Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
Don't be surprised, the PhD world is packed with privileged, egotistical assholes. The only reason schools are generally left is because facts are generally left, but the people able to qualify for and afford to attend top research schools to get doctorates are generally wealthy and in a cultural bubble.
I should know, I was maybe the only one in my graduating class to have attended public school (and definitely the only one who went to a community college).
PhDs are one thing. I once worked in industry with a EE PhD who insisted that everyone call him "Dr. Smith" rather than "John." (I changed the name.) The worst part is that he was terrible at his job. His designs for signal processing wouldn't have passed the introductory college course.
But anyways, I think there is a reason that professors tend to be more progressive beyond just the facts, but it depends of the type of professor.
If the field is one where you can make a lot of money in industry, then a person who chooses a lower paying professorial job is more likely to be left leaning compared to industry average.
If the field is humanities, then people in those fields tend to be left leaning to begin with.
What's your view on calling people Doctor in general?
On the one hand it's a title that you earn through a great deal of prolonged effort. On the other hand it's just a title, a label, and I don't feel like I should be under any obligation to refer to somebody by anything other than their name. But then what do you do if they introduce themselves as Doctor Smith or whatever?
In practice I just use the honorific because it's the socially acceptable thing to do, but I'm grumpy about it. I say this because I've at least heard of people who insist on being called doctor and it feels so douchy I don't want to give them the satisfaction.
My father went back to school at 50, while still working full-time, and earned a doctorate. He never advertised the fact, and he would ask people call him by his first name if they referred to him as Doctor or Doctor Smith. Very few people, including those he worked with, ever new he had the degree.
I can't tell you home much I respect both the humility and the entirely personal appreciation for learning.
First, I generally think you should call people whatever they want to be called, and in a non-casual setting, if I don't have any better information, I like to call people by their most prestigious title. So, at a doctor's office, I make sure to call them "Doctor." I probably too aggressively call a professor "Professor", simply because I think it's a wonderful title. I love how it sounds and I love what it means.
Like you said, I sort of feel that they worked hard for these titles, and so why shouldn't I recognize them for that? In those settings, I usually need them for their expertise, so why not elevate them? My ego doesn't get hurt.
In a casual setting, and I include my own team at work as "casual", I will still call people whatever they prefer. But if you want me to call you "Dr. Smith," then what do you call me? If you call me "Mr. Brown" (name changed again), then I can accept it as meaning, "I don't want to be friends." But if you call me "Charlie", then it becomes, "I think I am better than you." My "Dr. Smith" was the type who called people "Charlie."
"I don't want to be friends," is a little negative, because I think it degrades teamwork. But if that's the way they prefer to be at work, I am not really personally offended.
"I think I am better than you" is simply an unacceptable way of thinking. I try my best not to compare myself to other people in this way, but if there's anybody that I feel like I am better than, it's people who openly act as if they're better than others. For this "Dr. Smith," honestly, whenever I said the words "Dr. Smith", I thought of a professor back at college whose name was also, "Dr. Smith", who was one of the best professors I ever had, and how I was stuck with this severely lacking and disappointing "Dr. Smith".
Oh man, you hit upon why it makes me twitch. Because this has always been thoroughly hypothetical for me I somehow never considered the other half of the social equation!
Yes, that's exactly it: if it's used as a way to unduly elevate themselves over others. That was the part that I was stuck on but couldn't articulate. Now I know what I would do if I ever ran into this situation (just call me mister, lol), so thanks for that.
Subhuman freaks who supported this should never sleep soundly again in their worthless lives
It's wild to think that merely being against Israel's actions against Gaza can be called "pro-Palestinian".
It's remarkable really because when we say "genocide is wrong" they instantly jump to the "anti-semite!" defense. But they're they one tying a genocide on a neighbour as being the same thing as their own culture/religion. They are arguing that murdering and starving your neighbours is such an integral part of their religion that when we attack one they equate it as an attack on the other. They're arguing that Israel is genocidal.
It's really not the defense they think it is.