AMA releases document on appropriate language and health equity

[percyeye]

BS. That's a lazy argument and one that completely minimizes and insults the people who legit have a problem with these words. No one is "traumatized" by whitelist. If that's what you took away from all this, then you just proved why the AMA document is necessary.



Has there been any hint of that? Has the AMA ever sanctioned members for these things? Has the AMA ever even sanctioned members? I'm not aware of them having any sort of power in that department.

Again if you have a legit problem with the word "whitelist" how are you going to handle when a patient or patient's family throws real life insulting language at you which anyone who has worked in the real world knows can happen. Are you going to breakdown or move onto the next patient and perform like you should. I think it is horrible if a patient or someone at work does this but are we living in real life land or not? If the words "whitelist and blacklist" are at the top of the list of things to tackle well then dang we are almost living in a utopian society.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Again if you have a legit problem with the word "whitelist" how are you going to handle when a patient or patient's family throws real life insulting language at you which anyone who has worked in the real world knows can happen. Are you going to breakdown or move onto the next patient and perform like you should. I think it is horrible if a patient or someone at work does this but are we living in real life land or not? If the words "whitelist and blacklist" are at the top of the list of things to tackle well then dang we are almost living in a utopian society.

So because some patients are mean we shouldn't ever seek to improve the way we converse with other patients? That doesn't seem like the best way to think about this.

 

[hamstergang]

Again if you have a legit problem with the word "whitelist" how are you going to handle when a patient or patient's family throws real life insulting language at you which anyone who has worked in the real world knows can happen. Are you going to breakdown or move onto the next patient and perform like you should. I think it is horrible if a patient or someone at work does this but are we living in real life land or not? If the words "whitelist and blacklist" are at the top of the list of things to tackle well then dang we are almost living in a utopian society.

I think you're confused. The claim isn't that these words are upsetting to doctors, it's that the words can have a negative impact on our patients. I don't know if whitelist and blacklist truly have that impact, but I can certainly understand the argument. This isn't about doctors' feelings but advocating for patients.

 

[percyeye]

So because some patients are mean we shouldn't ever seek to improve the way we converse with other patients? That doesn't seem like the best way to think about this.

I guess it would have to be found out whether this is a real problem affecting a lot of patients or is this a #hashtag twitter movement to make people online feel good about themselves? I've seen a lot of patients care about the best treatment for them but I haven't seen any upset about someone using the color "Yellow" which someone earlier said is offensive.

 

[DD214]

"Yellow" which someone earlier said is offensive.

I think we'll have to eliminate all offensive colors on traffic signals so that lights are always green in all directions

That should work out well

 

[Kokonaut]

It is totally possible some of the recommendations are valid whereas others may not have as much apparent value. As some others have said, at the end of the day words matter. Consider people who are trans - asking someone something as benign as "What do you like to go by?" is pretty harmless. Would I ask every single person what pronouns they use? Probably not. But for some people it is pretty significant.

Another example coming to mind relates to seeing patients who have psychiatric disorders. For some of them, the diagnosis can be pretty demoralizing and can absolutely influence how other healthcare staff interact with them. I could call someone borderline and ergo all of their behavior gets filtered through the lens of what we'd assume from an erratic, emotionally labile individual. On a continuum, it can range from gallows humor on the light side to cynicism and callousness when allowed to fester.

 

[DD214]

Here's another new term for the AMA to promote

Old Dominion University places professor on leave after interview defending 'minor-attracted persons'

Old Dominion University placed Dr. Allyn Walker on leave after the professor made comments attempting to normalize the phrase “minor-attracted persons."

www.foxnews.com

 

[Lawpy]

Here's another new term for the AMA to promote

Old Dominion University places professor on leave after interview defending 'minor-attracted persons'

Old Dominion University placed Dr. Allyn Walker on leave after the professor made comments attempting to normalize the phrase “minor-attracted persons."

www.foxnews.com

Ew gross. That's horrible

 

[TehTeddy]

I guess it would have to be found out whether this is a real problem affecting a lot of patients or is this a #hashtag twitter movement to make people online feel good about themselves? I've seen a lot of patients care about the best treatment for them but I haven't seen any upset about someone using the color "Yellow" which someone earlier said is offensive.

Like so many of these word-movements based on purely theoretical grounds, as opposed to feedback from the groups themselves. What an arrogant and paternalistic sentiment, telling people what they should or shouldn't find offensive. Reminds me of the "latinx" label the word crowd has been pushing for years, despite only 2-4% of hispanic people preferring it, the overwhelming majority preferring others terms or not caring. A gender-neutral term already exists (hispanic or latino, encompassing men and women), but no, not cheeky enough. Gotta emphasize the infinite spectrum of genders. Too bad every spanish word is gendered, down to the tables and kitchen utensils, and thus constantly reinforces the gender binary. I wonder what the woke crowd will do once they find out. Cancel spanish? Shove more random letters in their language?

 

[Mass Effect]

See above

I have no idea what point you're making by quoting all that, but ok....

 

[Mass Effect]

Are you serious? You are comparing words like "blacklist" which doesn't have any recent racial connotation to the N-word and F-slur which are still actively used as insults?

Yes, because I'm not looking at it in a vacuum like you are. It isn't like the n-word and f-slur suddenly became vilified overnight. I'm sure there were plenty of people who argued for those becoming non-PC too.

 

[Mass Effect]

Most professional organizations will sanction members for failing to adhere to whatever they consider to be appropriate conduct based on their published standards, provided that they think the offense is serious enough. The APA will certainly do this, and it looks like the AMA will, too: CEJA rules for review of membership

But knowing the way that you’ve responded to similar issues in the past, I predict your retort will be that none of this is real because what the AMA calls sanctions aren’t really sanctions.

Ok, well as soon as the AMA records your sessions with a patient or subpoenas your records to be able to see that you're referring to your patient as a diabetic instead of a person with diabetes and then goes through a hearing process to formally sanction or discipline you, thereby making you have to report to state boards that you were sanctioned by a professional organization, let me know and I'll get outraged on your behalf. Until then, it's a distraction to scare people.

 

[Mass Effect]

Sorry, I don't get my plumbing advice from my electrician and my electrical advice from my plumber. They should advocate for physicians against corporatization, increasing bureaucracy from insurance and government, and mid-levels yada yada yada. We are all more effective doing our jobs.

You're missing the point. The purpose of the AMA is to support physicians and this specifically affects physicians because it specifically affects patients. It's like saying the AMA shouldn't take a stand on patient reviews (that has nothing to do with the stuff you mentioned after all) or on non-competes for physicians or on personal relationships with your patients. This language directly affects patients and if my saying so isn't enough, then look at others on this very thread who have direct experience with patients saying these terms bother them.

In the hospital, I don't expect Ortho to take care of medical problems. I expect them to fix msk problems. It's a bad use of their time and is best left to others.

I'm curious, who should it be left to exactly? Just because you disagree with it doesn't make it a "bad use of their time".

That doesn't mean I don't think diabetes is important because I don't think every doctor in the hospital needs to make a comment about a patient's diabetes.

No one said you don't think diabetes is important. Talk about a strawman.

The things in that article can be "real problems" just like global warming is a real problem. Doesn't mean they AMA should be using finite resources to talk about it instead of more pertinent topics to the AMA.

Global warming isn't part of the doctor-patient relationship. Completely different thing.

Me saying that I think the AMA should do their primary job (that they continue to ignore) doesn't mean that I'm minimizing racism or whatever you want to try to mischaracterize my position with today. I can agree with some aspects of the document (or their inspiration if nothing else for others) and still think it's dumb as hell and frustrating from a systems standpoint. But that's fine, call me a dirty racism minimizer or whatever without me even stating a political opinion lol. It's just not the correct channel.

When did I call you a dirty racism minimizer? In fact, when did I say anything about you being a racist? Let's deal with reality and not some weird extrapolation from you on what I said vs what I mean.

Let Ortho fix the bones before doing extracurricular moonlighting on the IM wards. let the AMA advocate for physicians before going off on sociopolitical tangents. You don't get to do hobbies until you get off the clock at your day job.

What?

Edit: And wow... Equating what I said to me "having a fit" that people got mad about cancelling the N word or R word? Really? You either misunderstand my position or mistated it on purpose. There are X number of groups advocating for racial and classist problems and Y number advocating for physicians.

This is the problem, right? People take this as being punitive or casting blame toward physicians. Because the AMA can't possibly churn out guidelines on doctor-patient interactions and still be advocating for physicians BY churning out guidelines on doctor-patient interactions? The sooner everyone chills out and stops acting like they were just sent to the principal's office, the sooner the document will blow over and we'll realize these were SUGGESTIONS not blame and certainly requirements that every physician must abide by.

Y is a number approaching zero and X is large and rightfully growing larger. How about we let X organizations/parties do their job overall for all people so at least someone is left to do Y? Resources are finite. We aren't operating under a do both scenario apparently at the AMA. My position is that groups better trained and situated to deal with these sociopolitical issues should deal with them because that's a better and more efficient allocation of resources but go ahead and say that makes me a racist that wants to bring back the R word and that I stand in the way of progress because I think we don't have to behave like a cloud of 4 year old chasing a soccer ball every time a new hip thing to advocate for comes about.

Dude, these aren't sociopolitical issues in this context. Thinking of them that way is as inaccurate as it is bewildering.

 

[Mass Effect]

Again if you have a legit problem with the word "whitelist" how are you going to handle when a patient or patient's family throws real life insulting language at you which anyone who has worked in the real world knows can happen. Are you going to breakdown or move onto the next patient and perform like you should. I think it is horrible if a patient or someone at work does this but are we living in real life land or not? If the words "whitelist and blacklist" are at the top of the list of things to tackle well then dang we are almost living in a utopian society.

You understand I'm an attending? I'm a psychiatrist and I sometimes deal with the meanest, most narcissistic, most antisocial, most addicted and most violent patients. I don't get "traumatized" by the word "whitelist" or "blacklist" and pretending that anyone here does is an obvious way of minimizing and dismissing what we're saying. I'm not even sure you understand what we're saying because the argument was never about patients being mean or what patients say. The debate is over how PHYSICIANS should address patients.

 

[Mass Effect]

I guess it would have to be found out whether this is a real problem affecting a lot of patients or is this a #hashtag twitter movement to make people online feel good about themselves? I've seen a lot of patients care about the best treatment for them but I haven't seen any upset about someone using the color "Yellow" which someone earlier said is offensive.

I mean, if you don't want listen to the experts who've been saying this for years or the doctors in this thread with real-world experiences of patients saying these things bothered them, maybe look at some of the literature about the intersection of language of and clinical skills or doctor-patient relationship and outcomes.

 

[sloop]

Ok, well as soon as the AMA records your sessions with a patient or subpoenas your records to be able to see that you're referring to your patient as a diabetic instead of a person with diabetes and then goes through a hearing process to formally sanction or discipline you, thereby making you have to report to state boards that you were sanctioned by a professional organization, let me know and I'll get outraged on your behalf. Until then, it's a distraction to scare people.

It’s clearly not unreasonable to be wary about relatively unobjectionable policies being used for objectionable purposes. I imagine that you must agree with this, otherwise maybe you would have been one of the people saying that requirements to wear cloth patches signifying religious affiliation in 1930s Germany was harmless. Or, on a more closely related note, maybe you would have been decrying anybody who objected to the Soviets drafting standards of appropriate speech.

The point is that it’s not unreasonable to be object to a policy based on concerns about how it could be used, rather than how it is being used in the moment. Even so, you’re overstating my position. I didn’t even object to the AMA publication (please show me where I did, because you’re certainly making it out like that was my argument). I said that I am okay with these guidelines but I would object if they ever became the basis tor disciplinary sanction.

 

[Mass Effect]

I imagine that you must agree with this, otherwise maybe you would have been one of the people saying that requirements to wear cloth patches signifying religious affiliation in 1930s Germany was harmless. Or, on a more closely related note, maybe you would have been decrying anybody who objected to the Soviets drafting standards of appropriate speech.

It's not often that I'm speechless, but even I don't have a response for something as disgusting as the above. Totally inappropriate dude.

 

[doomer_md]

Yes, because I'm not looking at it in a vacuum like you are. It isn't like the n-word and f-slur suddenly became vilified overnight. I'm sure there were plenty of people who argued for those becoming non-PC too.

Why don't we just throw out the whole English language since it has a lot of Latin and French influences. Slavery was legal in the Roman Empire and the French were involved in colonizing Africa and the slave trade. Just too much historical oppression and it just needs to go.

 

[Crayola227]

Why don't we just throw out the whole English language since it has a lot of Latin and French influences. Slavery was legal in the Roman Empire and the French were involved in colonizing Africa and the slave trade. Just too much historical oppression and it just needs to go.

I'm still not understanding how this is an argument to keep certain terms that may be at issue?

 

[doomer_md]

I'm still not understanding how this is an argument to keep certain terms that may be at issue?

Their argument is that because certain words have historically been used by “oppressors” they have no place in 2021 because apparently we’re running out of problems to complain about. You’ll be hard pressed to find any culture that has absolutely no blood on their hands throughout their existence. The point is stop judging things from the past with present day standards and the grifting just needs to stop.

 

[Goro]

I wonder what the woke crowd will do once they find out. Cancel spanish? Shove more random letters in their language?

Complain to their amigxs, abuelxs and tixs?

 

[doomer_md]

Complain to their amigxs, abuelxs and tixs?

You joke but in late 2020 a USC professor got put on leave because he said a Mandarin phrase that some people who were probably failing the class thought it sounded like the n-word. The consequences are real.

 

[sloop]

It's not often that I'm speechless, but even I don't have a response for something as disgusting as the above. Totally inappropriate dude.

I don’t think it’s inappropriate. You’re using the same logic.

 

[Mass Effect]

Their argument is that because certain words originated by “oppressors” to describe their oppression...

FTFY.

Also, most of us didn't focus on those words. It's on words we use as doctors every single day.

 

[Fano]

I'm still not understanding how this is an argument to keep certain terms that may be at issue?

Some of these words were not at issue until someone decided, based on no historical nor present-day evidence, that they are racist. I recently learned of the term white-saviorism, which presumably is where White people “rescue” people in marginalized communities but for the wrong reasons. What we are debating here is AMA-saviorism.

 

[Mass Effect]

I don’t think it’s inappropriate. You’re using the same logic.

Oh yes, my saying that we should say "a 39 yo patient with diabetes" instead of "a 39 yo diabetic" is roughly the same as the Nazis. The fact that you'd even invoke the Nazis and try to draw any sort of parallel is astonishingly inappropriate.

 

[Fano]

You joke but in late 2020 a USC professor got put on leave because he said a Mandarin phrase that some people who were probably failing the class thought it sounded like the n-word. The consequences are real.

Some years back (going from memory) a White aide to a mayor of DC got a ton of criticism for using the term niggardly and resigned.

 

[Lawpy]

You joke but in late 2020 a USC professor got put on leave because he said a Mandarin phrase that some people who were probably failing the class thought it sounded like the n-word. The consequences are real.

That is idiotic

 

[Neopolymath]

You're missing the point. The purpose of the AMA is to support physicians and this specifically affects physicians because it specifically affects patients. It's like saying the AMA shouldn't take a stand on patient reviews (that has nothing to do with the stuff you mentioned after all) or on non-competes for physicians or on personal relationships with your patients. This language directly affects patients and if my saying so isn't enough, then look at others on this very thread who have direct experience with patients saying these terms bother them.



I'm curious, who should it be left to exactly? Just because you disagree with it doesn't make it a "bad use of their time".



No one said you don't think diabetes is important. Talk about a strawman.



Global warming isn't part of the doctor-patient relationship. Completely different thing.



When did I call you a dirty racism minimizer? In fact, when did I say anything about you being a racist? Let's deal with reality and not some weird extrapolation from you on what I said vs what I mean.



What?



This is the problem, right? People take this as being punitive or casting blame toward physicians. Because the AMA can't possibly churn out guidelines on doctor-patient interactions and still be advocating for physicians BY churning out guidelines on doctor-patient interactions? The sooner everyone chills out and stops acting like they were just sent to the principal's office, the sooner the document will blow over and we'll realize these were SUGGESTIONS not blame and certainly requirements that every physician must abide by.




Dude, these aren't sociopolitical issues in this context. Thinking of them that way is as inaccurate as it is bewildering.

I have already said at least twice that I don't care what the content of message was (I agree with most of it). I don't care about the wokeness or whatever. You have me confused with the other posters who have a problem with that. I have a problem with using resources to make this when they can't even bother standing up for physicians in the first place. There are plenty of organizations out there to move the needle on social issues such as banning some offensive words. It's not a good use of time for this organization. Efficiency through specialization and whatnot.

Edit: and I can't believe I'm gonna quote that notoriously ridiculously libertarian ex-SDN poster SB247 but "it's ok if we disagree." seriously dude. If you think it's the job of the AMA then that's freaking great. It's a free country.

 

[sloop]

Oh yes, my saying that we should say "a 39 yo patient with diabetes" instead of "a 39 yo diabetic" is roughly the same as the Nazis. The fact that you'd even invoke the Nazis and try to draw any sort of parallel is astonishingly inappropriate.

I’m drawing a comparison of the logic, not the content. Do you not understand how analogies work? When someone says leopards are to the jungle as polar bears are to the tundra, they’re not saying the jungle is like the tundra.

Similarly, I made no claim that this is basically like the Nazis. I made the claim that your logic that a policy isn’t objectionable until it actually causes materially bad consequences does not hold up when applied in other circumstances.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

I’m drawing a comparison of the logic, not the content. Do you not understand how analogies work? When someone says leopards are to the jungle as polar bears are to the tundra, they’re not saying the jungle is like the tundra.

Similarly, I made no claim that this is basically like the Nazis. I made the claim that your logic that a policy isn’t objectionable until it actually causes materially bad consequences does not hold up when applied in other circumstances.

Or you could just, I don't know, not use Nazis in your analogies.

 

[Lawpy]

Wait where did Nazis come into picture? Did we hit Godwin's law? All we need is Burnett's law to be met and this thread joins that Carib thread as a classic SDN thread.

 

[Neopolymath]

I’m drawing a comparison of the logic, not the content. Do you not understand how analogies work? When someone says leopards are to the jungle as polar bears are to the tundra, they’re not saying the jungle is like the tundra.

Similarly, I made no claim that this is basically like the Nazis. I made the claim that your logic that a policy isn’t objectionable until it actually causes materially bad consequences does not hold up when applied in other circumstances.

This is a tactic this particular poster uses as well as pretending not to understand basic arguments to get the moral high ground for some reason. He is pretty unrelenting in his posting and mischaracterization. I've seen the same pattern over and over for almost a decade in threads like this.

 

[sloop]

Or you could just, I don't know, not use Nazis in your analogies.

Why does it matter? The point of this argument is to show that the logic being used is flawed. One way to do this is to demonstrate that the logic employed can justify obviously terrible conclusions. Nazi ideology is a pretty good example of an obviously bad conclusion, so it makes sense to use it to demonstrate the flaw in the logic.

 

[Lawpy]

Why does it matter? The point of this argument is to show that the logic being used is flawed. One way to do this is to demonstrate that the logic employed can justify obviously terrible conclusions. Nazi ideology is a pretty good example of an obviously bad conclusion, so it makes sense to use it to demonstrate the flaw in the logic.

I think the point would be better received by drawing the Soviet or Maoist comparison instead

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Why does it matter? The point of this argument is to show that the logic being used is flawed. One way to do this is to demonstrate that the logic employed can justify obviously terrible conclusions. Nazi ideology is a pretty good example of an obviously bad conclusion, so it makes sense to use it to demonstrate the flaw in the logic.

Seriously? You need me to explain why comparing something that isn't genocide to the Nazis isn't a great idea?

 

[sloop]

Seriously? You need me to explain why comparing something that isn't genocide to the Nazis isn't a great idea?

So because the Nazis were bad, the problems with their logic can’t be used to inform future policy? That’s what you took from the Holocaust?

I’m sorry, but this is a silly hard line you’re trying to draw that is based entirely on emotion, not rationality.

 

[Mass Effect]

I have already said at least twice that I don't care what the content of message was (I agree with most of it). I don't care about the wokeness or whatever. You have me confused with the other posters who have a problem with that.

No, I don't. Quit telling me what I'm confusing you with and quit gaslighting when you said very clearly in black and white: "This is just plain stupid prioritization for an organization not tasked with a woke mission." I am allowed to respond to your posts and disagree about prioritization, whether wokeness plays a role or not. You then went on a tangent about not getting plumbing advice from your electrician, clearly making a comparison as if the AMA is acting outside of its role when it is not, in my opinion.

I have a problem with using resources to make this when they can't even bother standing up for physicians in the first place. There are plenty of organizations out there to move the needle on social issues such as banning some offensive words. It's not a good use of time for this organization. Efficiency through specialization and whatnot.

How many of those organizations are focused on doctor-patient interactions from the doctor's point of view?

Edit: and I can't believe I'm gonna quote that notoriously ridiculously libertarian ex-SDN poster SB247 but "it's ok if we disagree." seriously dude. If you think it's the job of the AMA then that's freaking great. It's a free country.

I'll throw those same words back at you. I don't know why you're so bothered that I disagree to the point that you're going off on various tangents and even assigning me motives that have nothing to do with my disagreeing with you, but "it's ok if we disagree. Seriously dude".

 

[Mass Effect]

I’m drawing a comparison of the logic, not the content. Do you not understand how analogies work? When someone says leopards are to the jungle as polar bears are to the tundra, they’re not saying the jungle is like the tundra.

Similarly, I made no claim that this is basically like the Nazis. I made the claim that your logic that a policy isn’t objectionable until it actually causes materially bad consequences does not hold up when applied in other circumstances.

Oh I know exactly what an analogy is. This wasn't an analogy. This was a totally inappropriate and disgusting use of history to make a point that is so clearly devoid of logic that you had to resort to Nazis to make it. I think that call that something...

 

[Mass Effect]

This is a tactic this particular poster uses as well as pretending not to understand basic arguments to get the moral high ground for some reason. He is pretty unrelenting in his posting and mischaracterization. I've seen the same pattern over and over for almost a decade in threads like this.

And now you've chosen to come to the defense of a poster equating this discussion with the Nazis?? I didn't mischaracterize anything dude. If you feel I did, perhaps you need to check your own posts. Also, there's a handy dandy block feature that may be of benefit for you since you're so bothered.

 

[Mass Effect]

Why does it matter? The point of this argument is to show that the logic being used is flawed. One way to do this is to demonstrate that the logic employed can justify obviously terrible conclusions. Nazi ideology is a pretty good example of an obviously bad conclusion, so it makes sense to use it to demonstrate the flaw in the logic.

I can't even believe this is even a discussion. I just can't.

 

[Fano]

... when you said very clearly in black and white.

Being exclusive of other colors is offensive speech.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

So because the Nazis were bad, the problems with their logic can’t be used to inform future policy? That’s what you took from the Holocaust?

I’m sorry, but this is a silly hard line you’re trying to draw that is based entirely on emotion, not rationality.

No, what I took is that the reason you chose the Nazis was to make the implicit connection that the idea you were comparing them to could lead to Nazi-level consequences. Maybe you're the exception to that rule, but that's why most people compare things to the Nazis.

 

[doomer_md]

FTFY.

Also, most of us didn't focus on those words. It's on words we use as doctors every single day.

You use words like “blackmail” with your patients everyday?

 

[Neopolymath]

And now you've chosen to come to the defense of a poster equating this discussion with the Nazis?? I didn't mischaracterize anything dude. If you feel I did, perhaps you need to check your own posts. Also, there's a handy dandy block feature that may be of benefit for you since you're so bothered.

I'm not defending anything he said. I didn't make the argument. I'm telling him not to bother. You're a psychiatrist with strong training IIRC who just happens to pretend not to understand basic analogies on SDN for some reason so maybe you should both save your energy.

And why would I block a poster, particularly one I find entertaining? It's gonna be ok. We only speak to each other on here like every year or two.

 

[sloop]

Oh I know exactly what an analogy is. This wasn't an analogy. This was a totally inappropriate and disgusting use of history to make a point that is so clearly devoid of logic that you had to resort to Nazis to make it. I think that call that something...

Show me how the logical form wasn’t an analogy. Please do so in a way that does not use loaded, emotional language in an attempt to disguise the fact that you’re not capable of arguing a rational point. I bet you can’t do it. Prove me wrong.

I can't even believe this is even a discussion. I just can't.

Again, if you think I’m wrong, prove it. Being exasperated and offended isn’t an argument and isn’t persuasive.

No, what I took is that the reason you chose the Nazis was to make the implicit connection that the idea you were comparing them to could lead to Nazi-level consequences. Maybe you're the exception to that rule, but that's why most people compare things to the Nazis.

But the logic he was using can be used to justify any number of bad policies on the basis that their harm at the moment is merely future potential harm. Yes, that includes “Nazi-level consequences.” I never said that he’s a Nazi. I said that this logic would have justified the incipient stages of the Holocaust. The point of this argument is to demonstrate that it’s useful to pay attention to bad policy now to prevent bad outcomes later.

Personally, I think that the worst way to disrespect an atrocity of this magnitude is to decline opportunities to learn from it. That includes fixing problems with the ways we approach the world that would have justified aspects of such atrocities.

 

[Crayola227]

You use words like “blackmail” with your patients everyday?

We use terms like diabetic or white cloud fairly often in clinical scenarios.

 

[Crayola227]

Show me how the logical form wasn’t an analogy. Please do so in a way that does not use loaded, emotional language in an attempt to disguise the fact that you’re not capable of arguing a rational point. I bet you can’t do it. Prove me wrong.

Again, if you think I’m wrong, prove it. Being exasperated and offended isn’t an argument and isn’t persuasive.

But the logic he was using can be used to justify any number of bad policies on the basis that their harm at the moment is merely future potential harm. Yes, that includes “Nazi-level consequences.” I never said that he’s a Nazi. I said that this logic would have justified the incipient stages of the Holocaust. The point of this argument is to demonstrate that it’s useful to pay attention to bad policy now to prevent bad outcomes later.

Personally, I think that the worst way to disrespect an atrocity of this magnitude is to decline opportunities to learn from it. That includes fixing problems with the ways we approach the world that would have justified aspects of such atrocities.

I mean, some things, like book burnings let's say, or allowing torture, may have a clearer path to what you're saying here.

Trying to clean up language for the sake of a traditionally oppressed minority on the other hand....

What if the Nazis had banned the term "Jewish parasite"?

Not all changes in language are leading to a totalitarian state and concentration camps.

 

[Neopolymath]

We use terms like diabetic or white cloud fairly often in clinical scenarios.

Bolded: You use that phrase speaking TO patients? Can you give an example for the dense people in the thread (me lol)?

Edit: I know what the phrase means. I just don't see when I would say that to a patient.

 

[Crayola227]

Bolded: You use that phrase speaking TO patients? Can you give an example for the dense people in the thread (me lol)?

No not to patients. But I was taught that everything I say on a clinical campus including inside a locked workroom should be said as though a patient might hear it. I try to live by that principle. As it turns out, patients do end up overhearing quite a bit of things we say to one another that were not specifically intentioned for their ears.