People forget that doctors were at the forefront of "the final solution" and belonged to the Nazi party at rates far higher than members of other professions. As soon as we stop seeing our primary responsibility as being to the individual human in front of us, we are going down a very dark path. And yet, every time I pick up a medical jo…
People forget that doctors were at the forefront of "the final solution" and belonged to the Nazi party at rates far higher than members of other professions. As soon as we stop seeing our primary responsibility as being to the individual human in front of us, we are going down a very dark path. And yet, every time I pick up a medical journal now, it seems as if at least half the content is about "social justice" or "equity" or "climate change." Perhaps the people who write these articles have good intentions. Perhaps they're just virtue-signalling. But let's do a little thought experiment: If I, as a physician, truly believe that my primary job is to promote racial "equity" (equality of outcome between racial groups) and to help reduce CO2 emissions, how will I treat, say, an elderly white patient with dementia? The logical answer would be to euthanize them. That, I fear, is where we are headed if we don't fight back against this insanity.
My thought is that those who are drawn to these professions want to be heroic. They see those professions as influential to society, and pick them for that reason.
Ironically, it makes us (former teacher here) susceptible to radical ways of solving those problems. Those that get caught up in ideologies think, "I want a good world, which is what this group is aiming for. Nothing can be achieved without teachers showing kids how to build this utopia. Just doing the job well isn't good enough. My students clare learning to read? Ok, but am I teaching them how to lead us to a better tomorrow?"
The NEA, one of the larger educator unions in the US, has been putting social justice on its magazine's front page for years. I stopped reading the it when I realized all the articles were the same: "Educator Jane Smith saw that the _______ community was underserved and overlooked, so she decided to do something about it." Few of the articles mentioned improving kids' learning, except through the SJ lens. Jane Smith improving as a teacher is nothing worth noting because she isn't contributing to a better society (or so the ideology would say).
Many of the SD's intellectuals were looking to change society for what they considered the better (not unlike the NEA people you're mentioning). In fact, most of them believed in what they were doing before they joined the NSDAP (or in some cases before it even existed). Many also placed quite highly on their qualification exams and had successful careers outside the SD and the Party before they joined full-time. The parallels between them and many of the SJ people is quite disturbing if you look at it historically.
The schools in my urban area all get the same funding, however in some areas parents show up to school events, help orient the kid daily towards good decision-making, instill work ethic and try to aim their kids at productive professions, or at least to be thoughtful about their future. Many of the lower income schools at least in Toronto particularly if they’re racialized have lots of programs targeted at them, more $$ allocated , but programs are biased to rights and entitlements and confidence building. I don’t know what the answer is but telling someone they can get resources allocated to them if they learn to leverage victim speak is not it. I am reminded of the words of the great Johnny rotten “I don’t know what I want, but I know how to get it.”
There is a definite difference between being broke and being in poverty. People forget that.
One of the facets of poverty (both a cause and an effect) is poor decision-making. It's not talked about enough because people in poverty are pitied. Their lives are hard, but hand-outs won't break generational bad habits. If you give $100 to a parent that is broke, they will spend it on something beneficial for the family- groceries, clothes, rent money, fees for a sport/club their child wants to do. If you give $100 to a parent in poverty, they will buy something fun - alcohol, restaurant food, toys. It'll be spent on instant gratification.
A program in my community that is really beneficial is Circles. It aims to break generational poverty by partnering a person in poverty with someone more economically successful, and the whole club meets every month. The idea is that the person in poverty is building a social circle with others who want to do better. Those that are already doing better can provide guidance.
I had roommates like this, never made rent on time but lived like lords for 5 days after pay, restaurants, cabs, smokes, shoes, clubs. Skipped school to watch daytime tv, smoke up, dropped out. Completely impulse driven and stubborn. Difficult behaviour to change.
What’s worse is as adults they have plenty to say about the trials and tribulations of low income and my status as someone who is “fortunate and privileged”. Difficult to be friends with them as they don’t see their own culpability in the life they manufactured for themselves but frown on my middle class lifestyle. Through this experience i have sympathy for those who truly are without choices, which are few in canada, and only disdain for people actively choosing poverty.
That's it exactly. And they oftentimes don't value the possessions they do have. The kids from poverty were often the ones who would break classroom supplies, either carelessly or because they were tossing them around. All impulsive behavior and no longterm thinking.
My belief is that there should be programs and services in place for those that want to change. But people shouldn't be forced to use them or given resources totally free. For example, Circles is a free resource, but each family takes turns cooking a meal for everyone (groceries paid for by the service). They can't just sponge; there is responsibility involved.
Also, I believe in freedom to choose...and freedom to experience the consequences. People don't change when you make them. They change when they want to and not a minute sooner.
It's the consequences part that's often missing today. I grew up poor, but in a family that chose to avoid programs and work to better themselves. We valued things because no one aside from us would replace them. You didn't break or waste because a replacement didn't miraculously appear in front of you. You weren't allowed to shift blame, either. Now...that's all some people choose to do.
I’ve repeatedly noticed that my friends and acquaintances who’ve never had nice things often treat others belongings poorly. Pun intended. And by nice things I don’t necessarily mean expensive but quality and well taken care of, for example a nice kitchen knife, or a clean used car.
Psychopaths actually, especially narcissistic ones are drawn to medical, legal, political, military, and higher corporate professions at a much higher rate than the average apparently. With teachers I suspect that narcissists are quite attracted to having a captive audience of students they can influence.
Psychopaths are statistically over represented among physicians, especially surgeons for example. Therefore, unfortunately that makes complete sense. Canada has legalized and even encourages euthanasia. What has happened to the West?
People forget that doctors were at the forefront of "the final solution" and belonged to the Nazi party at rates far higher than members of other professions. As soon as we stop seeing our primary responsibility as being to the individual human in front of us, we are going down a very dark path. And yet, every time I pick up a medical journal now, it seems as if at least half the content is about "social justice" or "equity" or "climate change." Perhaps the people who write these articles have good intentions. Perhaps they're just virtue-signalling. But let's do a little thought experiment: If I, as a physician, truly believe that my primary job is to promote racial "equity" (equality of outcome between racial groups) and to help reduce CO2 emissions, how will I treat, say, an elderly white patient with dementia? The logical answer would be to euthanize them. That, I fear, is where we are headed if we don't fight back against this insanity.
Lawyers were also highly-represented, especially in the SD. Educators (especially university professors and lecturers) were also quite prominent.
My thought is that those who are drawn to these professions want to be heroic. They see those professions as influential to society, and pick them for that reason.
Ironically, it makes us (former teacher here) susceptible to radical ways of solving those problems. Those that get caught up in ideologies think, "I want a good world, which is what this group is aiming for. Nothing can be achieved without teachers showing kids how to build this utopia. Just doing the job well isn't good enough. My students clare learning to read? Ok, but am I teaching them how to lead us to a better tomorrow?"
The NEA, one of the larger educator unions in the US, has been putting social justice on its magazine's front page for years. I stopped reading the it when I realized all the articles were the same: "Educator Jane Smith saw that the _______ community was underserved and overlooked, so she decided to do something about it." Few of the articles mentioned improving kids' learning, except through the SJ lens. Jane Smith improving as a teacher is nothing worth noting because she isn't contributing to a better society (or so the ideology would say).
Many of the SD's intellectuals were looking to change society for what they considered the better (not unlike the NEA people you're mentioning). In fact, most of them believed in what they were doing before they joined the NSDAP (or in some cases before it even existed). Many also placed quite highly on their qualification exams and had successful careers outside the SD and the Party before they joined full-time. The parallels between them and many of the SJ people is quite disturbing if you look at it historically.
The schools in my urban area all get the same funding, however in some areas parents show up to school events, help orient the kid daily towards good decision-making, instill work ethic and try to aim their kids at productive professions, or at least to be thoughtful about their future. Many of the lower income schools at least in Toronto particularly if they’re racialized have lots of programs targeted at them, more $$ allocated , but programs are biased to rights and entitlements and confidence building. I don’t know what the answer is but telling someone they can get resources allocated to them if they learn to leverage victim speak is not it. I am reminded of the words of the great Johnny rotten “I don’t know what I want, but I know how to get it.”
There is a definite difference between being broke and being in poverty. People forget that.
One of the facets of poverty (both a cause and an effect) is poor decision-making. It's not talked about enough because people in poverty are pitied. Their lives are hard, but hand-outs won't break generational bad habits. If you give $100 to a parent that is broke, they will spend it on something beneficial for the family- groceries, clothes, rent money, fees for a sport/club their child wants to do. If you give $100 to a parent in poverty, they will buy something fun - alcohol, restaurant food, toys. It'll be spent on instant gratification.
A program in my community that is really beneficial is Circles. It aims to break generational poverty by partnering a person in poverty with someone more economically successful, and the whole club meets every month. The idea is that the person in poverty is building a social circle with others who want to do better. Those that are already doing better can provide guidance.
I had roommates like this, never made rent on time but lived like lords for 5 days after pay, restaurants, cabs, smokes, shoes, clubs. Skipped school to watch daytime tv, smoke up, dropped out. Completely impulse driven and stubborn. Difficult behaviour to change.
What’s worse is as adults they have plenty to say about the trials and tribulations of low income and my status as someone who is “fortunate and privileged”. Difficult to be friends with them as they don’t see their own culpability in the life they manufactured for themselves but frown on my middle class lifestyle. Through this experience i have sympathy for those who truly are without choices, which are few in canada, and only disdain for people actively choosing poverty.
That's it exactly. And they oftentimes don't value the possessions they do have. The kids from poverty were often the ones who would break classroom supplies, either carelessly or because they were tossing them around. All impulsive behavior and no longterm thinking.
My belief is that there should be programs and services in place for those that want to change. But people shouldn't be forced to use them or given resources totally free. For example, Circles is a free resource, but each family takes turns cooking a meal for everyone (groceries paid for by the service). They can't just sponge; there is responsibility involved.
Also, I believe in freedom to choose...and freedom to experience the consequences. People don't change when you make them. They change when they want to and not a minute sooner.
It's the consequences part that's often missing today. I grew up poor, but in a family that chose to avoid programs and work to better themselves. We valued things because no one aside from us would replace them. You didn't break or waste because a replacement didn't miraculously appear in front of you. You weren't allowed to shift blame, either. Now...that's all some people choose to do.
I’ve repeatedly noticed that my friends and acquaintances who’ve never had nice things often treat others belongings poorly. Pun intended. And by nice things I don’t necessarily mean expensive but quality and well taken care of, for example a nice kitchen knife, or a clean used car.
I think this sounds very intriguing! Could you post more about it please??
Sure! Did you mean poverty vs. being broke or the Circles program?
Psychopaths actually, especially narcissistic ones are drawn to medical, legal, political, military, and higher corporate professions at a much higher rate than the average apparently. With teachers I suspect that narcissists are quite attracted to having a captive audience of students they can influence.
Psychopaths are statistically over represented among physicians, especially surgeons for example. Therefore, unfortunately that makes complete sense. Canada has legalized and even encourages euthanasia. What has happened to the West?