The Community You Want

[Lawpy]

Also, what do you guys think of having a like-to-post ratio feature? Useful? Fun? Worthless?

We can correct for the posts by calculating: total number of likes divided by total number of posts since the date when the like system was implemented (sometime in 2013 i think). so older members wouldn't have lower-than-normal ratios.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Mad Jack]

Someone already clarified that loungers does not equal SPF regulars. Regardless the SPF regulars defended his right to discuss his views in a way that does not violate TOS (and in a internally consistent honest way which is more than can be said for many people with abhorent views) while at the same time challenging and denouncing those views. What they were protective of is dissent and discourse rather than the views themselves. It is an nuanced but important distinction.

He was a terrible human being, but that, in and of itself, is not worthy of a ban. He eventually went too far and got the ban he deserved.

 

[JustAPhD]

Also, what do you guys think of having a like-to-post ratio feature? Useful? Fun? Worthless?

We can correct for the posts by calculating: total number of likes divided by total number of posts since the date when the like system was implemented (sometime in 2013 i think). so older members wouldn't have lower-than-normal ratios.

I used to be a member of another forum that did away with a public "like counter". Posting quality actually increased because there was a decrease of one-liners that were posted solely due to accumulate likes.

 

[Lawpy]

I used to be a member of another forum that did away with a public "like counter". Posting quality actually increased because there was a decrease of one-liners that were posted solely due to accumulate likes.

hm yeah and a like-to-post ratio would encourage further fishing for likes. likes prevent those +1/I agree/this posts though. and one-liners are usually most common in troll and neurotic threads.

 

[750335]

I wouldn't prefer it to be invite only, but it would be nice if it were more hidden so snowflakes didn't get collateral emotional damage from posts they don't understand. Maybe up the post limit or time on-site before it is visible and remove it from new posts or something. I don't want it to be exclusive, but I don't want it to be a distraction for people that it isn't really geared toward either.

Wow, is this where are now? Collateral emotional damage? They can make the lounge/spf however invisible they like, just don't over mod it or censor it. Part of what makes this forum great is that I can argue with someone about where they stand politically and in the same minute PM them to help me with a school list, and they do because it is all banter. But if you think about it, most of the posts in the lounge are people posting their foods, and what they are listening to so there really is no reason to hide it. Maybe make threads that might annoy some users private? But then some people get annoyed so easily so idk man

 

[Mad Jack]

Wow, is this where are now? Collateral emotional damage? They can make the lounge/spf however invisible they like, just don't over mod it or censor it. Part of what makes this forum great is that I can argue with someone about where they stand politically and in the same minute PM them to help me with a school list, and they do because it is all banter. But if you think about it, most of the posts in the lounge are people posting their foods, and what they are listening to so there really is no reason to hide it. Maybe make threads that might annoy some users private? But then some people get annoyed so easily so idk man

The problem is, a lot of the fun of the lounge is how spontaneously the humor and such comes about. If you're starting PMs, it takes away the natural element of spontaneity that makes the whole thing work. And the thing about "collateral emotional damage" basically boils down to this: some innocent, naive poster wanders into a random thread they don't know the context of like a nun stumbling into an orgy because she wrote down the wrong address to meet up with a friend, and then gets wholly offended by the goings on and demands everyone stop at once when there's nothing inherently wrong with anything going on, it's just that the nun both wasn't invited and is in the wrong place at the wrong time, and seeing something she doesn't understand in a context she doesn't understand, undergone by consenting individuals she doesn't know. The nun can't help but be shocked, shamed, and offended, but the activities she's horrified by are perfectly fine on their own and in the context in which they were occurring. I'm just trying to make sure we don't have any nuns accidentally going to the wrong address in the first place is all.

 

[ZedsDed]

As @ThoracicGuy can attest, these threads are already moved to the Lounge with great frequency. I think a good compromise would be removing the Lounge from New Posts so that people have to seek it out, as the content there is really not meant for the general SDN public, and it would go a great length toward killing bad threads if they were less visible after being moved.

Disagree. They've already gone to great lengths to limit the exposure of the social forums. All it does is alienate both sides until they build each other up as these scary places where happiness goes to die. And a reason inappropriate threads even pop up in the first place is because people are unaware of the TL/SPF. So more visibility, not less, is the answer in my humble opinion.

As for people who are offended by X, Y, and Z... report it, and mods take a look. If it checks out, they do nothing. If the aggrieved continue to throw a fit, ignore them.

"But then we lose like 0.01% of premeds!"

Oh no!

Well, there goes my day.

 

[Mad Jack]

Disagree. A big reason these threads even pop up on the first place is because people are unaware of the TL/SPF.

They aren't targeted toward lounge/SPF types though. It's usually premeds trying to agitate other premeds with URM threads or the like.

 

[ZedsDed]

They aren't targeted toward lounge/SPF types though. It's usually premeds trying to agitate other premeds with URM threads or the like.

Sorry, see my edit for other stuff.

I mean, yes, but so what? Let them hash it out together -- they've done it before.

 

[Mad Jack]

Sorry, see my edit for other stuff.

I mean, yes, but so what? Let them hash it out together -- they've done it before.

I'm fine with them moving the threads, but I really doubt anyone would start them in the SPF- they aren't looking to agitate regulars with coherent arguments, they are looking for the frothing, incoherent rage of a bunch of neurotic premeds.

 

[RTC19]

Maybe having a sub folder of School-Specific threads for "School X vs. School Y" type posts. With the number of high-yield threads already in the School-Specific forum, these posts are very easily lost in my opinion. Having a sub-forum for this (like there is for WAMC) would help make School-Specific more organized and help these posts get more views and replies.

Seconded. I LOVE this idea! I agree with you that this might help them to get a bit more traffic.

 

[Lawpy]

so apparently i found out the process of how internet fighting works.

Spoiler: Warning: Language

Spoiler: But the underlying point is pretty solid

 

[SouthernSurgeon]

Also, what do you guys think of having a like-to-post ratio feature? Useful? Fun? Worthless?

We can correct for the posts by calculating: total number of likes divided by total number of posts since the date when the like system was implemented (sometime in 2013 i think). so older members wouldn't have lower-than-normal ratios.

Mines the best

 

[Lawpy]

Mines the best

Didn't calculate it so idk but @NotASerialKiller has one of the highest like-to-post ratios

 

[libertyyne]

Didn't calculate it so idk but @NotASerialKiller has one of the highest like-to-post ratios

He/she does have a schtick and he/she sticks to it.

 

[freak7]

http://gizmodo.com/reddit-is-tearing-itself-apart-1789406294

This article is a little old but it explains the whole situation afflicting reddit right now

That article is so sensationalized. /r/The_Donald and all of its spinoffs isn't even a default sub. One has to actually go looking for it if they wish to find it. I'm also 95% sure it's just satire anyway. It's kind of like /r/pyongyang with its ridiculous banning of things. Reddit as a whole doesn't really have a problem imho.
... apart from reposts, screw those guys.

 

[libertyyne]

That article is so sensationalized. /r/The_Donald and all of its spinoffs isn't even a default sub. One has to actually go looking for it if they wish to find it. I'm also 95% sure it's just satire anyway. It's kind of like /r/pyongyang with its ridiculous banning of things. Reddit as a whole doesn't really have a problem imho.
... apart from reposts, screw those guys.

At first I thought it was satire, but I was unpleasantly surprised the more I looked at it.

 

[RogueBanana]

At first I thought it was satire, but I was unpleasantly surprised the more I looked at it.

retweet

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Maybe that's the cost? People who say questionable things that they wouldn't want associated with their name are probably not the greatest presence?

It's not about that. It's about being able to be honest about your specialty, program, or school without worrying about how that honesty will affect your career or standing.

 

[ddstothecor]

@Lee wrote in the guidelines of the lounge that sexually explicit discussions will not be permitted.

I think people who want to discuss those things would be better served by going to a porn site and discussing these things there.

There were women posting on that thread, but there were men wanting to gag women, too. For anyone wondering, go read it yourself.

I'm not overly sensitive, but those posts were very offensive and demeaning to women, especially coming from health care professionals. One of the posters was a dentist. It makes me wonder if he's thinking about gagging women with his D when he's working on their teeth. I'm glad I read it though, because now I know what those posters are all about.

You say people were joking, but how is it funny to make jokes about assaulting women? More importantly, how does that type of conversation belong on SDN? You say you guys are friends in the lounge. Good to know that you guys get your kicks from demeaning women when you're around your friends.

I'm just glad none of the posters was a pharmacist. . . Who knows what they're imagining doing to my pills with their D's!!! Also, why do those pill bottles come in such varying sizes and thicknesses?!

 

[dpmd]

I'm just glad none of the posters was a pharmacist. . . Who knows what they're imagining doing to my pills with their D's!!! Also, why do those pill bottles come in such varying sizes and thicknesses?!

For the record pill bottles are not safe. Have had to operate on someone after removing one before.

 

[Nommonnom]

Something I would really like is a way to poll specific classes of people such as only verified physicians, verified faculty, maybe other classes of people as possible?

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

Didn't calculate it so idk but @NotASerialKiller has one of the highest like-to-post ratios

@SouthernSurgeon started posting way before likes were implemented. Also, he's a surgical resident, not a serial killer, so his likes should carry more weight.

 

[Lawpy]

@SouthernSurgeon started posting way before likes were implemented. Also, he's a surgical resident, not a serial killer, so his likes should carry more weight.

already accounted for the former

Also, what do you guys think of having a like-to-post ratio feature? Useful? Fun? Worthless?

We can correct for the posts by calculating: total number of likes divided by total number of posts since the date when the like system was implemented (sometime in 2013 i think). so older members wouldn't have lower-than-normal ratios.

 

[Stroganoff]

Once you get to the higher levels (e.g. Resident/fellow/attending) it's just too small a world.

I wouldn't post here if I couldn't do it anonymously. If there were any hint of doxxing I'd delete my posts and account.

There's been instances in the past of great posters getting in trouble with their programs/employers for really no reason other than that they divulged their participation on the site.

Agreed entirely.

1) I've been doxxed and threatened/extorted online before. It sucks big time. Sometimes you gotta lawyer up to CYA, which costs thousands + dozens of hours. It can threaten one's job, career, and current/past academic affiliations. Plus the psychological toll. No way in heck am I going to make it easier to associate my post history with my real identity.

2) Senior year of HS I participated in the Princeton Review boards (with username). While on the phone with an ADCOM person at a top choice, she was like "Oh, I've been reading some of your posts online lately. You've said a lot of nice things!" I didn't get in. Bish.

I don't want anything. The OP requested ways to improve the quality of the boards and I stated that using real names/linking real credentials would do so. This is based on >15 years of experience on the internet where forums/companies using real identity linked accounts have much greater civility.

1) SDN forums is by and large a very civil community. The percentage of toxic posts or users is a small minority compared to the number of users in total. I would assume that adequate user reporting and adequate moderation is enough to keep things down to a minimum. A real name policy is an extreme measure that -- besides not solving the minority of problematic users -- introduces more problems like lower forum participation (read: less users, less growth, and less repeat users and time on site) and inhibition to being as honest or thorough about any academic questions and concerns. It's especially thorny in an academic or professional forum such as SDN: What pre-med would feel comfortable posting GPAs and MCAT test scores on this forum and have that immediately tied to their real name, making their immediate classmates aware of their questions, concerns, hopes, and dreams?

2) I'm not sure that a real name policy produces the positive results in every online community. Heck, Facebook is a perfect example that disproves the hypothesis. FB is just as toxic today as it was 10 years ago prior to the real name policy, last I checked. Using one's real name is not a silver bullet to restraint and civility.

 

[Nommonnom]

already accounted for the former

A list of most liked posts like what's in my signature would be more valuable imo. Would help mods also who may not be familiar with all the posters and their contributions.

 

[Nommonnom]

Agreed entirely.

1) I've been doxxed and threatened/extorted online before. It sucks big time. Sometimes you gotta lawyer up to CYA, which costs thousands + dozens of hours. It can threaten one's job, career, and current/past academic affiliations. Plus the psychological toll. No way in heck am I going to make it easier to associate my post history with my real identity.

2) Senior year of HS I participated in the Princeton Review boards (with username). While on the phone with an ADCOM person at a top choice, she was like "Oh, I've been reading some of your posts online lately. You've said a lot of nice things!" I didn't get in. Bish.



1) SDN forums is by and large a very civil community. The percentage of toxic posts or users is a small minority compared to the number of users in total. I would assume that adequate user reporting and adequate moderation is enough to keep things down to a minimum. A real name policy is an extreme measure that -- besides not solving the minority of problematic users -- introduces more problems like lower forum participation (read: less users, less growth, and less repeat users and time on site) and inhibition to being as honest or thorough about any academic questions and concerns. It's especially thorny in an academic or professional forum such as SDN: What pre-med would feel comfortable posting GPAs and MCAT test scores on this forum and have that immediately tied to their real name, making their immediate classmates aware of their questions, concerns, hopes, and dreams?

2) I'm not sure that a real name policy produces the positive results in every online community. Heck, Facebook is a perfect example that disproves the hypothesis. FB is just as toxic today as it was 10 years ago prior to the real name policy, last I checked.

FB is toxic? Interesting? Mine is bland and friendly haha!

 

[Lawpy]

A list of most liked posts like what's in my signature would be more valuable imo. Would help mods also who may not be familiar with all the posters and their contributions.

I'll compile some sort of an SDN Hall of Fame thread (in terms of posts with most likes).

 

[Mad Jack]

Mines the best

Actually that distinction belongs to @NotASerialKiller

 

[fantasty]

I'll compile some sort of an SDN Hall of Fame thread (in terms of posts with most likes).

You have a lot of free time, no?

 

[Mad Jack]

Didn't calculate it so idk but @NotASerialKiller has one of the highest like-to-post ratios

Ah, beat me to it.

 

[Mad Jack]

@SouthernSurgeon started posting way before likes were implemented. Also, he's a surgical resident, not a serial killer, so his likes should carry more weight.

How much weight the likes carry depend on the subjective interests of the person doing the valuation. I highly value both the opinions of our member surgeons and our resident serial killers. I mean, at the end of the day aren't most serial killers really just anti-surgeons that seek to cut to kill, rather than cut to cure?

 

[fantasty]

How much weight the likes carry depend on the subjective interests of the person doing the valuation. I highly value both the opinions of our member surgeons and our resident serial killers. I mean, at the end of the day aren't most serial killers really just anti-surgeons that seek to cut to kill, rather than cut to cure?

Oh, you're just a "like" show-off. Notable member...

 

[Lawpy]

You have a lot of free time, no?

slow day at work and some available downtime.

 

[Mad Jack]

Oh, you're just a "like" show-off. Notable member...

There's a place for a pun here but this isn't the lounge.

 

[Zweihander]

For the record pill bottles are not safe. Have had to operate on someone after removing one before.

I saw a jar of facial cream once! Dude thought it would cure his bph-related urinary hesitancy. Presumably by compressing his prostate. I dunno, I'm not quite sure how that was supposed to work really.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

I saw a jar of facial cream once! Dude thought it would cure his bph-related urinary hesitancy. Presumably by compressing his prostate. I dunno, I'm not quite sure how that was supposed to work really.

In 8 years of working in the OR, I never got to help remove something from anyone's butt. I feel swindled.

 

[fantasty]

In 8 years of working in the OR, I never got to help remove something from anyone's butt. I feel swindled.

Clearly you need to visit @dpmd's OR

 

[gallons]

Someone already clarified that loungers does not equal SPF regulars. Regardless the SPF regulars defended his right to discuss his views in a way that does not violate TOS (and in a internally consistent honest way which is more than can be said for many people with abhorent views) while at the same time challenging and denouncing those views. What they were protective of is dissent and discourse rather than the views themselves. It is an nuanced but important distinction.

No, there is no nuance. You're either an enabler of racism or you are not. Sure people have a "right" to discuss their racist views, views that in the past have exclusively lead to genocide and other atrocities. Nobody has a right to share their views wherever they want. The NRA will not allow Gabby Gifford to speak at their meetings. I wonder why? Similarly, website owners have a right to say no, not here, you can spew your trash someplace else but not here.

This is supposed to be a professional forum to help students become doctors. Tell me again how having a SPF filled with racism helps in that regard? I say get rid of it. Is SDN profiting from it? Why even have it?

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

No, there is no nuance. You're either an enabler of racism or you are not. Sure people have a "right" to discuss their racist views, views that in the past have exclusively lead to genocide and other atrocities. Nobody has a right to share their views wherever they want. The NRA will not allow Gabby Gifford to speak at their meetings. I wonder why? Similarly, website owners have a right to say no, not here, you can spew your trash someplace else but not here.

This is supposed to be a professional forum to help students become doctors. Tell me again how having a SPF filled with racism helps in that regard? I say get rid of it. Is SDN profiting from it? Why even have it?

People like Dave won't change unless they are welcomed in places where their views are challenged.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...e6-a6a3-d50061aa9fae_story.html?client=safari

 

[Zweihander]

No, there is no nuance. You're either an enabler of racism or you are not.

Oh brother. No. This is not true. Making declarative statements isn't tantamount to stating facts. People can at once dislike particular ideas and find the forceful suppression of those ideas even more distasteful yet.

Sure people have a "right" to discuss their racist views, views that in the past have exclusively lead to genocide and other atrocities. Nobody has a right to share their views wherever they want.

SDN is a private entity and can choose to censor, and censure, people as they see fit for what they say here. But it is pretty great that they have reserved a small space in this community for folks to freely discuss their ideas.

It's very difficult to have a conversation with people whose beliefs you find abhorrent. But if we don't even try to give ourselves the room to do so, "difficult" becomes "impossible."

I for one am grateful that the administrators have been open minded and tolerant enough to provide a forum where people can express uncomfortable, maybe even terrible ideas. Pretending such beliefs don't exist may make some feel better, but that's all it is -- pretense.

 

[ZedsDed]

No, there is no nuance. You're either an enabler of racism or you are not. Sure people have a "right" to discuss their racist views, views that in the past have exclusively lead to genocide and other atrocities. Nobody has a right to share their views wherever they want. The NRA will not allow Gabby Gifford to speak at their meetings. I wonder why? Similarly, website owners have a right to say no, not here, you can spew your trash someplace else but not here.

This is supposed to be a professional forum to help students become doctors. Tell me again how having a SPF filled with racism helps in that regard? I say get rid of it. Is SDN profiting from it? Why even have it?

-64 posts
-Joined 12/2/16
-Keeps lying
-Calls for the military overthrow of the current administration
-Provides no evidence for anything ever when asked
:troll:

K, I thought we were cracking down on trolls as a community?

People like Dave won't change unless they are welcomed in places where their views are challenged.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...e6-a6a3-d50061aa9fae_story.html?client=safari

[Using your post to rant, sorry] Dave was allowed to stay because he didn't use hate speech or promote violence against other groups or anything like that. He largely stuck to kosher issues like affirmative action and "identity politics." Whenever he did manage to find a way to discuss his racist ideology within the boundaries of the TOS he brought a wall of hate down on himself, the likes of which of I've yet to see matched anywhere else on the website.

The first time he did violate the TOS he was banned and that was that. At no point did SDN normalize his racism. It was always abnormal.

As Lee himself acknowledged:

1. Our members' counter-arguments to Dave89's bigoted views shine a bright light on one of the darkest and most shameful recesses of modern America.

While the entire SDN staff finds Dave89's viewpoint to be ignorant and shameful, the SP forum has a long history of being a lightly moderated forum which allows politically and ideologically divergent discussions; akin to Hyde Park's Speakers' Corner. Generally, as long as the discussion remains civil and does not resort to ad hominem attacks, it will remain open.

@Cyberdyne 101 The idea that regulars were all just sitting around, twiddling their thumbs, while some lunatic pumped out Klan propaganda is complete nonsense. The other user doesn't know what he's talking about.

 

[ZedsDed]

Just to make my point... here's the kind of heat Dave got from the SPF regulars for saying ignorant or callous things that weren't even really racist:
(putting in spoiler tags because conversation is political and otherwise OT)

Spoiler: Dave's statement

Racial or ethnic identity is a composite of factors and experiences. For instance, I know a great chunk of my family tree going back 300+ years, including the towns and villages we lived in, professions, and ages/causes of death. I've read up on this history of those towns. And so on.

What is dangerous is having a segment of society whose essential identity, at least when it comes to politics, appears to be a sense of grievance. If I'm on the street in Brooklyn (or Chicago, etc.) and I ask a black person if he thinks slavery forms an integral part of his identity as a black, there's a good chance that he'll answer in the affirmative. Now, suppose I follow up and ask him which generation of his ancestors were slaves. Likely answer: "I dunno." Suppose that I further inquire as to which state most of his slave ancestors lived in. Likely answer: "No idea." Imagine me continuing to press him as to what the names of his slave ancestors were (assuming hypothetical access to a family tree). Likely response: "You got me."

Now, if there are any blacks who can qualify or quantify how slavery forms their sense of racial identity, I'm all ears. Just because I'm not part of a culture doesn't mean I'm not mildly interested in learning interesting things about it. But the reality is that most blacks have no connection to their slave-ancestry past.

Spoiler: Nutmeg rant

Jesus Tapdancing Christ. I'm trying to formulate a response that doesn't include the phrase "stupid mother****er," but the difficulty I keep running into is the fact that you're being such a stupid mother****er.

Do you know why it's hard for an American black descended from slaves (rather than, say, recent immigrants or their descendents who came here from, say, Somalia or Kenya or Nigeria after the abolition of slavery) to know their geneology? Take a second. Think about it. Ready for the answer?

SLAVERY.

Weeping Jesus on the cross.

Tell me, when you were doing geneological research, what did it entail? Fishing through church records? Certificates of live birth? Death certificates? Marriage records? Stuff like that? Tell me, how frequently did you have to sort through BILLS OF SALE to trace the lines back? How frequently did you find yourself led to a mother with no identifiable father and who was unmarried, but who was remarkably darker in complexion than her child?

The ignorance and insensitivity in your response takes a staggering—and from my perspective, and entirely incomprehensible—degree of willful ignorance, inhuman lack of compassion, and narcissistic self-centered arrogance, and it just floors me.

So go do your experiment. Go find that guy in Chicago or Brooklyn (I don't know where you are, but apparently you need to fly to some distant city to find a real, live Negro, which leaves me more than a little confused as to why you're in such a fit about the coming decline of your "race," but whatever) and ask him his geneology. When he says he doesn't know, you offer up your vast experience in geneological research. Head on down to your local Mormon geneological research facility and start combing through the microfische to find the answers for him. Then come back here and explain to me if the task of tracking your own history was equal to the task you encountered on his behalf, and see if you can posit any novel hypotheses on why any differences you observed may have emerged. Of those differences, tell me which ones are those for which he should assume personal responsibility and shame.

My God, you're ignorant. You seem to regard it as natural and unavoidable that people should want to know from whence they come, and yet when for a certain sub-population that task is impossible due to an oppressive and disgusting institution sanctioned by the state, you get pissed at them for being angry about that regime of unjust laws that denies them forever from the knowledge you take so blithely for granted. Pull your head out of your ass, man.

It's really unfair that some are trying to smear these guys as sympathetic to racists simply because they were willing to engage with racists.

 

[dpmd]

No, there is no nuance. You're either an enabler of racism or you are not. Sure people have a "right" to discuss their racist views, views that in the past have exclusively lead to genocide and other atrocities. Nobody has a right to share their views wherever they want. The NRA will not allow Gabby Gifford to speak at their meetings. I wonder why? Similarly, website owners have a right to say no, not here, you can spew your trash someplace else but not here.

This is supposed to be a professional forum to help students become doctors. Tell me again how having a SPF filled with racism helps in that regard? I say get rid of it. Is SDN profiting from it? Why even have it?

Because they believe in a freer expression and discussion of politically and idealogically divergent views than you. That does not make them enablers of racism anyore than the participants of SPF. Choosing to allow the expression of hateful viewpoints so that you can challenge them on their merits is far braver and ultimately better for swaying those who may not hold a strong position than merely silencing any semblance of dissent. But I am not at all surprised that you can't seem to appreciate the nuance. I can't help but find similarities between that desire to silence, and the desire to silence those who post unhappy truths and attempt to inject reality into a thread by equating it to personal attacks and other violations of TOS.

 

[Mad Jack]

For the record pill bottles are not safe. Have had to operate on someone after removing one before.

That awful combination of abrupt edges and cap protrusion is a nightmare scenario.

 

[Mad Jack]

No, there is no nuance. You're either an enabler of racism or you are not. Sure people have a "right" to discuss their racist views, views that in the past have exclusively lead to genocide and other atrocities. Nobody has a right to share their views wherever they want. The NRA will not allow Gabby Gifford to speak at their meetings. I wonder why? Similarly, website owners have a right to say no, not here, you can spew your trash someplace else but not here.

This is supposed to be a professional forum to help students become doctors. Tell me again how having a SPF filled with racism helps in that regard? I say get rid of it. Is SDN profiting from it? Why even have it?

We believe in free expression so long as it falls within the bounds of the TOS. I probably spent 300 or more posts openly ridiculing Dave and his views. If an entire subforum using him as a punching bag made us enablers, I don't think you know what enabling is. You also fall into the liberal trap of not being willing to discuss views you disagree with, which makes you unable to win hearts and minds by default, because you do not engage with the other side. You know who one if the most powerful people in the history of dismantling the KKK was? Daryl Davis, a black man that was willing to talk with members, engage them, and make them realize the errors of their ways. Open discussion is how you abolish terrible things, not by banishing those who hold such views to dark echo chambers in which they only engage with like-minded individuals.

Or you could plug your ears and close your eyes and pretend people that don't think like you don't exist. But that's how we got Trump, so... Maybe don't?

 

[Mad Jack]

The most ironic thing about people complaining about the Lounge being some hateful and unaccepting place is that it probably is the most diverse area of the forum, in regard to what concentration of female, LGBT, and minority posters are there.

 

[mimelim]

Mines the best

Pssshhhh, not even close. Even I have you beat and by a healthy margin! 2.51 > 2.15

And unlike the serial killer, I've been around a little while too

So....

 

[Lawpy]

Mines the best

Pssshhhh, not even close. Even I have you beat and by a healthy margin! 2.51 > 2.15

And unlike the serial killer, I've been around a little while too

So....

doesn't count since those results are undervalued. correction accounting for posts after likes were implemented is needed

 

[mimelim]

doesn't count since those results are undervalued. correction accounting for posts after likes were implemented is needed

Lies and deceit. One's self worth is tied to the ratio, don't bring up these alt facts, 2.51 > 2.15 therefore mimelim > southernsurgeon.