Many People have come and Gone

[pgg]

Enough of the bickering.

Closing for a while.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Arch Guillotti]

I wholeheartedly agree. There are double standards based on the type of user they want (e.g. level of donor, or political leanings). It's mostly about the money (more eyeballs = disproportionately more money).

Not criticizing the moderator, though he's obviously biased, mostly due to politics; God knows it's not a grateful job, especially as a volunteer. I'm criticizing the policies and the kind of people they have attracted. This is basically a Zoomer-level forum; one should not waste time here if one has life experience in the real world, not psychiatric disorders induced by too much social media and pampering.

Level of donor or "money" has absolutely zero effect on how this forum is managed. Never even thought about it before.

I am biased a bit due to politics but in terms of moderation all of us try to keep it on the straight and narrow. My criticism of Trump has always been that he isn't interested in anyone other than himself and that he would burn the place down on his way out (which he did). Everything he touches dies. I am pretty middle of the road most of the time actually. Let's just say I am not thrilled about Joe handing out money indiscriminately although we all know that the Republicans have miraculously become fiscal conservatives again somehow.

Lastly, moderation is not a perfect science. The forum has been dying an active death for at least a decade but somehow we still manage to keep going. We have people acting like @sses on "both sides" with all these political discussions that people seem to want to waste so much hot air on. It isn't a good look for SDN.

 

[Gern Blansten]

Level of donor or "money" has absolutely zero effect on how this forum is managed. Never even thought about it before.

I am biased a bit due to politics but in terms of moderation all of us try to keep it on the straight and narrow. My criticism of Trump has always been that he isn't interested in anyone other than himself and that he would burn the place down on his way out (which he did). Everything he touches dies. I am pretty middle of the road most of the time actually. Let's just say I am not thrilled about Joe handing out money indiscriminately although we all know that the Republicans have miraculously become fiscal conservatives again somehow.

Lastly, moderation is not a perfect science. The forum has been dying an active death for at least a decade but somehow we still manage to keep going. We have people acting like @sses on "both sides" with all these political discussions that people seem to want to waste so much hot air on. It isn't a good look for SDN.

Those of us who visit occasionally appreciate the work that you and pgg do. I have found you both to be quite fair.

 

[LimpSpatula]

Level of donor or "money" has absolutely zero effect on how this forum is managed. Never even thought about it before.

I am biased a bit due to politics but in terms of moderation all of us try to keep it on the straight and narrow. My criticism of Trump has always been that he isn't interested in anyone other than himself and that he would burn the place down on his way out (which he did). Everything he touches dies. I am pretty middle of the road most of the time actually. Let's just say I am not thrilled about Joe handing out money indiscriminately although we all know that the Republicans have miraculously become fiscal conservatives again somehow.

Lastly, moderation is not a perfect science. The forum has been dying an active death for at least a decade but somehow we still manage to keep going. We have people acting like @sses on "both sides" with all these political discussions that people seem to want to waste so much hot air on. It isn't a good look for SDN.

Because medicine exists in a vacuum? Medicine has become embroiled in politics because of Trump and the coronavirus. How is politics not a good look for SDN when it is relevant? You afraid of losing traffic on SDN if pre-meds lose their romanticized notion of it all?

 

[deleted171991]

Level of donor or "money" has absolutely zero effect on how this forum is managed. Never even thought about it before.

I am biased a bit due to politics but in terms of moderation all of us try to keep it on the straight and narrow. My criticism of Trump has always been that he isn't interested in anyone other than himself and that he would burn the place down on his way out (which he did). Everything he touches dies. I am pretty middle of the road most of the time actually. Let's just say I am not thrilled about Joe handing out money indiscriminately although we all know that the Republicans have miraculously become fiscal conservatives again somehow.

Lastly, moderation is not a perfect science. The forum has been dying an active death for at least a decade but somehow we still manage to keep going. We have people acting like @sses on "both sides" with all these political discussions that people seem to want to waste so much hot air on. It isn't a good look for SDN.

Thank you for your answer. I think the political discussions have done tremendous damage to the interpersonal relationships on this section. They have divided the forum in "us" versus "them", even in non-political threads. I absolutely have a fault in that, but I am not the only one by far. As far as I am concerned, I would happily bury the hatchet.

Except for a cultist base of less than 25% of the population, on both sides, most Americans are decent moderates who have more things in common than those that separate us. Unfortunately, it's very hard to have a civilized relationship with people who tend to think that their side is angelic and blameless, while the other is evil incarnate, people who believe in wrongthink and heresy (if you say A then you must be labeled as B). I would fault lax moderation on one side as part of the problem.

Also, I still can't understand how somebody could get to the ludicrous idea that I would start harassing members, or become a lowlife suddenly, after 7 years. Same for other long-time users. I've seen people banned for non-PC stuff, even when they were polite and rational, as if we were the NY Times. Intent DOES matter.

SDN leans way to the left, both in policies and when about moderating users; if it were a ship, it would have sunk many times. Let's not make the same mistake in our section, because we are supposed to be more educated/experienced than the pre-meds. We should be able to co-exist with our ideological "adversaries", even if just by growing our Ignore lists. That also requires a more balanced moderation, regardless of the forum's financial interests. Valuable 40+ year-old attendings have many other options to waste time (and implicitly money) than to deal with immature and/or uneducated hyperpartisan members of the mob.

 

[Neopolymath]

Because medicine exists in a vacuum? Medicine has become embroiled in politics because of Trump and the coronavirus. How is politics not a good look for SDN when it is relevant? You afraid of losing traffic on SDN if pre-meds lose their romanticized notion of it all?

Basically, yes. They have been rebranding. You guys have it good here with moderation in the anesthesia subforum. Don't even bother going to the med student or premed area. It's TERRIBLE there.

 

[LimpSpatula]

Basically, yes. They have been rebranding. You guys have it good here with moderation in the anesthesia subforum. Don't even bother going to the med student or premed area. It's TERRIBLE there.

It's always good to go on there and make one of those socially accepted, edgy, medicine-sucks-but-deep-down-im-a-total-tool kind of jokes and get 40 likes.

 

[Southpaw]

Don't even bother going to the med student or premed area. It's TERRIBLE there.

Don’t worry, I have zero interest in frequenting those forums. I guess I understand why SDN needs to appeal to them and that they’ll take great lengths to do so, but frankly I wouldn’t bother.

 

[Neopolymath]

Don’t worry, I have zero interest in frequenting those forums. I guess I understand why SDN needs to appeal to them and that they’ll take great lengths to do so, but frankly I wouldn’t bother.

This website is useful only if it doesn't drive away attendings and residents, which is exactly what is going on if you look outside this subforum.

My only point of mentioning other areas of the website is that "the devil you know" means a lot in this situation for anyone that feels disgruntled or negatively toward PGG or Arch. It could be a hell of a lot worse. SDN is weaponizing professionalism overall.

 

[deleted171991]

It's always good to go on there and make one of those socially accepted, edgy, medicine-sucks-but-deep-down-im-a-total-tool kind of jokes and get 40 likes.

We should remove the likes in the political threads in our section, and I bet that the level of discourse would become way more civilized.

 

[GassYous]

Some of the threads I've seen from medical students on here and reddit are just incredible.



"Hostile learning environment" cause they were picked last.

"These simulations are hard and tiring. While my teammates got their hard earned rest"

"It affected me deeply as a person and to my self esteem, and I will always remember this negative experience."

Where are we getting these snowflakes? People are so soft these days. Have one person get offended at the most benign remark and next thing you know, you're "canceled" on the unemployment line, fielding phone calls filled with death threats. Everyone is so desperate to make themselves out into some sort of victim when they're comfortably living with zero actual problems in the richest country in the world.

 

[abolt18]

Some of the threads I've seen from medical students on here and reddit are just incredible.



"Hostile learning environment" cause they were picked last.

"These simulations are hard and tiring. While my teammates got their hard earned rest"

"It affected me deeply as a person and to my self esteem, and I will always remember this negative experience."

Where are we getting these snowflakes? People are so soft these days. Have one person get offended at the most benign remark and next thing you know, you're "canceled" on the unemployment line, fielding phone calls filled with death threats. Everyone is so desperate to make themselves out into some sort of victim when they're comfortably living with zero actual problems in the richest country in the world.

When you have real problems you don't have time to have "problems".

 

[Angus Avagadro]

Some of the threads I've seen from medical students on here and reddit are just incredible.



"Hostile learning environment" cause they were picked last.

"These simulations are hard and tiring. While my teammates got their hard earned rest"

"It affected me deeply as a person and to my self esteem, and I will always remember this negative experience."

Where are we getting these snowflakes? People are so soft these days. Have one person get offended at the most benign remark and next thing you know, you're "canceled" on the unemployment line, fielding phone calls filled with death threats. Everyone is so desperate to make themselves out into some sort of victim when they're comfortably living with zero actual problems in the richest country in the world.

Claiming victimhood, is also like many other behaviors, a learned behavior.

 

[LimpSpatula]

Some of the threads I've seen from medical students on here and reddit are just incredible.



"Hostile learning environment" cause they were picked last.

"These simulations are hard and tiring. While my teammates got their hard earned rest"

"It affected me deeply as a person and to my self esteem, and I will always remember this negative experience."

Where are we getting these snowflakes? People are so soft these days. Have one person get offended at the most benign remark and next thing you know, you're "canceled" on the unemployment line, fielding phone calls filled with death threats. Everyone is so desperate to make themselves out into some sort of victim when they're comfortably living with zero actual problems in the richest country in the world.

Jesus Christ.....

 

[Southpaw]

This website is useful only if it doesn't drive away attendings and residents, which is exactly what is going on if you look outside this subforum.

My only point of mentioning other areas of the website is that "the devil you know" means a lot in this situation for anyone that feels disgruntled or negatively toward PGG or Arch. It could be a hell of a lot worse. SDN is weaponizing professionalism overall.

No offense but we have no vote on the utility of this website or its direction. If the powers that be have decided that their ultimate purpose is to create a safe space and appeal to the snowflakes, then so be it. That's on them. Maybe that's where the money is to keep this thing going? I have no clue.

Do I wish this were a more open forum sometimes? Yes, but I also understand why it's not, even here in this subforum. Many of the attending level subforums are dead zones. If your specialty is heavily moderated 1) that's a shame and 2) I can't really understand why. But whatever. I come to SDN out of habit as I've been doing it at every step of my medical education. I've also learned more from the SDN anesthesiology community than I learned from most of my attendings in residency. But when Arch and PGG step away if they're replaced but someone who wants to create a safeplace for snowflakes, and this forum is no longer appealing to me, I'm sure I'll find another way to fill the void it leaves.

 

[Arch Guillotti]

I've seen people banned for non-PC stuff, even when they were polite and rational, as if we were the NY Times.

Couldn't be further from the truth. If you are banned here you certainly had it coming.

 

[pgg]

Basically, yes. They have been rebranding. You guys have it good here with moderation in the anesthesia subforum. Don't even bother going to the med student or premed area. It's TERRIBLE there.

The anesthesia forum is one tree in the forest ... to overuse that tired metaphor, we shouldn't miss the forest because of our tree.

SDN exists to help students become doctors. It's right there in the mission statement, top of the home page. Many admins and mods cover the pre-med and med students forums, and while there are differing opinions on how those forums should be moderated, in general they agree the TOS should get enforced more rigidly there. Snowflakes or not, if students avoid SDN because it's "toxic" then SDN is not meeting its mission.

In many ways, those mods have a much harder job than we do in the anesthesia forum. Their population is larger, more transient, younger, and interested in different stuff than the bunch of residents and new/old/veryold attendings that make up our regulars. Mostly, moderating this forum is easy, I do as much nothing as possible. I don't think that would work over in pre-med.

 

[deleted126335]

The anesthesia forum is one tree in the forest ... to overuse that tired metaphor, we shouldn't miss the forest because of our tree.

SDN exists to help students become doctors. It's right there in the mission statement, top of the home page. Many admins and mods cover the pre-med and med students forums, and while there are differing opinions on how those forums should be moderated, in general they agree the TOS should get enforced more rigidly there. Snowflakes or not, if students avoid SDN because it's "toxic" then SDN is not meeting its mission.

In many ways, those mods have a much harder job than we do in the anesthesia forum. Their population is larger, more transient, younger, and interested in different stuff than the bunch of residents and new/old/veryold attendings that make up our regulars. Mostly, moderating this forum is easy, I do as much nothing as possible. I don't think that would work over in pre-med.

Microaggression.

 

[pgg]

Microaggression.

I had you and Blade in mind when I wrote that, but I thought @'ing you would be reported as a macroaggression

 

[deleted171991]

The anesthesia forum is one tree in the forest ... to overuse that tired metaphor, we shouldn't miss the forest because of our tree.

SDN exists to help students become doctors. It's right there in the mission statement, top of the home page. Many admins and mods cover the pre-med and med students forums, and while there are differing opinions on how those forums should be moderated, in general they agree the TOS should get enforced more rigidly there. Snowflakes or not, if students avoid SDN because it's "toxic" then SDN is not meeting its mission.

In many ways, those mods have a much harder job than we do in the anesthesia forum. Their population is larger, more transient, younger, and interested in different stuff than the bunch of residents and new/old/veryold attendings that make up our regulars. Mostly, moderating this forum is easy, I do as much nothing as possible. I don't think that would work over in pre-med.

While I can understand that pre-med babies still need diapers, I have way higher expectations from the trainees who are interested in this section. Because, in the real world, nobody will pamper them, especially "when seconds count".

Unfortunately the new Treatment Of Snowflakes, last updated in July 2020 (I think), sounds like some communist manifesto, in places. That "thing" is as valid on this section as on the pre-med ones. Based on it, it's enough to be labeled as a "hater" or a promoter of "oppression", or "negativity", or "negative prejudgments". Hey, who cares if what one says may be true, or it's a legit/interesting question, if it's unPC and pisses off the ultra woke? "Words are violence", remember?

Any educated and open-minded physician should appreciate the Chicago principles more, and that's what we should use on this section. Otherwise, this section will feel more and more like Hong Kong after having been given back to China. That's another reason why we should NOT have political threads on this section anymore, except maybe in the private forum.

@pgg, please do read the attached UChicago Report on Freedom of Expression. THAT's how one helps students become doctors.

P.S. This was more of an intellectual exercise. It's about as futile as protesting the CCP in Hong Kong. I'm sure some big hammer is coming my way, sooner or later.

 

[We'llBeDoneIn15Minutes]

Level of donor or "money" has absolutely zero effect on how this forum is managed. Never even thought about it before.

I am biased a bit due to politics but in terms of moderation all of us try to keep it on the straight and narrow. My criticism of Trump has always been that he isn't interested in anyone other than himself and that he would burn the place down on his way out (which he did). Everything he touches dies. I am pretty middle of the road most of the time actually. Let's just say I am not thrilled about Joe handing out money indiscriminately although we all know that the Republicans have miraculously become fiscal conservatives again somehow.

Lastly, moderation is not a perfect science. The forum has been dying an active death for at least a decade but somehow we still manage to keep going. We have people acting like @sses on "both sides" with all these political discussions that people seem to want to waste so much hot air on. It isn't a good look for SDN.

Simply not true. Your political views directs what you allow and disallow. The insulting condescending hostility you allow from like minded individuals is only matched by how fast you censor and shut down both opposing views as well as those that reply to the overly aggressive insulting attacks initiated from those with your similar viewpoints.

I would take a guess the lines through people's name from political discussions in the last year since I returned to SDN have been over 90% Trump supporters and/or Anti-left individuals (could actually be 100%). I've have reduced to occasional drive bys on here due to the largely intolerant waste of time this Vox, jr/msnbc mini-me board has become.

 

[vector2]

We must be living in some bizarro world since political threads here have gone well over 100 pages before of back and forth from opposing viewpoints, and yet somehow people are complaining about censorship?


Also, everyone complaining about one-sided biased moderators.....y'all really don't have a clue what you're talking about, and your whining about @Arch Guillotti or @pgg is totally unfounded nonsense that just reeks of having a victim complex. They enforce the rules and the TOS fairly.

Don't believe me?

Fun fact: These messages from Arch were not about how much he loved my liberal-leaning posts

 

[deleted171991]

Simply not true. Your political views directs what you allow and disallow. The insulting condescending hostility you allow from like minded individuals is only matched by how fast you censor and shut down both opposing views as well as those that reply to the overly aggressive insulting attacks initiated from those with your similar viewpoints.

I would take a guess the lines through people's name from political discussions in the last year since I returned to SDN have been over 90% Trump supporters and/or Anti-left individuals (could actually be 100%). I've have reduced to occasional drive bys on here due to the largely intolerant waste of time this Vox, jr/msnbc mini-me board has become.

The problem are not just moderator biases. Their hands are somewhat tied by the TOS. If a snowflake complains about a specific ultra woke paragraph from the TOS (see my previous post), they have to do something. Now more than ever, because of all the woke guilt and political correctness that permeates the new TOS (not that the old one was much better). They should just switch to Catholicism en masse; it has both self-flagellation and Inquisition (speaking as a lapsed Catholic).

I wouldn't be surprised if the reports came from people who shouldn't really be on this section in the first place, because they are not even interested in anesthesiology, and don't know crap about the posters and the culture of this section. The political threads attract them like garbage attracts flies, and the last thing they are interested in is free speech. I see their votes and posts all the time.

And while @Arch Guillotti "leans" left (and almost falls over), and @pgg leans right, one should always give moderators the benefit of the doubt. Their work is not easy, and time-consuming (if properly done). They just can't make everybody happy. Also, they can't swim against the current, and there is a strong current from the left on SDN. Plus the same two moderators are responsible for how far this section has gotten in the last 10+ years, for its good parts.

 

[pgg]

While I can understand that pre-med babies still need diapers, I have way higher expectations from the trainees who are interested in this section. Because, in the real world, nobody will pamper them, especially "when seconds count".

Unfortunately the new Treatment Of Snowflakes, last updated in July 2020 (I think), sounds like some communist manifesto, in places. That "thing" is as valid on this section as on the pre-med ones. Based on it, it's enough to be labeled as a "hater" or a promoter of "oppression", or "negativity", or "negative prejudgments". Hey, who cares if what one says may be true, or it's a legit/interesting question, if it's unPC and pisses off the ultra woke? "Words are violence", remember?

Any educated and open-minded physician should appreciate the Chicago principles more, and that's what we should use on this section. Otherwise, this section will feel more and more like Hong Kong after having been given back to China. That's another reason why we should NOT have political threads on this section anymore, except maybe in the private forum.

@pgg, please do read the attached UChicago Report on Freedom of Expression. THAT's how one helps students become doctors.

P.S. This was more of an intellectual exercise. It's about as futile as protesting the CCP in Hong Kong. I'm sure some big hammer is coming my way, sooner or later.

The University of Chicago report that you attached does include some caveats in its support of freedom of expression:

The University may restrict expression that violates the law, that falsely defames a specific individual, that constitutes a genuine threat or harassment, that unjustifiably invades substantial privacy or confidentiality interests, or that is otherwise directly incompatible with the functioning of the University.

This is not carte blanche to say anything anywhere; behavior that is deemed "incompatible with the functioning of the University" isn't cool with them. In SDN terms, if posts are made in a manner and place that hinders the overall mission of helping students become doctors, there's room to fairly moderate them.

It follows that statement with

In addition, the University may reasonably regulate the time, place, and manner of expression to ensure that it does not disrupt the ordinary activities of the University.

I think it's entirely consistent with that philosophy to regulate the "place of expression" within SDN. For example, to move political discussions to the "off topic threads" forum so as to not disrupt the ordinary activities of the pre-med forum. Historically, in the anesthesia subforum, the great majority of our regulars haven't felt that off-topic discussions, even heated ones, are disruptive. So in this subforum, it's fair game. In others, not so much.

The core idea in that report is this

It is for the individual members of the University community, not for the University as an institution, to make those judgments for themselves, and to act on those judgments not by seeking to suppress speech, but by openly and vigorously contesting the ideas that they oppose.

And I think SDN as a whole follows this philosophy, and the anesthesia subforum especially. There's actually a specific term we use when reviewing and discussing reported posts and determining action or inaction - forum homeostasis. It's the idea that if we do nothing at all, or post in the thread to ask for calm/politeness/whatever, that other members will speak up against and peer-pressurize really wrongheaded or objectionable stuff. Consequently, removing content usually isn't warranted, even if doing so is consistent with the TOS.

 

[LimpSpatula]

Simply not true. Your political views directs what you allow and disallow. The insulting condescending hostility you allow from like minded individuals is only matched by how fast you censor and shut down both opposing views as well as those that reply to the overly aggressive insulting attacks initiated from those with your similar viewpoints.

I would take a guess the lines through people's name from political discussions in the last year since I returned to SDN have been over 90% Trump supporters and/or Anti-left individuals (could actually be 100%). I've have reduced to occasional drive bys on here due to the largely intolerant waste of time this Vox, jr/msnbc mini-me board has become.

I don’t know. I’ve seen them coddle the safe space for conservative snowflakes quite often. I wouldn’t say they’re biased in the least bit and if I had to guess I would say they lean right.

 

[BLADEMDA]

I don’t know. I’ve seen them coddle the safe space for conservative snowflakes quite often. I wouldn’t say they’re biased in the least bit and if I had to guess I would say they lean right.

Well, since they are both moderates with one left of center and the other right of center only a liberal would see them "both" as leaning right. That said, they are good people and very fair overall.

 

[deleted171991]

The University of Chicago report that you attached does include some caveats in its support of freedom of expression:

This is not carte blanche to say anything anywhere; behavior that is deemed "incompatible with the functioning of the University" isn't cool with them. In SDN terms, if posts are made in a manner and place that hinders the overall mission of helping students become doctors, there's room to fairly moderate them.

It follows that statement with


I think it's entirely consistent with that philosophy to regulate the "place of expression" within SDN. For example, to move political discussions to the "off topic threads" forum so as to not disrupt the ordinary activities of the pre-med forum. Historically, in the anesthesia subforum, the great majority of our regulars haven't felt that off-topic discussions, even heated ones, are disruptive. So in this subforum, it's fair game. In others, not so much.

The core idea in that report is this


And I think SDN as a whole follows this philosophy, and the anesthesia subforum especially. There's actually a specific term we use when reviewing and discussing reported posts and determining action or inaction - forum homeostasis. It's the idea that if we do nothing at all, or post in the thread to ask for calm/politeness/whatever, that other members will speak up against and peer-pressurize really wrongheaded or objectionable stuff. Consequently, removing content usually isn't warranted, even if doing so is consistent with the TOS.

One cannot even compare SDN with UChicago. We don't even come close to these principles, not even in this section, no offense:

More recently, President Hanna Holborn Gray observed that “education should not be intended to make people comfortable, it is meant to make them think. Universities should be expected to provide the conditions within which hard thought, and therefore strong disagreement, independent judgment, and the questioning of stubborn assumptions, can flourish in an environment of the greatest freedom.”

But it is not the proper role of the University to attempt to shield individuals from ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive. Although the University greatly values civility, and although all members of the University community share in the responsibility for maintaining a climate of mutual respect, concerns about civility and mutual respect can never be used as a justification for closing off discussion of ideas, however offensive or disagreeable those ideas may be to some members of our community.

In a word, the University’s fundamental commitment is to the principle that debate or deliberation may not be suppressed because the ideas put forth are thought by some or even by most members of the University community to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or wrong-headed. It is for the individual members of the University community, not for the University as an institution, to make those judgments for themselves, and to act on those judgments not by seeking to suppress speech, but by openly and vigorously contesting the ideas that they oppose.

If asked, I'm sure that @GA8314 (and others) would tell us how these generous principles guided the events that led to their banning, not the closed-minded ones I pointed out in the TOS.

Every time I re-read that Report, it reminds me why I love this country, and beautiful minds like them. That's what a true intellectual sounds like, not the 40+% of snowflakes who would abolish the First Amendment, because "words are violence".

 

[We'llBeDoneIn15Minutes]

The problem are not just moderator biases. Their hands are somewhat tied by the TOS. If a snowflake complains about a specific ultra woke paragraph from the TOS (see my previous post), they have to do something. Now more than ever, because of all the woke guilt and political correctness that permeates the new TOS (not that the old one was much better). They should just switch to Catholicism en masse; it has both self-flagellation and Inquisition (speaking as a lapsed Catholic).

I wouldn't be surprised if the reports came from people who shouldn't really be on this section in the first place, because they are not even interested in anesthesiology, and don't know crap about the posters and the culture of this section. The political threads attract them like garbage attracts flies, and the last thing they are interested in is free speech. I see their votes and posts all the time.

And while @Arch Guillotti "leans" left (and almost falls over), and @pgg leans right, one should always give moderators the benefit of the doubt. Their work is not easy, and time-consuming (if properly done). They just can't make everybody happy. Also, they can't swim against the current, and there is a strong current from the left on SDN. Plus the same two moderators are responsible for how far this section has gotten in the last 10+ years, for its good parts.

Some valid points I wasn't aware of.

 

[vector2]

Let's just be clear here that by any reasonable definition GA8314 was a neonazi. The SDN community as a whole, regardless of the TOS or mods, would not want this dude as a representative voice or member.

Just ask yourself if Norm was around what he'd say about a guy who thinks changing the laws to make sure the US stays a white country is the best course of action.

 

[GassYous]

Silencing opinions won't make them go away. You just make an echo chamber for the views that you hold dear or at least find to be acceptable.

 

[vector2]

Silencing opinions won't make them go away. You just make an echo chamber for the views that you hold dear or at least find to be acceptable.

Just curious- where do you wanna draw the line so we don't get too overboard "silencing opinions"?

Open advocacy of the white genocide conspiracy theory was apparently acceptable protected SDN speech in your book since GA8314 was only advocating forced deportation of all POC and banning of all POC immigration because racial lines are natural "fracture" lines. What about open advocacy of violence against these folks? Should we let that one go too cause moderating that might be too echo chamber-y?

 

[deleted171991]

Just curious- where do you wanna draw the line so we don't get too overboard "silencing opinions"?

Open advocacy of the white genocide conspiracy theory was apparently acceptable protected SDN speech in your book since GA8314 was only advocating forced deportation of all POC and banning of all POC immigration because racial lines are natural "fracture" lines. What about open advocacy of violence against these folks? Should we let that one go too cause moderating that might be too echo chamber-y?

Can you point me to the posts where he actually says these, please? Context matters.

 

[vector2]

Can you point me to the posts where he actually says these, please? Context matters.

The exchange starts on this page SCOTUS will increase to 11 or 13 Justices

Although certainly one must wonder which part of "change immigration laws to maintain a white majority" wasn't clear to you.

And I didn't say GA openly advocated violence. I was asking GassYous a hypothetical regarding whether he has a line where his idea of protected SDN speech breaks down. As I said to @pgg before GA was banned- GA can say whatever he wishes to any public venue of his choosing, but SDN posts are not SCOTUS test cases for airing white supremacy free speech.

 

[deleted171991]

The exchange starts on this page SCOTUS will increase to 11 or 13 Justices

Although certainly one must wonder which part of "change immigration laws to maintain a white majority" wasn't clear to you.

And I didn't say GA openly advocated violence. I was asking GassYous a hypothetical regarding whether he has a line where his idea of protected SDN speech breaks down. As I said to @pgg before GA was banned- GA can say whatever he wishes to any public venue of his choosing, but SDN posts are not SCOTUS test cases for airing white supremacy free speech.

So you "deduced" what he must have been thinking, and put words in his mouth, as usual, instead of asking him what exactly he meant. There are many ways one can maintain a white majority, that don't involve violence or mass deportations. It was national policy in both US and Canada for a good part of the 20th century; what they did was rationing of immigration based on country of origin.

This was GA8314's typical rhetoric, which got him banned, from what I read (stop reading from here on, if snowflake):

You can enforce borders strongly, and change immigration laws to maintain a white majority. This is the only thing keeping us from becoming a third world country.

Ask yourself, which African country would you see yourself living in and raising a family in? Anyplace in the world. Choose one. Be honest.

He had a point (nobody could come up with an African country they would like to live in, except for Ghana, I think). Still, nobody pointed out to him that we probably know little about African countries, which is a source of bias.

Btw, here are the world immigration numbers (see attached): https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/wmr_2020.pdf . Africa is not popular.

But that part should have been irrelevant to any dispassionate thinker. The main issue should have been whether immigrants keep their bad habits from home, or whether America can make them into better people, like it has done with MANY immigrants. And nobody debated him on THAT. We just took the unPC speech, labeled him a racist (I have read much more hateful stuff about whites, and those people are making millions), and banned him. America is now a much better place, and so is SDN... The "homeostasis" has been re-established.

I am not defending the user; I am attacking the "process", which looks more like mob justice, and I don't like mob justice, especially for wrongthink and speech. I remember putting him on Ignore, in the past, for stuff that made me cringe, but he sounded about as racist as the average person who mentions "crackers" among friends. He likes whites more than blacks, because he associates the latter with increased criminality; big deal, prove him wrong if you can. Not what I would call a "neonazi", or imagine marching in Charlottesville. Maybe I'm missing some specific posts, that's why I was asking for them.

Let me imagine a different story: a smart African American user would have listened to what he had to say, debated him in a friendly fashion, and maybe even proved him wrong (that shouldn't have been the goal, just the civilized exchange of ideas). Then another black person would have done the same, in a different thread. Then another one. Until somebody finally sowed doubt in his mind. That's how hearts and minds are changed.

Point the man to Thomas Sowell (and other beautiful conservative African American minds), to show him that people should be judged individually, not based on their group identities. Anything, but calling him the equivalent of a deplorable, and pushing him towards truly becoming one.

Forgive me, Father, for I (too) keep sinning... (when about short fuse, hearts and minds etc.).. But I am not the one who decides to ban people.

P.S. SDN, you owe me a few hundred bucks more. Or the other way round.

 

[LimpSpatula]

The exchange starts on this page SCOTUS will increase to 11 or 13 Justices

Although certainly one must wonder which part of "change immigration laws to maintain a white majority" wasn't clear to you.

And I didn't say GA openly advocated violence. I was asking GassYous a hypothetical regarding whether he has a line where his idea of protected SDN speech breaks down. As I said to @pgg before GA was banned- GA can say whatever he wishes to any public venue of his choosing, but SDN posts are not SCOTUS test cases for airing white supremacy free speech.

Honestly it’s along the lines of the crazy **** said about the election. The two are probably related. I think it’s more helpful to have the argument be shut down repeatedly by multiple people, rather than remove them. That’s only reinforcing his view of being a scapegoat.

 

[vector2]

So you "deduced" what he must have been thinking, and put words in his mouth, as usual, instead of asking him what exactly he meant. There are many ways one can maintain a white majority, that don't involve violence or mass deportations. It was national policy in both US and Canada for a good part of the 20th century.

This was GA8314's typical rhetoric, which got him banned, from what I read (stop reading from here on, if snowflake):


He had a point (nobody could come up with an African country they would like to live in, except for Ghana, I think). Still, nobody pointed out to him that we probably know little about African countries, which is a source of bias.

Btw, here are the world immigration numbers (see attached): https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/wmr_2020.pdf . Africa is not popular.

But that part should have been irrelevant to any dispassionate thinker. The main issue should have been whether immigrants keep their bad habits from home, or whether America can make them into better people, like it has done with MANY immigrants. And nobody debated him on THAT. We just took the unPC speech, labeled him a racist (I have read much more hateful stuff about whites, and those people are making millions), and banned him. America is now a much better place, and so is SDN... The "homeostasis" has been re-established.

I am not defending the user; I am attacking the "process", which looks more like mob justice, and I don't like mob justice, especially for wrongthink and speech. I remember putting him on Ignore, in the past, for stuff that made me cringe, but he sounded about as racist as the average person who mentions "crackers" among friends. He likes whites more than blacks, because he associates the latter with increased criminality; big deal, prove him wrong if you can. Not what I would call a "neonazi", or imagine marching in Charlottesville. Maybe I'm missing some specific posts, that's why I was asking for them.

Let me imagine a different story: a smart African American user would have listened to what he had to say, debated him in a friendly fashion, and maybe even proved him wrong (that shouldn't have been the goal, just the civilized exchange of ideas). Then another black person would have done the same, in a different thread. Then another one. Until somebody finally sowed doubt in his mind. That's how hearts and minds are changed.

Point the man to Thomas Sowell (and other beautiful conservative African American minds), to show him that people should be judged individually, not based on their group identities. Anything, but calling him the equivalent of a deplorable, and pushing him towards truly becoming one.

Forgive me, Father, for I (too) have sinned...

I didn’t “deduce” anything. Anyone can go back to that thread and read his plainly racist posts which you (unsurprisingly) are quite charitable toward. GA made no bones about his position nor did he try to hide it like you do by couching his bs in terms like “culture” and “assimilation.” He flat out said America should be a *white* country and policy should change to achieve that goal, and he is exactly the kind of person who would be marching while chanting “you will not replace us”

 

[vector2]

Honestly it’s along the lines of the crazy **** said about the election. The two are probably related. I think it’s more helpful to have the argument be shut down repeatedly by multiple people, rather than remove them. That’s only reinforcing his view of being a scapegoat.

If you would like to sit down and have a lovely conversation with someone who fundamentally disagrees with your right to even be in this country based on your skin color then by all means please feel free to exercise your powers of persuasion with them.

I say no thanks, F off.

 

[LimpSpatula]

If you would like to sit down and have a lovely conversation with someone who fundamentally disagrees with your right to even be in this country based on your skin color then by all means please feel free to exercise your powers of persuasion with them.

I say no thanks, F off.

We all live amongst each other, so we’re having conversations with people we fundamentally disagree with everyday. We’re just conversing superficially, and that’s the entire issue. We don’t need to be suppressing our thoughts, good or bad. Just use DJT as an example. Dude tweeted his entire plot on IG. I want to know what the rest of them are thinking. Maybe we’d think they’re all deplorable and needing expelling.

 

[GassYous]

Just curious- where do you wanna draw the line so we don't get too overboard "silencing opinions"?

Open advocacy of the white genocide conspiracy theory was apparently acceptable protected SDN speech in your book since GA8314 was only advocating forced deportation of all POC and banning of all POC immigration because racial lines are natural "fracture" lines. What about open advocacy of violence against these folks? Should we let that one go too cause moderating that might be too echo chamber-y?

I think there is definitely a line drawn at advocating violence. Beyond that, I don't know that we benefit from trying to silence opinions. The attack on the capitol didn't come from nowhere and pretending like those people don't exist doesn't help anyone. Then all you have are snowflakes being shocked at people having different opinions than them and not understanding that half the country disagrees with them.

 

[vector2]

We all live amongst each other, so we’re having conversations with people we fundamentally disagree with everyday. We’re just conversing superficially, and that’s the entire issue. We don’t need to be suppressing our thoughts, good or bad. Just use DJT as an example. Dude tweeted his entire plot on IG. I want to know what the rest of them are thinking. Maybe we’d think they’re all deplorable and needing expelling.

I think there is definitely a line drawn at advocating violence. Beyond that, I don't know that we benefit from trying to silence opinions. The attack on the capitol didn't come from nowhere and pretending like those people don't exist doesn't help anyone. Then all you have are snowflakes being shocked at people having different opinions than them and not understanding that half the country disagrees with them.

The flip side of using DJT as an example is that his free expression took the level of discourse to such an insane place that it enabled and inspired the absolute worst folks to indulge their worst impulses....and even if they had always had those impulses he essentially, through his rhetoric and demeanor, gave them implicit (and sometimes explicit) permission to act on them. See: here and here

There is a difference between “pretending like those people don’t exist” and knowing those people exist but not encouraging them to gratuitously spread abjectly harmful ideas like a memetic virus simply in the name of promoting free speech.

 

[deleted171991]

I didn’t “deduce” anything. Anyone can go back to that thread and read his plainly racist posts which you (unsurprisingly) are quite charitable toward. GA made no bones about his position nor did he try to hide it like you do by couching his bs in terms like “culture” and “assimilation.” He flat out said America should be a *white* country and policy should change to achieve that goal, and he is exactly the kind of person who would be marching while chanting “you will not replace us”

Just because you tend to have a very liberal (as in free) imagination, it doesn't mean that you are right about most people you disagree with. You tend to read too much into what people say/believe. I guess many of us make the same mistake, just to a lesser degree. You may be right about GA8314, but I wouldn't bet a lot of money on it. (I warned and was right about Trump in May 2016, including about his racism, so I am not the apologist you think I am.)

I just don't claim to know what he's thinking (I am having a moment of dispassionate rationality, it won't last long). I've seen racist white people and racist black people (some of the former are rich dinguses, and some of the latter are Ph.D.'s). Still it takes a bad character to do really bad things, not just a bad/uninformed thinker. And words are NOT violence, especially if exchanged in a civilized fashion. Less educated people than most of us knew it 50 years ago. As long as there is communication and empathy, there is still hope for a better world.

 

[Lawpy]

Premed forums are a neurotic disaster filled with trolling and flame wars with some occasional good advice (all thanks to med students, attendings, adcoms) and i doubt many stop by the specialty forums. I don't think the med student forums are bad. Med students are far more mature and civilized than premeds and the threads are generally alright +/- some dumpster fire political mess and overly neuroticism. The specialty forums are always great and i learn a lot.

Yes politics influences medicine but there's been a lot of fake news crap spread on SDN overall that criticize masks, vaccines etc while promoting bizarre QAnon-type disinformation combined with hyperpartisan debates. At that point, it becomes clear SPF is the way to go.

 

[LimpSpatula]

The flip side of using DJT as an example is that his free expression took the level of discourse to such an insane place that it enabled and inspired the absolute worst folks to indulge their worst impulses....and even if they had always had those impulses he essentially, through his rhetoric and demeanor, gave them implicit (and sometimes explicit) permission to act on them. See: here and here

There is a difference between “pretending like those people don’t exist” and knowing those people exist but not encouraging them to gratuitously spread abjectly harmful ideas like a memetic virus simply in the name of promoting free speech.

But would you feel differently if the rioters were met with bullets and the police had actually done their job?

 

[LimpSpatula]

Premed forums are a neurotic disaster filled with trolling and flame wars with some occasional good advice (all thanks to med students, attendings, adcoms) and i doubt many stop by the specialty forums. I don't think the med student forums are bad. Med students are far more mature and civilized than premeds and the threads are generally alright +/- some dumpster fire political mess and overly neuroticism. The specialty forums are always great and i learn a lot.

Yes politics influences medicine but there's been a lot of fake news crap spread on SDN overall that criticize masks, vaccines etc while promoting bizarre QAnon-type disinformation combined with hyperpartisan debates. At that point, it becomes clear SPF is the way to go.

It’s because the specialty forums are filled with people’s grandpas.

 

[epidural man]

If you would like to sit down and have a lovely conversation with someone who fundamentally disagrees with your right to even be in this country based on your skin color then by all means please feel free to exercise your powers of persuasion with them.

I say no thanks, F off.

I guess it depends on your goal. If the goal is to feel good about your self, your method works.

If your goal is to make the world a better place, to help people see things different, to grow, to understand - this method probably isn't a great way to accomplish these goals.

By the way, I don't see anything wrong with being racist. I see things wrong with treating others unfairly or being discriminatory, or making decisions based on bias.

Does it bother me when I am in Japan knowing they are probably the most racist people on the planet? Nope. Because they are also the most generous and kind people to ALL races.

Would it bother me if a group of Italians think they are better than Irish? Nope. Not at all...as long as they treat the Irish with respect, kindness, and openness.

Ideas and opions don't hurt. The way someone treats another human being matters. That should be the ONLY thing that matters.

 

[chocomorsel]

I guess it depends on your goal. If the goal is to feel good about your self, your method works.

If your goal is to make the world a better place, to help people see things different, to grow, to understand - this method probably isn't a great way to accomplish these goals.

By the way, I don't see anything wrong with being racist. I see things wrong with treating others unfairly or being discriminatory, or making decisions based on bias.

Does it bother me when I am in Japan knowing they are probably the most racist people on the planet? Nope. Because they are also the most generous and kind people to ALL races.

Would it bother me if a group of Italians think they are better than Irish? Nope. Not at all...as long as they treat the Irish with respect, kindness, and openness.

Ideas and opions don't hurt. The way someone treats another human being matters. That should be the ONLY thing that matters.

I think you are well aware that we are talking about racism in the context of not only feeling superior due to your race but using that superiority complex to mistreat and keep the inferior race down and not at an equal level.
Just in case you weren’t aware of what we mean about the racism of the US and many White countries with a history of slaves and mistreatment of Brown/Black/Asian peoples.
I can’t speak for other countries but if the Japanese were racist and using that to to mistreat and prevent other races from advancing, many of us would have a problem with that too.

Fake niceness/politeness like seen in many parts of the South while actively keeping minorities is “their place“ in society sucks even worse to me than the overt stuff.

 

[vector2]

Just because you tend to have a very liberal (as in free) imagination, it doesn't mean that you are right about most people you disagree with. You tend to read too much into what people say/believe. I guess many of us make the same mistake, just to a lesser degree. You may be right about GA8314, but I wouldn't bet a lot of money on it. (I warned and was right about Trump in May 2016, including about his racism, so I am not the apologist you think I am.)

I just don't claim to know what he's thinking (I am having a moment of dispassionate rationality, it won't last long). I've seen racist white people and racist black people (some of the former are rich dinguses, and some of the latter are Ph.D.'s). Still it takes a bad character to do really bad things, not just a bad/uninformed thinker. And words are NOT violence, especially if exchanged in a civilized fashion. Less educated people than most of us knew it 50 years ago. As long as there is communication and empathy, there is still hope for a better world.

You continue to keep describing GA as if I or anyone else had to do some reaching to arrive at his beliefs. Once again, this is plainly false on its face. No one had to read into any of what he said because GA did not mince words. He unapologetically just told us what he thought, and those thoughts were simultaneously gross for their sentiment and refreshing for their candor. Stop trying to pretend he was speaking in metaphor and we both just have different opinions as to how best to decipher his meaning.

 

[vector2]

I guess it depends on your goal. If the goal is to feel good about your self, your method works.

If your goal is to make the world a better place, to help people see things different, to grow, to understand - this method probably isn't a great way to accomplish these goals.

By the way, I don't see anything wrong with being racist. I see things wrong with treating others unfairly or being discriminatory, or making decisions based on bias.

Does it bother me when I am in Japan knowing they are probably the most racist people on the planet? Nope. Because they are also the most generous and kind people to ALL races.

Would it bother me if a group of Italians think they are better than Irish? Nope. Not at all...as long as they treat the Irish with respect, kindness, and openness.

Ideas and opions don't hurt. The way someone treats another human being matters. That should be the ONLY thing that matters.

Ideas and opinions don't exist in a vacuum. 5 people are dead directly because of the idea that the election was unjustly stolen. Now, just because that happened or just because a guy in El Paso killed 23 people because the national discourse about "invaders" from the south of the border had gotten out of hand doesn't mean we get to start infringing on 1A rights, but the idea that surely it must be fruitful for me to indulge some likely 35-45 yo white supremacist physician- who supports policies designed to make America all-white, which if course would hurt millions of people - is quite frankly absurd.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

I think you are well aware that we are talking about racism in the context of not only feeling superior due to your race but using that superiority complex to mistreat and keep the inferior race down and not at an equal level.
Just in case you weren’t aware of what we mean about the racism of the US and many White countries with a history of slaves and mistreatment of Brown/Black/Asian peoples.
I can’t speak for other countries but if the Japanese were racist and using that to to mistreat and prevent other races from advancing, many of us would have a problem with that too.

Fake niceness/politeness like seen in many parts of the South while actively keeping minorities is “their place“ in society sucks even worse to me than the overt stuff.

Face the reality of racism in Japan

When racism occurs, either implicitly or overtly, it is often dismissed as arising from Japanese racial naivete.

www.japantimes.co.jp

 

[chocomorsel]

Face the reality of racism in Japan

When racism occurs, either implicitly or overtly, it is often dismissed as arising from Japanese racial naivete.

www.japantimes.co.jp

Well well well. You mean they are racist against black people but hold Whites to a higher standard? What else is new?
My money is on @epidural man being a White person who’s travelled to Japan and received great treatment. Maybe I am wrong. I am apparently not allowed to ask that on here so you don’t have to “out” yourself Epidural. Come to my country in Africa and they will lay out the red carpet for you as well because the Natives has also been brainwashed to think White money and anything White is better than anything Black. Thank you Britain.
Whatever the case, to buy into that narrative that people are “racist but as long as they don’t treat me differently I am ok with it” is quite Naive in my opinion.
Hence my mention of the Southern niceness that can be very undermining and have such hidden angles.