More strange and/or foul reactions
-
wrote on 2 Nov 2023, 20:45 last edited by
@Horace said in More strange and/or foul reactions:
"Pro Russia" is a tribal strawman anyway, obviously.
Ok, replace with “support pro-Russia policies”. The point stands.
-
@Horace said in More strange and/or foul reactions:
"Pro Russia" is a tribal strawman anyway, obviously.
Ok, replace with “support pro-Russia policies”. The point stands.
wrote on 2 Nov 2023, 21:41 last edited by@jon-nyc said in More strange and/or foul reactions:
@Horace said in More strange and/or foul reactions:
"Pro Russia" is a tribal strawman anyway, obviously.
Ok, replace with “support pro-Russia policies”. The point stands.
It's not much of a point if the policy is intended to be pro-USA.
-
wrote on 3 Nov 2023, 02:13 last edited by
That seems nonsensical. But I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt if you’d like to explain. Maybe I’m missing something.
-
That seems nonsensical. But I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt if you’d like to explain. Maybe I’m missing something.
wrote on 3 Nov 2023, 02:21 last edited by@jon-nyc said in More strange and/or foul reactions:
That seems nonsensical. But I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt if you’d like to explain. Maybe I’m missing something.
You can be specific about the pro-Russia policies you're referring to. If their intent is to support the usa, with an incidental side effect of being advantageous to Russia as compared to an opposing policy, then a framing that the policy is pro-russia, would be rhetorically disingenuous.
-
wrote on 3 Nov 2023, 02:35 last edited by
I conceded your point and changed ‘being pro-Russia’ with ‘supporting pro-Russia policies’. The former implies motive the latter just effect.
Again the point stands.
-
wrote on 3 Nov 2023, 02:42 last edited by
Your implications serve your technically standing point, but they are not a generally accepted interpretation of how that language works. If a policy drafted by a politician is said to be "pro-something or other", the intent will fairly be inferred. Your point stands, as long as we limit the audience to people who don't make the common assumptions that topple it. Fair enough.
-
wrote on 3 Nov 2023, 03:37 last edited by Renauda 11 Mar 2023, 03:56
Okay.
Policies that serve or play into the interests of (insert name of country) that are detrimental to US ______ interests.
Now, move along.
-
Okay.
Policies that serve or play into the interests of (insert name of country) that are detrimental to US ______ interests.
Now, move along.
wrote on 3 Nov 2023, 04:11 last edited byThis post is deleted! -
wrote on 3 Nov 2023, 12:30 last edited by George K 11 Mar 2023, 12:31
-
wrote on 3 Nov 2023, 12:38 last edited by
Like the lady from Apple, time to update the resume.
-
Like the lady from Apple, time to update the resume.
wrote on 3 Nov 2023, 12:40 last edited by@taiwan_girl said in More strange and/or foul reactions:
the lady from Apple
Is no longer employed there.
How is that pendant any different from wearing a swastika?
-
wrote on 3 Nov 2023, 12:42 last edited by Doctor Phibes 11 Mar 2023, 12:43
What I don't understand is why they post this stuff. Is it really worth risking your career over an internet post? Are they so oblivious of opinions outside their bubble that they fail to see how offensive this stuff is to a majority of people?
-
What I don't understand is why they post this stuff. Is it really worth risking your career over an internet post? Are they so oblivious of opinions outside their bubble that they fail to see how offensive this stuff is to a majority of people?
wrote on 3 Nov 2023, 12:45 last edited by George K 11 Mar 2023, 12:46@Doctor-Phibes said in More strange and/or foul reactions:
What I don't understand is why they post this stuff. Is it really worth risking your career over an internet post? Are they so oblivious of opinions outside their bubble that they fail to see how offensive this stuff is to a majority of people?
Exactly. If you look at my FB profile, you'll see a remarkable amount of silliness. NO politics, nothing controversial. I chose my username so that patients would have a hard(er) time finding me, and if they did, there's no "there" there.
The lack of judgment in these cases makes you question their overall judgment.
ETA: Also, when at work, it was rare that we had any kind of discussion bordering on politics. When you spend 5 hours at the OR table doing heart surgery, it's best to just get along, 'cos it won't be the last time you spend 5 hours with that person.
-
wrote on 3 Nov 2023, 12:49 last edited by
Total side note, I cringe when I hear 'biggest attack on Jews since the holocaust'. Yes, it seems that is absolutely true. But let's be realistic about how it really compares to the Holocaust.
-
wrote on 3 Nov 2023, 12:52 last edited by
Except the Holocaust never happened, in these people’s minds. So this is the biggest attack on Jews in 300 years!
-
Except the Holocaust never happened, in these people’s minds. So this is the biggest attack on Jews in 300 years!
wrote on 3 Nov 2023, 13:02 last edited by@LuFins-Dad said in More strange and/or foul reactions:
Except the Holocaust never happened, in these people’s minds. So this is the biggest attack on Jews in 300 years!
Also, what we're seeing is much more like Germany in 1933 than in 1940-45.
-
wrote on 3 Nov 2023, 13:16 last edited by Doctor Phibes 11 Mar 2023, 13:16
This current situation is nothing like the holocaust, or WW2 for that matter. It's a completely different type of conflict.
-
wrote on 3 Nov 2023, 13:16 last edited by
Serious question, I’d like all to weigh in.
If publicly pushing the ‘river to sea’ message should render her unemployable as she’s a threat to Jewish patients, what about a physician who advocates the Jolly solution on their social media?
-
Serious question, I’d like all to weigh in.
If publicly pushing the ‘river to sea’ message should render her unemployable as she’s a threat to Jewish patients, what about a physician who advocates the Jolly solution on their social media?
wrote on 3 Nov 2023, 13:21 last edited by Doctor Phibes 11 Mar 2023, 13:21@jon-nyc said in More strange and/or foul reactions:
Serious question, I’d like all to weigh in.
If publicly pushing the ‘river to sea’ message should render her unemployable as she’s a threat to Jewish patients, what about a physician who advocates the Jolly solution on their social media?
I don't think it's fair to call this the Jolly solution, but people should not be advocating mass killings of civilians. I'd say people who talk about the Palestinian people, not Hamas, as being sub-human or similar should be treated much the same way as those describing the Jews in this way.
-
Serious question, I’d like all to weigh in.
If publicly pushing the ‘river to sea’ message should render her unemployable as she’s a threat to Jewish patients, what about a physician who advocates the Jolly solution on their social media?
wrote on 3 Nov 2023, 14:14 last edited by@jon-nyc said in More strange and/or foul reactions:
Serious question, I’d like all to weigh in.
If publicly pushing the ‘river to sea’ message should render her unemployable as she’s a threat to Jewish patients, what about a physician who advocates the Jolly solution on their social media?
If I saw my doctor post emphatic political shit I agreed with in all caps and bad punctuation on social media, I'd want another doctor.
