What do you think about with current News and Opinions?

Tweety, BSN, RN · May 24, 2022

2 minutes ago, chare said:

Not according to the article you referenced, and the partial quote you provided.

CNN quotes.

Quote

"We were not aware that this document was available on one of our departmental websites, and it was immediately removed once it was brought to our attention," Erin Kramer, Duke's Assistant Vice President for Media and Public Affairs, said in a statement to CNN.

"It appears the document was created in 2010 by two undergraduate students as part of an independent study course in evolutionary anthropology. To be clear, this was a student paper. It was never used as a lesson plan in a Duke class or by a Duke faculty member, nor was it promoted as a teaching tool," Kramer said.

meaning for some reason it's been around for 12 years and just now came to their attention. How it wound up in Michigan in 2022 is odd.

toomuchbaloney · May 24, 2022

4 minutes ago, chare said:

Not according to the article you referenced, and the partial quote you provided.

I misspoke. It was never Duke approved teaching material.

Beerman, BSN · May 24, 2022

24 minutes ago, Tweety said:

I do agree that it's over done. But one has to wonder of all the examples of a primate, which also includes monkeys and apes, would they pick him.

The worksheet was created in 2010. Maybe if it was created at a different time it would have been Trump's pic, or Biden's? We'll never know.

Tweety, BSN, RN · May 24, 2022

22 minutes ago, Beerman said:

The worksheet was created in 2010. Maybe if it was created at a different time it would have been Trump's pic, or Biden's? We'll never know.

No we won't. It might have been as innocent as that, just picking the President of the time, like "hey, even the President is a primate!"

However, in 2022 surely an educator would have seen how this might be problematic, given the reaction they got. Tone deaf indeed.

Justlookingfornow · May 24, 2022

5 hours ago, Tweety said:

No we won't. It might have been as innocent as that, just picking the President of the time, like "hey, even the President is a primate!"

However, in 2022 surely an educator would have seen how this might be problematic, given the reaction they got. Tone deaf indeed.

Perhaps it was innocent? We are primates and being a public figure at the time, was added in? . Or the creators could have been so far removed of the inferences of African Americans being compared to apes(I don't even like writing that) as they themselves wouldn't associate the two?

This reminds me of the controversy over an advertised sweatshirt on line that had a print saying, "the crazies monkey in the jungle" and had various models and one being a African American child.

Had there been no outrage, I would not have thought anything of that. Sometimes you have to question what's happening in the minds of people who cause outraged over probable innocent things,where as the usual person wouldnt take notice because they do not share in that disgusting sentiment .

Tweety, BSN, RN · May 24, 2022

9 minutes ago, Justlookingfornow said:

Perhaps it was innocent? We are primates and being a public figure at the time, was added in? . Or the creators could have been so far removed of the inferences of African Americans being compared to apes(I don't even like writing that) as they themselves wouldn't associate the two?

This reminds me of the controversy over an advertised sweatshirt on line that had a print saying, "the crazies monkey in the jungle" and had various models and one being a African American child.

Had there been no outrage, I would not have thought anything of that. Sometimes you have to question what's happening in the minds of people who cause outraged over probable innocent things,where as the usual person wouldnt take notice because they do not share in that disgusting sentiment .

I understand when people respond with "outrage" it's a bit much.

Again, it might have been an innocent quiz at the time and I can give the benefit of the doubt there, but in 2022 an educator should have known better no matter how innocent it was at the time. Should she be suspended, should Duke be getting threats, and should people be "outraged". No. It's very low on my list of outrages today, but if the teacher is that ignorant she needs to be schooled and gain some understanding.

I'm sure not everyone knows African Americans are offended with monkey references. When the mayor of a town in West Virginia on social media "you made my day" when someone posted about Michelle Obama being an "ape in heels" there was controversy. Many times over there has been controversy. But if the teacher didn't know, the teacher didn't know.

I remember about 25 years ago when I transferred to a unit with majority African Americans and I said "you people do things so different on this unit" and I got schooled that they didn't appreciate me saying "you people". So I stopped and considered their feelings and changed. I appreciated being educated because I hadn't heard this. I could have gotten all self-righteous and claimed "but I meant it innocently", but instead I apologized.

heron, ASN, RN · May 25, 2022

1 hour ago, Justlookingfornow said:

Perhaps it was innocent? We are primates and being a public figure at the time, was added in? . Or the creators could have been so far removed of the inferences of African Americans being compared to apes(I don't even like writing that) as they themselves wouldn't associate the two?

This reminds me of the controversy over an advertised sweatshirt on line that had a print saying, "the crazies monkey in the jungle" and had various models and one being a African American child.

Had there been no outrage, I would not have thought anything of that. Sometimes you have to question what's happening in the minds of people who cause outraged over probable innocent things,where as the usual person wouldnt take notice because they do not share in that disgusting sentiment .

I think “innocent” is a bit disingenuous. Right up there with “I was just joking”. Nothing innocent about so-called gifted kids who tried (clumsily) to own the libs. Revealing, yes. Disturbing, to an extent … but mostly an unpleasant distraction, like a fart in church.

Still, you gotta wonder if any of those kids have tiki torches stashed alongside their firearms.

subee, MSN, CRNA · May 25, 2022

15 hours ago, heron said:

I think “innocent” is a bit disingenuous. Right up there with “I was just joking”. Nothing innocent about so-called gifted kids who tried (clumsily) to own the libs. Revealing, yes. Disturbing, to an extent … but mostly an unpleasant distraction, like a fart in church.

Still, you gotta wonder if any of those kids have tiki torches stashed alongside their firearms.

Kids with firearms certainly has taken on a different significance today compared to the cluenessness (or cunningness?) of the so called gifted kids (certainly lacking in EQ) in the above incident.

subee, MSN, CRNA · May 25, 2022

On 5/23/2022 at 1:38 AM, Justlookingfornow said:

What?

How does this have to do with old white men trying to take away womens rights? For fun?

So they do this because they want to profit off all the women's work and want them to work more?

Well restricting abortion would only see that they work less due to maternity leave and have to pay more befefits. How does that make sense? Wouldn't they want more abortions?

Some sort of socialist rant?

There is no evidence of CRT being used in finacial institutions....

Huh? Since you have already ridiculed the idea of the concept of abortion to "protect the health" of the mother as being too frivilous an idea, please feel free to comment on the paragraph I ran into in the May 13th edition of The Week. This was written by a woman who had two heart attacks in her 30's and was told by her doctors that continuing a pregnancy for her "would be tantamount to suicide." This refers back to a point I made before using a similar example of a woman with heart disease. This author did not think of pregnancy as an "immediate threat" to her life since she would probably live until the pregnancy began to put a serious strain on her cardiac output - but, nevertheless later on it would kill her and if it didn't, could leave her seriously debilitated. Is this someone you think is "worthy" of a late term abortion (let's say that she really wants the pregnancy but doesn't get to the life-threatening stage until the 3rd trimester and can't breathe anymore - a reasonable scenario). Should we just let her die? Does any physician even want to get exposed to the legal consequences of helping this woman out?

These situations ARE going to come up. The public always under-estimates who is medically vulnerable when it involves people who aren't visibly incapacitated. I've given anesthesia to a young woman with Myasthenia gravis who was bedridden and yet she still got pregnant (incompatible with her life). If she postponed a procedure out of denial, should we force her to continue the pregnancy. BTW, she was not in the 3rd trimester but 11 states don't want her to have any treatment - to punish her for having sex?

heron, ASN, RN · May 25, 2022

On 5/22/2022 at 11:38 PM, Justlookingfornow said:

What?

How does this have to do with old white men trying to take away womens rights? For fun?

So they do this because they want to profit off all the women's work and want them to work more?

Well restricting abortion would only see that they work less due to maternity leave and have to pay more befefits. How does that make sense? Wouldn't they want more abortions?

Some sort of socialist rant?

There is no evidence of CRT being used in finacial institutions....

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Or just taking another shot at building a straw man?

Why do you suppose American companies have moved their manufacturing to third world countries? Why are those who hire undocumented immigrants so eager to do so, and why aren’t the few laws against such behavior so poorly enforced? Cheap labor, the cheaper, the better - with captive labor (the afore-mentioned undocumented workers, along with women being forced to stay pregnant when they don’t want to be) being the ideal

Who produces and raises all that cheap labor? Is it any surprise, then, that the economic interests of the 1% is served by forcing women to carry every pregnancy to term, regardless of her own needs or wishes? Or do you not consider bearing and raising children to be labor?

As for your comment re CRT - I never said it was being utilized by financial institutions. Read the post again.

Beerman, BSN · May 25, 2022

19 minutes ago, heron said:

Who produces and raises all that cheap labor? Is it any surprise, then, that the economic interests of the 1% is served by forcing women to carry every pregnancy to term, regardless of her own needs or wishes? Or do you not consider bearing and raising children to be labor?

Is this a widespread belief among the "pro-choice" crowd?

Justlookingfornow · May 25, 2022

3 hours ago, subee said:

Huh? Since you have already ridiculed the idea of the concept of abortion to "protect the health" of the mother as being too frivilous an idea, please feel free to comment on the paragraph I ran into in the May 13th edition of The Week. This was written by a woman who had two heart attacks in her 30's and was told by her doctors that continuing a pregnancy for her "would be tantamount to suicide." This refers back to a point I made before using a similar example of a woman with heart disease. This author did not think of pregnancy as an "immediate threat" to her life since she would probably live until the pregnancy began to put a serious strain on her cardiac output - but, nevertheless later on it would kill her and if it didn't, could leave her seriously debilitated. Is this someone you think is "worthy" of a late term abortion (let's say that she really wants the pregnancy but doesn't get to the life-threatening stage until the 3rd trimester and can't breathe anymore - a reasonable scenario). Should we just let her die? Does any physician even want to get exposed to the legal consequences of helping this woman out?

These situations ARE going to come up. The public always under-estimates who is medically vulnerable when it involves people who aren't visibly incapacitated. I've given anesthesia to a young woman with Myasthenia gravis who was bedridden and yet she still got pregnant (incompatible with her life). If she postponed a procedure out of denial, should we force her to continue the pregnancy. BTW, she was not in the 3rd trimester but 11 states don't want her to have any treatment - to punish her for having sex?

By the sound of it the woman knew her condition in the beginning of the pregnancy. At this point ot would be her decision whether the risk was acceptable to her.

If in later pregnancy she encountered life threatening symptoms, she should discuss her options with her Dr. If the risk to her health was too great, she could have a early delivery. This is not abortion. Not unless the fetus/baby is terminated before early delivery and there is no medical indication requiring a fetus/baby to be rendered non viable before early delivery intervention for the safety of the women's health. Hopefully they could deliver the baby even if premature. The women you mentioned sounds like this was a wanted pregnancy.

Again,this is early delivery not abortion in the context we are discussing. Of course we shouldn't be "let her die"

And the fact that I reference the "Women's Health Protection Bill" and do not agree with the vaguely written details, does not mean I am in opposition to women's health.

However it is cleverly written as such so that if opposing the bill means that the opposing party doesn't care or want to protect women.

Very disingenuous, slimey political tactic.