Hmmm... Not entirely sure about that. I won't be treated by any physician wearing religious symbols because I want expertise from an evidence-based thinker. Why is that wrong?
-
-
-
You can discriminate by religion in your choice of physician if you choose. They shouldn't have to fear it will jeopardise their careers tho.
-
Might if enough people followed suit. Then what? A hospital dress policy forbidding expression/forcing self-censorship, maybe. My point: free expression still has consequences, and sometimes self-censorship is little more (and nothing less) than common sense.
-
I just want to work on an atmosphere where consequences are reasonable & evidence-based & people are more tolerant of different ideas.
-
Agree. And struggle mightily myself with this. What beliefs should I tolerate in others where disagree? A very wavy line, and entirely contextual.
-
Yes. I don't care if my doctor is religious. I might care if my flatmate was or my child's nanny.
-
Not kidding, this happened this year, young Angolan doctor during company check-up, i'm describing deterioration of knees and growing pains due to severe accident years ago, her answer "let's hope god will help". Nothing else.
-
Then that doctor needs to go.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
I wouldn’t. Raised in a Catholic environment, I was homophobic without realising it. When the tide started turning, I shut up, listened, and *thought* about it, then gradually changed my opinions. *Self* censorship is fine. It means you suspect you may be wrong.
-
It depends on the reason. Not speaking your thoughts because you have come to be ashamed of them for good reason is an excellent reason to self-censor.
-
I wasn’t ashamed until later: *After* thinking about it. What would be a bad reason?
-
But you need to hear counterviews to do that. People screaming homophobe at you is a much less effective way. See the thing I wrote for many examples.
-
Well, that’s a counter-view. If it starts you thinking... (Not what happened with me)
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Really, so a creationist should be allowed to teach their beliefs in a biology classroom? A hollow-earth believer should teach it in geology? A holocaust denier should be able to teach it in history? TERFer should teach it in neurology and/or gender studies?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I self censor all the time. That is the primary reason I am anonymous on twitter, as I do not have to.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Wait Helen, should believing in a flat Earth not carry consequences? Let’s not confuse keep solid science and dominant ideologies. And let’s not confuse solid science with open questions.
-
It's common mistake for ppl to mix Natural Sciences (the Earth is flat) to social sciences. Unlike Physics, almost nothing is 100% in Social Sciences. Did you notice how we already sent a man to the Moon, but still can't prevent or predict an economic crisis?
-
FWIW I’m not confusing the two, the confusion was upthread. But macroeconomy is a low blow: they can’t do controlled experiments. And at least one macroeconomist has called out the entire discipline as unfalsifiable.
-
So the idea that one opinion has lower weight than another and then the former doesn't deserve time is dangerous once we move into unsettled science/social science areas. Imho.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.