No, I think I know what I'm talking about because I went to a liberal arts college and thus have experienced lots of social justice arguments and because I happen to be good at philosophy and thus can identify good arguments . . .
This is a bull**** argument that SJ types put forward all the time. This idea that nobody can criticize people's feelings or experiences. That's not how debate and politics work. Of course people have a right to feel however they want about things, but they are not entitled to hide behind this to avoid criticism when conflating their phenomenological descriptions with factual representation of an external reality.
People have all sorts of experiences. While these experiences are real in the sense that they are really having them, they are not necessarily real in the sense of representing an external truth. A clear example of this is a person tripping on LSD. Such a person may see the person standing next to them as a green woman when it is actually a white man. Their experience is real in the sense that they are really having that experience but it does not reflect an objective reality. People are frequently deceived by their perspective. In this case, the deceiving perspective is the perspective of a high person.
I've met a bunch of Jewish people who would be quick to call people antisemitic for things that were said in good faith. They did this because they were hypersensitive about the issue. Their Jewish perspective clouded their ability to see how antisemitism was not really all around them.
This is not an infrequent phenomenon in cultures of people who were historically discriminated against even if the level of current discrimination is far less/virtually nonexistent compared to what it used to be. People in these cultures are primed through teaching, family, and culture to be vigilant for cases of discrimination. They may then have experiences of discrimination that are disproportionate to objective reality.
No it doesn't. SJWs are largely not people from the "disenfranchised" groups they claim to champion. Typically they are college aged white females who feel a bunch of white guilt and want to escape the feeling that they are terrible people for living a life of privilege. Their solution to this is to be very vocal about how educated white people like themselves are terrible and oppressive and need to come to see the light. They also cling outrageously hard to any quasi-minority status they may have (being gay, being a woman, etc.) and trump up issues to make it seem like they are victims and thus not part of the powerful people they claim to despise.
It's about identity, not social improvement. This is obvious to anyone who has a good sense of how people tend to operate and come to adopt activist politics. People—young people especially—love to be part of a movement. Most of the time, what the movement is actually for is secondary.
The point of medical school is to ensure the medical competence of its graduates, not to provide a "multifaceted experience."
Contrary to the anti-intellectuals who try to make it seem like doctors are emotionless, unempathic, science robots, clinical medicine itself does a great job of fostering these qualities in doctors. Most doctors I have met do actually care deeply about patients. They just also happen to be smart and medically competent. The idea that doctors don't care about patients and their social situation or something is simply a made-up issue.
This type of empathy is fostered by interacting with patients and getting to know them. It is not fostered by sitting in class with a bunch of black medical students with sub-par performance who got in on affirmative action.
It's about both. Empathy for people's situations is important, but being medically competent is also critical. The vast majority of doctors I have met are both good, empathic people and medically competent. Again, this is not an actual issue with the way medicine is taught.
