It’s just a coincidence that poor people generally don’t eat healthy.
1 Like
Which one?
- Capitalizing “Black” as an ethnic descriptor is fine. Not sure why saying “black person” is a problem
- Saying “the homeless” is less a mouthful than the other phrase, but not really a big deal
- This one makes no sense. “target population” and “population” are often synonymous. However, adding the word target emphasizes that sometimes we miss the mark in sampling, and don’t always hit the mark: samples can be unrepresentative of the population that you originally intended to sample.
- It’s true that some people do have limited access to healthcare and would seek it with more access
- If someone is trying to better themselves, it’s probably not useful to call them ex-con. ‘returning citizen’ is fine.
- illegal immigrant or undocumented immigrant, I don’t really care what term is used.
- I’m fine with differentiating gender and biological sex. Isn’t biological sex immutable, whether you’re xx, xy, xxy, x, xyy? You may change your gender, but your underlying biology doesn’t
- If blackmail is racist, then so is blacksmith, blackball, blacklisted
- I don’t understand. Using 'non-disabled, ‘enabled’, or 'temporarily able-bodied in reference to an amputee or similar make no sense.
Three of the four revision statements shown in the image are reasonable.
What ethnicity is it describing and how am I supposed to know if a person is black or Black?
2 Likes
The fall of western civilization.
1 Like
It’s compelled speech. Or at least an attempt at it. And secondly, this new kinder, gentler language is a ruse used to obscure the truth. Which means, the intention isn’t to be kinder, it’s to lie about basic facts. We don’t need government bureaucrats dictating speech. It’s more scary to me that you don’t find this frightening at all, but just kinder gentler speech. How is lying about sex and gender ‘kinder’? It obscures the truth and the truth isn’t pretty most of the time, so tough shit.
The section “Why narratives matter” is downright Orwellian. We don’t need the government dictating narratives or compelling speech of any kind, it’s outside their preview. Especially, the AMA. We don’t even have a national language and yet they try to police English? What the fuck?
Institutions of higher learning are stuffed to the gills with the perpetuation of woke narratives and PC language policing. How many professors have lost their jobs due to ‘speech’ violations? The number is countless. Many.
1 Like
This is the banality of evil. The compelling of speech is not okay and it violates the first amendment. Whether or not you are okay using phrases of your own choosing is irrelevant. It’s a problem when it becomes 'you will use this language or ‘else’. You complicity is a little frightening, because you deem it reasonable is frightening. You are comfortable with having government bureaucrats dictate your speech? If you allow them to dictate your words you are allowing them to dictate your thoughts. I just don’t get how comfortable people are with creeping authoritarianism because ‘it seems reasonable’.
Australians allowed this to happen and now they live in an anarco-tyranny.
1 Like
What’s the “or else”? And where is that ultimatum stated?
1 Like
You misunderstood my text. What I put in the post is my personal opinion with regard to the text recommendations. Some of it makes sense, much of it does not. I did not give my opinion on whether others have to use the same language. I don’t support compelled speech.
1 Like
I would be interested to see what evidence these changes used to justify stating ‘differential health outcomes stems from systematic racism’. One can root cause analysis something a hundred ways but without factual evidence to prove it, this is essentially just a theory.
Can I blame systematic racism for my health issues as well? These findings must go both ways.
Did systematic racism negatively affect your parents, grandparents, great grandparents, etc access to healthcare thus resulting in negative health outcomes for their kids (ie you)? If so, that sounds reasonable.
Given my Irish lineage, I’m sure it could be ‘proved’ if one were to look hard enough. But Irish isn’t a race, and something tells me the suggested change is only interested in racial reasonings rather than cultural/geographical.
The other edge of the sword in these arguments is that when claiming systematic racism causes poor health outcomes in the supposed ‘oppressed’, that it would coversely provide positive health outcomes for the ‘oppressors’ as it were. I don’t know if we can see evidence of that, but I dont think we can see evidence of the original argument either.
I read a quote recently, “when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail”. When the hammer is “systematic racism”, everything becomes racially motivated.
1 Like
Conversely, maybe now that you are looking for it, you’re able to see it.
Instead of going through life counting basketball passes, unable to see the gorilla walking by.
1 Like
You would need to start in England.
It’s a nationality and/or race. If you can find some old newspapers from Boston you would see that the Irish were considered a race who were compared to apes and blacks. Also, according to the UN, racism can be based on ethnicity.
This is exactly my point. In scope to the conversation, the American Medical Association is armed with a hammer known as “equity” and everything has become nails known as “systematic racism”.
You missed the point.
I wasn’t dismissing your point either, fwiw.
1 Like
I reckon I did misunderstand then, my bad.
In the AMA document. ‘Here’s the problematic language and here is what to say instead.’ Is the crux of what they are saying. This is the application of social critical theory being pushed on members of the AMA in a situation where most people who practice medicine at a high level have to be a part of as conditions for employment in too many cases. And they are pushing idiotic. Further I really don’t see how the language they compel is kinder or gentler in anyway.
What kind of idiot does one have to be, to sit around thinking up ‘kinder, gentler’ words for things we already have words for? I guess white liberal is the only kind of idiot who does this. I have never seen any other race sit around and make up ‘nicer’ way to point out each other’s differences and think that those people will happily accept the new, more meaningless labels.
1 Like
It will be interesting to see how the technical texts and the dictionaries are revised in this regard. A man and woman are currently defined as the adult male and female human respectively, and the female as being capable of giving birth, etc.
Both of these definitions would need to be revised under this view of kinder less discriminatory language. Humanity have been drawing things on walls and writing things down and speaking to each other on the basis of these principles since time immemorial. I’m all for reducing any suffering as much as possible, however this is a difficult question to resolve.