Right. So you don’t really want to literally fight them in the streets, because that’s their plan: to make Trump’s “on both sides,” statements plausible if not appealing to people. Anyone who pointed that out to her were Nazis sympathizers or Nazis themselves. The best you could score was Nazi enabler, because you were disagreeing and “attacking” her while Nazis snuck in behind you or something.
I want to be all FAKE NEWS LOL but I can’t because fuck all these people forever. Get out of my country, you idiots.
You fascists.
You incurious fucking wastes of space who can’t be bothered to look any more deeply into the world around you than whatever sad-sack tales your grandpappy had about how it used to be better when whatever fairy tale he has convinced himself of was true.
I’m done with all of you.
Probably not their grandparents, because their stories would have been about killing Nazis.
Heh. Good point.
Maybe I’m being naive (and grossly uninformed as I am neither an American citizen or resident) but perhaps instead of bringing down this or that statue, perhaps more statues ought to be erected.
A statue showing a slave, so you can’t forget it?
A memorial outside former slave markets?
A reconstructed slave ship?
A statue commemorating everyone who fought in that period?
A few statues of nature Americans too while you’re at it?
If the justification for keeping/destroying them is to preserve history /identity/legacy then why not be honest about that actual history/identity/legacy?
I saw in a bbc documentary (not a comment in reliability or bias or lack thereof ) that apparently every state can choose how to teach the civil (and other) wars. There’s no cohesive direction on what to teach?
My memory is rusty but in secondary/high school England, before age 14 (after which a student can choose most subjects but must have a core of English language, Maths and Science) there is an obligatory series of classes on world war 2 and the Holocaust. I believe schools get a list of periods they can cover in each year but that this area (among others) is obligatory.
Aged 14 I learnt about Dresden and we even had a debate about the morality of it. We were encouraged to do our own research and present something about it.
(Quick primer, from old memory, the RAF smashed he town to bits in one night, killing 100-500,000 people. The numbers are vague because most of the casualties were melted. Also there was a Jewish camp nearby that was studiously avoided. I would link to Wikipedia but I’m using a phone and it’s awkward)
My understanding is that slavery, and the varied perspectives on it (most slaves from West Africa were indeed sold by other Natives, not forceably kidnapped by Europeans, and there were notable negro foremen on the plantations etc. Basically not a black and white issue as some would have us belive. Ditto whether the civil war was about freeing the slaves or not - there’s a simpsons clip where Apu has his citizenship test and gets asked about the civil war. He replies that it’s complex and the examiner tells him, "just say slaves ") isn’t actually taught very much in the USA.
Any Americans here care to enlighten me?
And yes it does have something to do with the OP because a lack of education and discourse leads to “stupid” positions on all sides of the political spectrum.
A Civil War historian, whose name I can’t recall, once said that when he was young he thought the Civil War was fought over slavery. After years of study, he thought the reasons were actually very complex. And finally, near the end of his career, he realized that it really was fought over slavery.
And learning about Dresden, the involvement of indigenous Africans in the slave trade, etc. does not diminish the horror of the Holocaust and slavery. Two wrongs do not make a right.
Apparently CNN kept asserting in typical vague talking head blather that the terrorist van in Barcelona may have been inspired by Charlottesville.
Now Trumpy wing nuts are latching on to that utterly moronic speculation as further evidence that the Fake News is pushing its own agenda.
It wasn’t my intent to imply that it did. My point, perhaps not very well made (mea culpa) was that my impression of the way these things are taught is inefficient at best, and quite possibly myopic, one sides and deliberately misleading.
The Dresden thing was an attempt, I believe, by the educational authorities here to get us to think that we weren’t quite so innocent ourselves. If so, it certainly worked on me, because it made me start questioning whenever I find blanket assertions.
That’s particularly troubling now when the discourse I see in my country (Britain) tends to go something like this:
Person 1 - maybe we ought to control immigration a bit because we need to build infrastructure like schools and housing (a reasonable point of view imho)
Person 2 - You’re a f*cking racist
Person 1 - F*ck you liberal pansy so and so.
Yes I am exaggerating and condensing many conversations over a period of time.
Basically a move to entrench views simplistically and in terms of black and white, and that worries me. It is, in a sense, a type of stupidity, and I see in on all sides.
Yes.
It’s hard to be mature and intelligent and to honestly wrestle with difficult truths. It’s a lot easier to be ignorant.
And worst of all, there are ratings and profit in reducing complex debates to simple us vs. them conflict.
How are these two things related?
How does immigration prevent you from building infrastructure?
It prevents you from having the money to build infrastructure I imagine. Its a fairly common idea in the UK that immigrants are there to sponge off the state, free healthcare, housing etc…
I’ve worked with many US NCHDs, and the majority of consultant surgeons here have worked in the US for 3-5 year stints in order to gain consultant status in the first place. It isn’t as if different working conditions and systems don’t come up in conversation, particularly when we have a large churn due to staff leaving for private hospitals in Dubai.
Regardless, my apologies for doubting that one individual’s anecdotal experiences can successfully summarise the practices of 5,564 US Hospitals and approximately 40,000 surgeons of various specialities. My apologies in particular for doubting your claims that Surgeons (and presumably Doctors in general) require a high level of personal skills, particularly when all evidence suggests that Doctors massively overrate their patient-communication skills. Feel free to peruse any of the following on the ceaseless decline in Doctor-Patient time, and/or the mismatch between Doctor-Patient perceptions on communication 1 2 3 4 5. I’m sure I can find you much more.
Perhaps you might reflect on whether you massively overrate your own abilities and your own perceptions of patient-access time, particularly as you believe you can authoritatively speak on the behalf of 40,000 individuals working across 5,564 discrete organisations and have such a fragile grasp on reality that you’ve somehow come to believe that subjective = objective, and that objective = subjective but only when applied to your own experiences.
“It’s objective fact that my subjective experiences apply everywhere”. I hope you don’t ever write prescriptions for patients with such a warped perspective on what objective facts actually are, particularly, again, because all research suggests that physicians massively over-weigh their own experience in prescribing drugs and under-weigh research from clinical trials. You know, the ‘objective-subjective’ reversal that you’re guilty of.
It’s chilling to think of magnet as a surgeon - really any form of MD.
We spend more on planes that barely work in a week than what those immigrants would cost us (which is actually probably a negative anyway, odds are they’ll more than pay for themselves in short order).
Money has never really been the issue.
Disagree and mock his arguments all you want, but there’s no reason to post just to be a dick and take a personal shot.
Wow, welcome back to the thread. I don’t know whether to be flattered by your personal attention or disappointed by how you express it. This time, you have seem to spent your whole post on a straw man.
As a reminder, I said that surgeons do not lack patient contact, and therefore this cannot account for the difference in gender ratios between surgeons and internists. Whether doctors generally have good interpersonal skills, the trajectory of their skills, their self-assessment, and your other random tangents are all completely irrelevant to gender and of no interest to me.
And the difference between a subjective and objective statement has nothing to do with authority or sample size. An objective statement in principle could be verified independently, and a subjective statement in principle cannot. “I am wearing a blue shirt” is an objective statement even if I am the only person who has seen what I am wearing today, because in principle it could be verified independently.
So if you want to challenge the objectivity of “surgeons see patients in clinic” then there is only one way to do it, which you curiously seem to avoid: call a surgeon and see for yourself.
I don’t know any liberals who think anything good about Wasserman -Schultz, but maybe they are out there. I’m very curious about the lack of named sources, however