtB]

@Mass Effect @bananafish94

See it this way. A woman is exposed to the george floyd situation for the first time and does some research. She arrives at the conclusion that

What happened to george floyd was horrible, motivated by either racism, personal strife, or a combination of both. Either way, we should take this opportunity to speak out about racism and police reform. But it looks like the media and BLM is painting a picture that cops are widely racist and the entire department should be abolished. I want to address this error - and she makes the fb post.

She is not trying to minimize the suffering endured by george nor undercutting the racism that exists in america. She wants to address a problem in the public reaction to this incident, because people can sometimes accept things they are fed without questioning it. She is not detracting from the important issue of racism in order to make her own political statement, but adding to the discussion a very relevant concern for secondary victims of the protests.

This is what we call having a conversation. Not "you gotta read the room, if everyone has accepted a popular opinion and you speak otherwise, you ded and you deserve it. read the room, don't defend the side being censured while the fire is still raging."

Alright. She has done a fine job as a principal in the past. Today, she felt like making a post addressing her unpopular opinion about a social issue. Suddenly she becomes ignorant, tone-deaf, a questionable advocate for her students, unfit for moving forward up the ladder. Time to discuss a severance package with her.

The school has a right to fire her. But we should try to move away from this kind of reaction, and let people, whatever their occupation is, speak their mind while the debate is ongoing. And the reaction be "I disagree. But let's pick apart what she said and find out if it holds any merit." Instead of defaulting to character attacks and getting her fired.

This is the correct take.

Comments like "read the room" are at issue.

In practice, if you want to keep your job and avoid stirring the pot despite wanting to provide a countervailing view point, you instead "read the room" and keep it to yourself as the echo chamber amplifies. This is wrong globally, but safe for the individual.

In principle, no one should have to worry about offering a reasonable opinion shared with good intentions because people aren't assuming the worst in each other, and arguments can be ceded or countered appropriately.

Some of the zealousness we are seeing, amplified by the performative nature of social media, predisposes to reacting explosively to outside opinion.

I genuinely hope that something tangible is done in regard to policing to make vulnerable and repressed people safer when law enforcement gets involved. The problem is that in the process of moving toward justice in law enforcement, some really bad cultural practices are becoming normalized and that poses dangers in the long term.

 

[deleted480308]

@Mass Effect @bananafish94

See it this way. A woman is exposed to the george floyd situation for the first time and does some research. She arrives at the conclusion that

What happened to george floyd was horrible, motivated by either racism, personal strife, or a combination of both. Either way, we should take this opportunity to speak out about racism and police reform. But it looks like the media and BLM is painting a picture that cops are widely racist and the entire department should be abolished. I want to address this error - and she makes the fb post.

She is not trying to minimize the suffering endured by george nor undercutting the racism that exists in america. She wants to address a problem in the public reaction to this incident, because people can sometimes accept things they are fed without questioning it. She is not detracting from the important issue of racism in order to make her own political statement, but adding to the discussion a very relevant concern for secondary victims of the protests.

This is what we call having a conversation. Not "you gotta read the room, if everyone has accepted a popular opinion and you speak otherwise, you ded and you deserve it. read the room, don't defend the side being censured while the fire is still raging."

Alright. She has done a fine job as a principal in the past. Today, she felt like making a post addressing her unpopular opinion about a social issue. Suddenly she becomes ignorant, tone-deaf, a questionable advocate for her students, unfit for moving forward up the ladder. Time to discuss a severance package with her.

The school has a right to fire her. But we should try to move away from this kind of reaction, and let people, whatever their occupation is, speak their mind while the debate is ongoing. And the reaction be "I disagree. But let's pick apart what she said and find out if it holds any merit." Instead of defaulting to character attacks and getting her fired.

I’m going to question the premise that the govt school actually has the right to fire her over this (even if they wrote policies declaring they do)

 

[Mass Effect]

But as a govt employee, how do you fire someone for literally not saying anything racist? She is an actual example of where the first ammendment matters.

and “sure she didn’t say anything objectively bad but she should have known it would make people mad” isan indictment of their inabilty to process words logically and not in any way showing that she has been doing her job poorly. You don’t get to have govt act against someone for tone deafness

I never said she didn't say anything objectively bad. I believe she did say something objectively bad. And no, I don't agree that the first amendment should protect her no matter what she does/says. She's a leader in her school district (and likely the community) and that role doesn't go away on social media.

 

[Mass Effect]

^ as above. Govt doesn’t get to act against someone for being tone deaf. And now you don’t get to act like no one is being fired for benign statements

Sure I do. Show me a benign statement. I don't consider this case to be over a benign statement.

 

[Mass Effect]

@Mass Effect @bananafish94

See it this way. A woman is exposed to the george floyd situation for the first time and does some research. She arrives at the conclusion that

What happened to george floyd was horrible, motivated by either racism, personal strife, or a combination of both. Either way, we should take this opportunity to speak out about racism and police reform. But it looks like the media and BLM is painting a picture that cops are widely racist and the entire department should be abolished. I want to address this error - and she makes the fb post.

She is not trying to minimize the suffering endured by george nor undercutting the racism that exists in america. She wants to address a problem in the public reaction to this incident, because people can sometimes accept things they are fed without questioning it. She is not detracting from the important issue of racism in order to make her own political statement, but adding to the discussion a very relevant concern for secondary victims of the protests.

This is what we call having a conversation. Not "you gotta read the room, if everyone has accepted a popular opinion and you speak otherwise, you ded and you deserve it. read the room, don't defend the side being censured while the fire is still raging."

Alright. She has done a fine job as a principal in the past. Today, she felt like making a post addressing her unpopular opinion about a social issue. Suddenly she becomes ignorant, tone-deaf, a questionable advocate for her students, unfit for moving forward up the ladder. Time to discuss a severance package with her.

The school has a right to fire her. But we should try to move away from this kind of reaction, and let people, whatever their occupation is, speak their mind while the debate is ongoing. And the reaction be "I disagree. But let's pick apart what she said and find out if it holds any merit." Instead of defaulting to character attacks and getting her fired.

As far as I could see, she didn't post any well thought-out counter POV that advances the conversation. All she did was post retorts. That isn't advancing anything, just fanning the flames. And yes, reading the room is important, not just to satisfy others but to be considerate of what's happening. You don't walk into a funeral and defend the act that resulted in the killing. You literally "read the room" and wait for a time when people are open to discussing it. Wrong time, wrong place, faulty logic and judgment.

I’m going to question the premise that the govt school actually has the right to fire her over this (even if they wrote policies declaring they do)

You can question it if you like, but you are not safe from firing even in government entities when you say/do questionable things. Just ask any teacher who's been fired (for lawful acts). You can absolutely be fired. You just can't be jailed.

 

[deleted480308]

As far as I could see, she didn't post any well thought-out counter POV that advances the conversation. All she did was post retorts. That isn't advancing anything, just fanning the flames. And yes, reading the room is important, not just to satisfy others but to be considerate of what's happening. You don't walk into a funeral and defend the act that resulted in the killing. You literally "read the room" and wait for a time when people are open to discussing it. Wrong time, wrong place, faulty logic and judgment.



You can question it if you like, but you are not safe from firing even in government entities when you say/do questionable things. Just ask any teacher who's been fired (for lawful acts). You can absolutely be fired. You just can't be jailed.

Except what she did was only questionable to illogical and emotional people. She didn’t go to floyds funeral with a sign. She posted on facebook a very benign post saying that it was important while giving a well deserved look at police brutality that we don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. She said literally nothjng thag implies she can’t treat elementary aged kids appropriately. And again, she works for the govt and the first amendment actually matters, and no that isn’t actually restricted to imprisonments

 

[Mass Effect]

Except what she did was only questionable to illogical and emotional people

So anyone who disagrees with your read of the statement is illogical and emotional? Because your opinion is fact?

And again, she works for the govt and the first amendment actually matters, and no that isn’t actually restricted to imprisonments

The First Amendment does not protect everything a teacher says. That's just a fact. The school district gets to decide what is and isn't compatible with what their students are learning.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

You don't go into this particular situation that has been bubbling to the surface for years (race relations and law enforcement) and finally exploded and speak up for law enforcement while the fire is still raging. She said she wants to get behind BLM, but what about law enforcement or all the other people we should advocate for? As a principal, she should have read the room. What she said comes across as minimizing what the issue is truly about. It's tone deaf and at this particular time, it's offensive.

So it’s offensive that she said we shouldn’t forget about other people who also need to be advocated for? I’m struggling to see how that is offensive.

 

[Mass Effect]

So it’s offensive that she said we shouldn’t forget about other people who also need to be advocated for? I’m struggling to see how that is offensive.

You don't see how speaking up for law enforcement while people are still grieving for the victims murdered by them is offensive?

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

You don't see how speaking up for law enforcement while people are still grieving for the victims murdered by them is offensive?

Was she speaking up for the cops that murdered them? Or the other 99.9% who are actually good people who are now being targeted. Maybe she was speaking up for the couple hundred who were injured or killed, some of whom were black, because of four pieces of **** who never should have had a badge. Or do their lives not matter because they wear a uniform?

 

[Mass Effect]

Was she speaking up for the cops that murdered them? Or the other 99.9% who are actually good people who are now being targeted. Maybe she was speaking up for the couple hundred who were injured or killed, some of whom were black, because of four pieces of **** who never should have had a badge. Or do their lives not matter because they wear a uniform?

Of course their lives matter, but come on, this isn't just about four cops. This is about law enforcement in general. Most cops are not racist and most do their job well. But let's not pretend that this isn't a systemic issue within law enforcement and the criminal justice system.

 

[deleted480308]

Of course their lives matter, but come on, this isn't just about four cops. This is about law enforcement in general. Most cops are not racist and most do their job well. But let's not pretend that this isn't a systemic issue within law enforcement and the criminal justice system.

Woah woah woah, don’t you see how speaking for officers while so many are grieving is offensive? You are now unemployed

^see how fast that got out of hand. Even when you didn’t actually say anything wrong or anything that means you would mistreat people? You should have read the room right? This trend you are defending is not ok. She literally didn’t say anything incorrect and people with legitimate grief don’t get to tell everyone else they don’t get an opinion anymore

 

[Mass Effect]

Woah woah woah, don’t you see how speaking for officers while so many are grieving is offensive? You are now unemployed

^see how fast that got out of hand. Even when you didn’t actually say anything wrong or anything that means you would mistreat people? You should have read the room right? This trend you are defending is not ok. She literally didn’t say anything incorrect and people with legitimate grief don’t get to tell everyone else they don’t get an opinion anymore

Employers get to decide what is and isn't out of bounds when it comes to employees. I happen to agree with them. You don't. Shrug.

 

[deleted480308]

Employers get to decide what is and isn't out of bounds when it comes to employees. I happen to agree with them. You don't. Shrug.

FIRST THEY CAME By Martin Niemöller
First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me.

 

[Mass Effect]

FIRST THEY CAME By Martin Niemöller
First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Of course their lives matter, but come on, this isn't just about four cops. This is about law enforcement in general. Most cops are not racist and most do their job well. But let's not pretend that this isn't a systemic issue within law enforcement and the criminal justice system.

Right. It’s about the 120+ cops who have been severely injured or killed because of a uniform they wear while just trying to serve their communities. But what you’re saying is while their lives matter, they don’t matter as much. Got it.

And actually there isn’t data to support that killing of black people by police is a systemic racism issue.

I’m curious why people who think this way never seem to be concerned about the ridiculously high rates of black on black homicide and the systemic racism that keeps black people in high crime areas, predisposing them to be involved in or victims of crime. The same people who go completely nuts on Facebook about black lives mattering when a cop is involved are completely silent on the thousands of young black men killed by other young black men over gang and drug violence thanks to red lining and other racist laws that have put them there. (This part is not about you specifically, @Mass Effect. Talking about the people I’ve interacted with on social media and irl here.)

 

[Mass Effect]

Right. It’s about the 120+ cops who have been severely injured or killed because of a uniform they wear while just trying to serve their communities. But what you’re saying is while their lives matter, they don’t matter as much. Got it

Never said that. In fact, on my own social media, I talked about how grateful I've always been for police support in what I do. As a psychiatrist, I rely on them quite a bit. That said, I would not discuss the crime against police while acknowledging BLM in the same sentence. It isn't just about Floyd's murder. It's also about all the other people (many black) who've been harmed by police. It's about the two elderly men both shoved by PD to the ground in two separate incidents during the riots. It's about the police mishandling of numerous criminals and non-criminals. If you want to defend law enforcement as a whole, there are ways to do that aren't nearly as tacky or offensive. At the very least, she's guilty of poor judgment in my book.

And actually there isn’t data to support that killing of black people by police is a systemic racism issue

So what is it?

I’m curious why people who think this way never seem to be concerned about the ridiculously high rates of black on black homicide and the systemic racism that keeps black people in high crime areas, predisposing them to be involved in or victims of crime. The same people who go completely nuts on Facebook about black lives mattering when a cop is involved are completely silent on the thousands of young black men killed by other young black men over gang and drug violence thanks to red lining and other racist laws that have put them there. (This part is not about you specifically, @Mass Effect. Talking about the people I’ve interacted with on social media and irl here.)

Oh, I'm definitely concerned about black-on-black crime too. I can be concerned about that and at the same time be disgusted by law enforcement response to black criminals.

 

[Espressso]

Right. It’s about the 120+ cops who have been severely injured or killed because of a uniform they wear while just trying to serve their communities. But what you’re saying is while their lives matter, they don’t matter as much. Got it.

And actually there isn’t data to support that killing of black people by police is a systemic racism issue.

I’m curious why people who think this way never seem to be concerned about the ridiculously high rates of black on black homicide and the systemic racism that keeps black people in high crime areas, predisposing them to be involved in or victims of crime. The same people who go completely nuts on Facebook about black lives mattering when a cop is involved are completely silent on the thousands of young black men killed by other young black men over gang and drug violence thanks to red lining and other racist laws that have put them there. (This part is not about you specifically, @Mass Effect. Talking about the people I’ve interacted with on social media and irl here.)

Lol. From my experience most people trying to speak up about the policing issue are also speaking up about the systemic racism that is keeping marginalized groups, marginalized.

The "black on black violence" trope is a silly one IMO. Whataboutism. The idea that people need to worry about "black on black violence" only comes up in discussion when we're debating yet another senseless extra-judicial police killing. If only black people stopped killing other black people, cops won't be using excessive force. That's how the argument sounds.

 

[deleted480308]

Never said that. In fact, on my own social media, I talked about how grateful I've always been for police support in what I do. As a psychiatrist, I rely on them quite a bit. That said, I would not discuss the crime against police while acknowledging BLM in the same sentence. It isn't just about Floyd's murder. It's also about all the other people (many black) who've been harmed by police. It's about the two elderly men both shoved by PD to the ground in two separate incidents during the riots. It's about the police mishandling of numerous criminals and non-criminals. If you want to defend law enforcement as a whole, there are ways to do that aren't nearly as tacky or offensive. At the very least, she's guilty of poor judgment in my book.



So what is it?



Oh, I'm definitely concerned about black-on-black crime too. I can be concerned about that and at the same time be disgusted by law enforcement response to black criminals.

Then how, how do you propose she be allowed to express that not all cops are bad guys and we shouldn’t assault them? How does she do that without you justifying her losing her job for being “tacky and offensive”?
Be specific