- Joined
- Jul 4, 2006
- Messages
- 1,229
- Reaction score
- 1,102
Wasn't there a whole thing not so long ago about not allowing/shutting down political threads on SDN?
This really shouldn’t have gone down any kind of political road of discussion....racist statements are pretty clear cut, or at least should be.
As an aside, there's an SDN subculture has always leaned towards benefit of the doubt, even in a fair number of egregious cases. The one that immediately comes to mind was in this thread, which led Soughtern Surgeon (one of my all time favorite SDNers) to leave:I remember when that story broke on SDN. The white male rapist who ejaculated on drugged women got more of a "wait guys, let's hear him out" treatment than this minority woman who had the audacity to make a factual statement that wasn't phrased delicately enough for the gentle sensitivities of the ruling class. It's funny what prompts the pitchforks and torches to come out.
As an aside, there's an SDN subculture has always leaned towards benefit of the doubt, even in a fair number of egregious cases. The one that immediately comes to mind was in this thread, which led Soughtern Surgeon (one of my all time favorite SDNers) to leave:
I’ll also note govt has recently sued nuns and amish people for birth control pills, tried to crush a baker over a cake, and is seriously talking about ditching the hyde amendment so conservatives have a few valid complaints
Maine and Nebraska distribute electoral votes via house districts with the 2 electors gained from the senators going to the state popular vote winner.Oh, and explain how district lines effect Senators. And maybe the electoral college while you're at it?
Off topic, but there are some neat and fairly persuasive articles out there suggesting that all of the states should go to a system similar to that.Maine and Nebraska distribute electoral votes via house districts with the 2 electors gained from the senators going to the state popular vote winner.
Besides that... got nothing.
It’s none of the govts business what benefits an employer offers to adults, if they don’t want the terms they don’t have to work thereIt's almost like if you employ people, you should be expected to meet the same standards as everyone else. It also seems like if you offer services to other people, you don't get to discriminate against them. I mean, in the 60s would you complain about the government crushing some poor lunch counter owner for refusing to service black people?
It's almost like if you employ people, you should be expected to meet the same standards as everyone else. It also seems like if you offer services to other people, you don't get to discriminate against them. I mean, in the 60s would you complain about the government crushing some poor lunch counter owner for refusing to service black people?
Neither of those are protected classes and the baker does make wedding cakes so it's purchasing a product that he already makes. The bigger question is at what point does baking become art. Is simply putting script on a sheet cake "art"?It was more a freedom of expression issue. Should the baker be forced to make a Nazi cake? How about a pedophile cake?
he says he doesnt want to make the cakeNeither of those are protected classes and the baker does make wedding cakes so it's purchasing a product that he already makes. The bigger question is at what point does baking become art. Is simply putting script on a sheet cake "art"?
And if you only wanted to serve dinner to 4’7” eskimos you should be legally allowed to waste your money on your crappy business model and let the free market crush you, govt isn’t the answer to people not wanting to voluntarily associate
To bring it back around for docmcninja...The person you replied to was talking about segregation; are you implying the free market would have ended segregation without government intervention?
I'm not white. I've got little skin (punz lolz) in this game. But what she said in that tweet is frankly, abhorrent.
I take care of patients all that time that are "exhausting". Never once does the color of their skin even factor in. Have white people historically had significant advantages bestowed upon them because of their skin color? Of course, nobody is denying that. But that in no shape or form is related to whether they are difficult to take care of. She is trying to make an association that simply doesn't exist because it gets a standing ovation from many of the card carrying social justice warriors on social media.
She should just do her job and take care of her patients without instilling all this crap "woke" commentary into our specialty and pandering on social media. I go to residency in the Rust Belt, with a large percentage of my attendings being strong Trump supporters. They do good work and they focus on taking care of patients, irrespective of how exhausting it is and how that correlates with their race.
I also stopped following Esther Choo on twitter A LONG time ago. You should too. Her posts are literally just every left talking point that are some variation of "I'm an ER doctor. I take care of gun violence patients, I see all the suffering" etc etc. There is literally no deeper or unbiased discussion of a more complex issue.
She's neither racist nor dumb. An opinion like that is not going to be popular...
An opinion like that is not going to be popular and it will appear as a double standard, but when you're not only fighting against sexism in medicine (yes, it's rampant) but also against "the man" (which is the white man), then these comments will appear out of place, "dumb" and certainly not popular among the status quo. I'm sure there were plenty of "dumb" statements and movements that certainly weren't popular amongst the status quo during any civil rights movements, but here we are.. progressing. .
Hook -
As you can tell from my post above, I am neither part of the reactionary "She's racist!" group or the apologist group.
So, as objectively as possible, what do you think the intent of her public comment was? You state that she is not racist and not unintelligent...and chances are you are correct.
But then, as an intelligent physician who actively researches topics related to her statement, she must be aware of how her post is going to be received. Why do you think, then, she made this post? What was her intent? How was she trying to be helpful to minorities?
HH
being racist is ok if you're "exasperated"?I agree completely. Perhaps she’s exasperated. I’m not sure. And without the context it is a dumb statement. So definitely not the wisest of choices. But I don’t know what she’s experiencing. I won’t speak for her but I can try to explain her intentions which I don’t believe were of ill will.
Sounds like classifying a struggle against a group defined by skin color.
lol multiple people have disagreed and explicitly said they are not whiteOutrage all you want. Look into it more or don’t. I agree that we (me) white people can be exhausting and the response ironically shows it. When we make the rules it’s easy. I’m leaving this dumpster fire. Fare well.
We could all probably benefit from lightening up a bit and being less quick to be triggered. On the other hand, it's probably not a bad idea to avoid making negative comments and social media posts about entire races, religions, creeds, genders, orientations and other groups, regardless of the target, or source. Nothing positive comes from it. Life's far too short to generate any more of this type of negative energy in the Universe and certainly far too short to be affected by it any more than that we have to.
The “gender wage gap” in medicine is an absurd concept. There is no billing qualifier specifying male/female.
The martydorm of wealthy women living in America is possibly the hardest thing to see and not roll your eyes at.
For the billionth time. The “gender wage gap” in medicine is an absurd concept. There is no billing qualifier specifying male/female.
If you want to argue there are more men in overall higher positions, that’s probably reasonable.
The reason for this is well documented and exists in nearly every field:
1) Children and 2) a more likely attitude to place work over family, statistically, among men.
Yes, what the group bills the payer doesn't depend on the physician's gender. But does that correlate 1:1 with the physician's earnings? I have a hard time believing everyone out there except me is working on a pure productivity-based model. Once there is a significant salary component in a contract, billing as the great equalizer goes out the window.