If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Salon)   Did 50 honorary doctorates give Maya Angelou the right to call herself "Dr. Angelou"? If you answered no, you're a racist   (salon.com) divider line 548
    More: Interesting, poetic justice, cultural practice, doctoral dissertations, honorary degrees  
•       •       •

7314 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Jun 2014 at 10:38 AM (21 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



548 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-06-03 02:25:28 PM  

lamecomedian: I've got an MA in English lit - does that count?


Well, it's a start.  Have you made any intelligent criticisms in this thread?

Her poetry is weak, treacly, greeting-card caliber pap.

Ahem. OK.  Any idea why so many respected scholars and writers would find enormous value in her work then?
 
2014-06-03 02:25:31 PM  

Z-clipped: stonicus: In your mind, the ONLY reason someone doesn't like Maya Angelou's poetry is because they are racist.

Liking something, and recognizing that it has value are entirely different.  There are lots of reasons someone might not enjoy Maya Angelou's writing.  There are very few reasons to make the claim that her writing doesn't have the literary value that is commonly attributed to it.

You* might be a racist who wants to tear down black folks.  You might be young, obnoxious, and desperately trying to be edgy and different.  You might be an ignorant, poorly-read anti-snob, who thinks that all opinions are of equal merit and importance.  Or, you might be a highly educated, well-read literary expert who is able to articulate criticisms which are valid in the face of the overwhelming praise and adulation that her writing has received.  I'm pretty sure that none of the critics in this thread fall into the last category.

*not you personally


Seriously?

She sucks.  She's an awful poet.  Lots of people have said so.  That there is some kind of critical consensus that she's actually a great writer that a few of us are vainly fighting against is nonsense.  She's popular among people who don't know any better.  So is Thomas Kinkaid.

Here's a nice quote from an article praising her:

Angelou was also a prolific and widely-read poet, and her poetry has often been lauded more for its depictions of black beauty, the strength of women, and the human spirit; criticizing the Vietnam War; demanding social justice for all-than for its poetic virtue.

http://www.poetryfoundation.org/bio/maya-angelou

That's the nicest thing I think anyone could say about her poetry.
 
2014-06-03 02:25:56 PM  

ikanreed: lamecomedian: Oh, good. I was afraid you'd left to use your time to actually help the people you that you imply you care about so much.

Ah the good ol' "I can't be racist, because [ad-hominem]".  Let's say I am a tremendous racist.  Do you still want to be?


I think the statement "I can't be racist, because I treat everyone with the same respect regardless of their race" actually is a legitimate defense.

You'll note I'm not actual calling you a racist.  I'm implying that your "social consciousness" is just a fashionable trend that allows you gain social standing and feel good about yourself.  Otherwise, you would value aiding poor minorities over arguing about the title of a tremendously successful person of color who is dead.
 
2014-06-03 02:27:05 PM  

chimp_ninja: lamecomedian: All I did was say that I didn't think the woman's accomplishments amounted to a title.

She has a Pulitzer, three Grammys, a Tony, the National Medal of Arts, and a pile of other awards.  She wrote seven books (plus several children's books), published hundreds of poems, and wrote eight plays.  She's been an actress, a screenwriter, and a director.  Her works are part of university curricula around the world.

She's been successful in all of these endeavors, starting in the 1960s when America was even more racist.  Why her, then?  Did America just pick a woman of color at random to pile awards on?


So what?  None of those things equals "met the requirements for a terminal degree (doctorate)."

Which is why she's received HONORARY degrees--none of those universities would put their reputations on the line to grant her an actual doctorate based on life experience, that just doesn't happen.
 
2014-06-03 02:27:19 PM  

Some 'Splainin' To Do: I don't understand the logic of this. A PhD is a doctorate. Why should the term be strictly limited to the medical profession?


It shouldn't, and people who insist so don't know their history.

Most doctors were called Physicians until relatively recently (in the historical timescale). As I understand the story, it used to be that medical schools trained physicians, and the teachers and researchers at medical schools were Doctors of Medicine (the from the latin root Teacher of Medicine) much in the same way that most fields today use the term "Doctor" to denote the terminal research degree.

At some point, credential inflation happened, and the medical professionals wanted to call themselves medical doctors, and that became the norm. In the United States today, the term MD is a terminal professional degree, but is not a research degree. There are people who get research degrees in medicine, and a lot of those people are put in the somewhat silly position of being an MD-PhD, which you might expand to "Doctor of Medicine and Doctor of the Philosophy of Medicine".

It's goofy, and what you call people in the end doesn't mean all that much, but that's what it is.
 
2014-06-03 02:28:18 PM  

Snarfangel: Well, he did squander his resistance for a pocketful of mumbles.


Such are promises.
 
2014-06-03 02:28:42 PM  

HeartBurnKid: Marcus Aurelius: Sybarite: Every use of Dr. before you're name when you are not an M.D. is pretentious.

^ This.  If you have a PhD and insist on being called "doctor", you are most likely a complete moron that wishes they were actually intelligent.

Yeah, what does Neil DeGrasse Tyson know anyway?


I have a PhD and use Dr when I'm at professional meetings, or teaching. Or, if I feel like it just for the hell of it every once in a while. After all, I earned it. I don't insist on it, although I have that right.

I'm also a minister, I got my certificate in the mail with a denomination I don't recall the name of offhand. Calling myself Reverend would be an insult to real men of the cloth, most of whom work very hard to improve the lot of their fellow men.

Same thing with Angelou. An honorary PhD is nothing, and to use the title Dr. is an insult to anyone who actually spent years of their lives working very hard for that degree.

/Of course, she has more claim to the title of "Dr", than she does "poet"
 
2014-06-03 02:28:54 PM  
Timmy the Tumor:

Which is why she's received HONORARY degrees--none of those universities would put their reputations on the line to grant her an actual doctorate based on life experience, that just doesn't happen.

That doesn't happen because of accredidation rules, not because they dispute her achievements warrant an actual degree. Wake Forest referred to her as "Doctor." And they knew exactly what they were saying in doing that.
 
2014-06-03 02:29:22 PM  

stonicus: lamecomedian: stonicus: lamecomedian: stonicus: Ok, what set of non-subjective criteria are going to use to judge the quality of a poem, or a song, or a painting?

Whatever you want, man.  Edgar Allen Poe thought length was important in poetry - he thought a poem needed to be digestible in one sitting (which is why he didn't care for epics).

Ok, I choose "popularity".

Totally legit.  How do you factor in changes over time?

I just go by total record sales and let the winner of "quality" be dynamic and change over time.  So a song may have the highest quality one month, then not for a year, then take it back again at a later date.  And we've now just defined quality to be the exact opposite of what you stated earlier.


Unless/until I say "I think your criteria are inappropriate" and propose a new set.  And then we do the dance all over again.

Also, your definition seems to imply that quality is *only* relative - that is, it's only "better" or "worse" than other items, not merely "good" or "bad" in isolation.  That seems... strange.
 
2014-06-03 02:30:34 PM  

Kope: Timmy the Tumor:

Which is why she's received HONORARY degrees--none of those universities would put their reputations on the line to grant her an actual doctorate based on life experience, that just doesn't happen.

That doesn't happen because of accredidation rules, not because they dispute her achievements warrant an actual degree. Wake Forest referred to her as "Doctor." And they knew exactly what they were saying in doing that.


They were saying "you're one of the cool kids".
 
2014-06-03 02:30:35 PM  

stonicus: So, saying I don't respect Mike Tyson's skills as a boxer isn't racist. But saying I don't respect Maya Angelou's skills as a poet is. You are a confusing person.


Re-read.  I made it clear, I was specifically only calling the person who defended that idea in the context of Franklin somehow being different from Angelou is deserving a distinction.  That wasn't you.  I never called you racist, and you're being tremendously defensive over someone elses' easily reconsidered position.

You took that accusation(that in the context of argument presented was reasonable to conclude was racist) as me being willing to drop the charge willy-nilly.
 
2014-06-03 02:30:51 PM  

Timmy the Tumor: chimp_ninja: lamecomedian: All I did was say that I didn't think the woman's accomplishments amounted to a title.

She has a Pulitzer, three Grammys, a Tony, the National Medal of Arts, and a pile of other awards.  She wrote seven books (plus several children's books), published hundreds of poems, and wrote eight plays.  She's been an actress, a screenwriter, and a director.  Her works are part of university curricula around the world.

She's been successful in all of these endeavors, starting in the 1960s when America was even more racist.  Why her, then?  Did America just pick a woman of color at random to pile awards on?


Um, Yes, I think that's the general idea.
 
2014-06-03 02:31:05 PM  

lamecomedian: Otherwise, you would value aiding poor minorities over arguing about the title of a tremendously successful person of color who is dead.


What's to say ikanreed doesn't value aiding poor minorities?
They are not obliged, if so, to avoid dithering arguments in Fark threads in their recreation time in favor of working toward a nobler cause every waking moment. Unless you're Peter Singer, in which case fark you.
 
2014-06-03 02:32:29 PM  
Her employer, a university, saw fit to grant her that honorific.  It basically said "your life's work is your thesis and we have approved it".  Their opinion counts more than a bunch of morons in the internet does.
Once the first dozen or so major universities and colleges decide you're worthy of a doctorate, and it is in the field in which you ply your trade as an academic, then yeah, I think you can claim it pretty fairly.


It's an "honorary" title. As in a nice gesture to show respect. Don't take things so literally.
 
2014-06-03 02:33:09 PM  

enemy of the state: Timmy the Tumor: chimp_ninja: lamecomedian: All I did was say that I didn't think the woman's accomplishments amounted to a title.

She has a Pulitzer, three Grammys, a Tony, the National Medal of Arts, and a pile of other awards.  She wrote seven books (plus several children's books), published hundreds of poems, and wrote eight plays.  She's been an actress, a screenwriter, and a director.  Her works are part of university curricula around the world.

She's been successful in all of these endeavors, starting in the 1960s when America was even more racist.  Why her, then?  Did America just pick a woman of color at random to pile awards on?

Um, Yes, I think that's the general idea.



She's under there somewhere.
woodbridgeschool.s3.amazonaws.com
 
2014-06-03 02:34:10 PM  

Fubini: Sybarite: Every use of Dr. before you're name when you are not an M.D. is pretentious.

You do know that MD's were the ones that were late to the "Doctor" party, right? They were known as Physicians and Surgeons until relatively recently. Most medical societies, such as the AMA, still refer to their members as physicians and not doctors.

In any case, the actual usage of Dr. for a PhD has a little more etiquette. If you're putting your name to an official piece of correspondence that relies on your educational station, then you should use the honorific. If you're putting your name to something that doesn't rely on your degree, then you don't. For example, people who write academic research papers (in my field, at least) don't use the honorific, which is the most scholarly thing they do. But they will use it when they're doing day-to-day departmental business, such as certifying students and whatnot. You don't use your degree to claim a position of superiority or correctness, but you can and should use it claim a position of authority.

In another vein, there are differences between academic and non-academic environments. If you are introducing a PhD in a non-academic or public environment, and their degree bears some relevance to whatever is going on, it's polite and practical to let the audience know that this person has some authority. Conversely, it's silly to introduce someone with a PhD as such to another crowd of PhDs, especially when they're giving technical talks that are expected to stand on their own merit. Of course, it's a major faux pas for anyone to stand up and say, "By the way, I have a doctorate! You forgot to mention!", but they can and do say things like, "I've been doing research in this field for ten years now."


This sums it up very well.
 
2014-06-03 02:34:18 PM  

stonicus: AllYourFarkAreBelongToMe: Why is this even a debate?  It's very simple.  If you can't prescribe medicine, you're not a doctor.

The original use of the term Doctor means you were considered well enough educated in an academic field to teach it.  That's all.  It is not exclusive to the medical profession.


Only licensed "Physicians" can prescribe pharmaceuticals

/ technically not true, depending on jurisdiction
// just trying to clarify that doctor and physician are different
/// don't actually care too much - just enough to comment
 
2014-06-03 02:34:28 PM  

lamecomedian: These are true by definition; they are not predictions.


Incorrect.  They are predictions which are assumed to be true based upon past experience for expedience.  Gravity may cease to work tomorrow. Ice may cease to melt. Everyone may in fact be immortal in his or her particular quantum timeline.  They are not assured, only obviously highly likely.  We call these things facts in normal conversation.

lamecomedian: Saying that a person will be remembered in the future as fondly as she currently is remembered IS a prediction


Now are you adding qualifiers to my statement that I didn't put there.

lamecomedian: a lot of people thought Rudyard Kipling was awesome back in the day, but his reputation has suffered since then.


So, you're saying that Kipling is not now considered a "great writer"?
 
2014-06-03 02:34:53 PM  

Z-clipped: lamecomedian: I've got an MA in English lit - does that count?

Well, it's a start.  Have you made any intelligent criticisms in this thread?

Her poetry is weak, treacly, greeting-card caliber pap.

Ahem. OK.  Any idea why so many respected scholars and writers would find enormous value in her work then?


Because in the past fifty years or so form/execution in art has been downplayed in favor of evaluating a work based on its politics.  Case in point: "Same Love" got a lot of praise, despite being technically weak (the lyrics are laughably simplistic) because it embraced a popular political issue.  Maya Angelou was/is an important political symbol for a lot of people.

And while it's fair to say I haven't posted an erudite, scholarly critiques of her work in this thread... well, it's Fark.  Didn't seem like it would be worth my time.  If you'd like we could correspond over email, however.
 
2014-06-03 02:35:11 PM  
upload.wikimedia.org

Dr. Bush has honorary doctorates from (at least) Yale, Harvard, and Dartmouth.
 
2014-06-03 02:35:43 PM  

ikanreed: stonicus: So, saying I don't respect Mike Tyson's skills as a boxer isn't racist. But saying I don't respect Maya Angelou's skills as a poet is. You are a confusing person.

Re-read.  I made it clear, I was specifically only calling the person who defended that idea in the context of Franklin somehow being different from Angelou is deserving a distinction.  That wasn't you.  I never called you racist, and you're being tremendously defensive over someone elses' easily reconsidered position.

You took that accusation(that in the context of argument presented was reasonable to conclude was racist) as me being willing to drop the charge willy-nilly.


But I held the exact same opinion as the guy you called a racist, so what's the difference?
 
2014-06-03 02:38:16 PM  

lamecomedian: stonicus: lamecomedian: stonicus: lamecomedian: stonicus: Ok, what set of non-subjective criteria are going to use to judge the quality of a poem, or a song, or a painting?

Whatever you want, man.  Edgar Allen Poe thought length was important in poetry - he thought a poem needed to be digestible in one sitting (which is why he didn't care for epics).

Ok, I choose "popularity".

Totally legit.  How do you factor in changes over time?

I just go by total record sales and let the winner of "quality" be dynamic and change over time.  So a song may have the highest quality one month, then not for a year, then take it back again at a later date.  And we've now just defined quality to be the exact opposite of what you stated earlier.

Unless/until I say "I think your criteria are inappropriate" and propose a new set.  And then we do the dance all over again.

Also, your definition seems to imply that quality is *only* relative - that is, it's only "better" or "worse" than other items, not merely "good" or "bad" in isolation.  That seems... strange.


But quality is a property that everyone is allowed to have their own rules on, which was my whole point.

As far as relative quality vs absolute quality, what is the absolute universal standard of the quality of a song?  There isn't one.  It can only stand in comparison to other songs, which makes it a relative standard.
 
2014-06-03 02:38:37 PM  

stonicus: ikanreed: stonicus: So, saying I don't respect Mike Tyson's skills as a boxer isn't racist. But saying I don't respect Maya Angelou's skills as a poet is. You are a confusing person.

Re-read.  I made it clear, I was specifically only calling the person who defended that idea in the context of Franklin somehow being different from Angelou is deserving a distinction.  That wasn't you.  I never called you racist, and you're being tremendously defensive over someone elses' easily reconsidered position.

You took that accusation(that in the context of argument presented was reasonable to conclude was racist) as me being willing to drop the charge willy-nilly.

But I held the exact same opinion as the guy you called a racist, so what's the difference?


I pissed him/her off more.
 
2014-06-03 02:38:45 PM  

stonicus: But I held the exact same opinion as the guy you called a racist, so what's the difference?


That I wasn't paying especially much attention to your opinion, specifically, then.  You're probably racist too, but I don't want to have the same fight twice simultaneously, and prefer not to jump to conclusions, in spite of what conclusions you jumped to about me.
 
2014-06-03 02:39:25 PM  

stan unusual: To assert that because he was not a physician.he was not entitled to the title Doctor is quite frankly silly, since unlike an M.D. he had earned both the first professional degree and an advanced professional degree that required  him to demonstrate he had advanced the field of knowledge he studied.


I think that there's a segment of the population that has started to think less of PhD degrees. Partly, we have a lot more PhDs around now than we did before WWII, because of the massive expansion of government funded research at that time, and they think more people with the degree must mean that the degree has cheapened to some extent.  There's also a more modern backlash against academics, learning, and science in general, with the perception that college professors and other PhDs don't do a lot of worthwhile work. Throw into the mix the ever-rising cost of college attendance, and I can see how some people might start to feel bitter at the biggest public face of these institutions.

Some people just want to make it a competition, and try to claim that one of a MD or a PhD is better or harder than the other. Let me tell you this: people who actually have MDs and PhDs couldn't care less. They're completely different degrees for completely different work and types of work. The work that a PhD does in industrial or academic research, or in academic teaching, is completely different than the work that an MD does in clinical care. You absolutely would not someone with a PhD in biology trying to do medicine, and you absolutely would not award a random MD a multimillion dollar research grant.
 
2014-06-03 02:40:12 PM  

stonicus: lamecomedian: stonicus: lamecomedian: stonicus: lamecomedian: stonicus: Ok, what set of non-subjective criteria are going to use to judge the quality of a poem, or a song, or a painting?

Whatever you want, man.  Edgar Allen Poe thought length was important in poetry - he thought a poem needed to be digestible in one sitting (which is why he didn't care for epics).

Ok, I choose "popularity".

Totally legit.  How do you factor in changes over time?

I just go by total record sales and let the winner of "quality" be dynamic and change over time.  So a song may have the highest quality one month, then not for a year, then take it back again at a later date.  And we've now just defined quality to be the exact opposite of what you stated earlier.

Unless/until I say "I think your criteria are inappropriate" and propose a new set.  And then we do the dance all over again.

Also, your definition seems to imply that quality is *only* relative - that is, it's only "better" or "worse" than other items, not merely "good" or "bad" in isolation.  That seems... strange.

But quality is a property that everyone is allowed to have their own rules on, which was my whole point.


Then we've been agreeing all along.

As far as relative quality vs absolute quality, what is the absolute universal standard of the quality of a song?  There isn't one.  It can only stand in comparison to other songs, which makes it a relative standard.

So if we destroyed all copies of every song but one, it would cease to have quality, good or bad?  Listening to it would produce no response whatsoever?
 
2014-06-03 02:43:02 PM  

lamecomedian: stonicus: lamecomedian: stonicus: lamecomedian: stonicus: lamecomedian: stonicus: Ok, what set of non-subjective criteria are going to use to judge the quality of a poem, or a song, or a painting?

Whatever you want, man.  Edgar Allen Poe thought length was important in poetry - he thought a poem needed to be digestible in one sitting (which is why he didn't care for epics).

Ok, I choose "popularity".

Totally legit.  How do you factor in changes over time?

I just go by total record sales and let the winner of "quality" be dynamic and change over time.  So a song may have the highest quality one month, then not for a year, then take it back again at a later date.  And we've now just defined quality to be the exact opposite of what you stated earlier.

Unless/until I say "I think your criteria are inappropriate" and propose a new set.  And then we do the dance all over again.

Also, your definition seems to imply that quality is *only* relative - that is, it's only "better" or "worse" than other items, not merely "good" or "bad" in isolation.  That seems... strange.

But quality is a property that everyone is allowed to have their own rules on, which was my whole point.

Then we've been agreeing all along.

As far as relative quality vs absolute quality, what is the absolute universal standard of the quality of a song?  There isn't one.  It can only stand in comparison to other songs, which makes it a relative standard.

So if we destroyed all copies of every song but one, it would cease to have quality, good or bad?  Listening to it would produce no response whatsoever?


It can invoke a response, of course.  But quality intrinsically is a comparative term.  If you only have one person in the universe and he has $10, is he rich or poor?  If the universe were to reach thermo equilibrium (everything is the same temperature), is it hot or cold?  The man has money.  The universe has a temperature.  The song has a quality.  But without something to compare it to, what do those values mean?
 
2014-06-03 02:43:29 PM  

Leonard Washington: lennavan: Leonard Washington: I don't give a fark what they called people in the middle ages, you're not a doctor anymore. My dad is a doctor, nothing pissed me off more than some borderline competent to teach high school liberal arts professors insisting on me calling them doctors. You want to get called a doctor, get approved by the state to write a prescription.

Leonard Washington: You quit deserving to be called doctors the second someone else figured out how to help people better.

MDs write prescriptions for cures/treatments a team of PhDs spent decades developing.  Your MD didn't cure cancer, a whole crap load of PhDs did.

Do you also thank the waiter/waitress for the terrific job they personally did cooking your steak, while calling the chef in back a useless asshole?

MDs do a whole lot more than write prescriptions

And you're suggesting that the cook should be thanked for the excellent service...


You don't go to a restaurant for excellent service, you go for the food.  What good is a restaurant with awesome service and no food?  The chef makes the food.  Thank the chef.

You don't go to a MD for excellent service, you go for the treatments.  What good is a really nice MD who has no treatments?  The PhDs make the treatments.  But those guys are assholes, fark them.
 
2014-06-03 02:43:56 PM  

lamecomedian: stonicus: ikanreed: stonicus: So, saying I don't respect Mike Tyson's skills as a boxer isn't racist. But saying I don't respect Maya Angelou's skills as a poet is. You are a confusing person.

Re-read.  I made it clear, I was specifically only calling the person who defended that idea in the context of Franklin somehow being different from Angelou is deserving a distinction.  That wasn't you.  I never called you racist, and you're being tremendously defensive over someone elses' easily reconsidered position.

You took that accusation(that in the context of argument presented was reasonable to conclude was racist) as me being willing to drop the charge willy-nilly.

But I held the exact same opinion as the guy you called a racist, so what's the difference?

I pissed him/her off more.


Because you're a racist.  =)
 
2014-06-03 02:45:38 PM  

HeartBurnKid: Mambo Bananapatch: Of course she has the right to demand that people refer to her as "Dr.".

I have the right to demand that people refer to me as "Your Holiness".

Nobody is under any obligation to call me anything at all, nor forbidden from calling me whatever they want.

Therefore, this entire discussion is stupid.

Did she ever demand it, or did others simply do it as a sign of respect?


I just assumed. If she didn't, then the discussion is even stupider than I thought. Because who the hell else would care?
 
2014-06-03 02:45:57 PM  

chimp_ninja: Rurouni: If you mean she's a doctor like Dr. Pepper is a doctor, then yes she's a doctor.

Strangely enough, it's officially just "Dr Pepper", not "Dr. Pepper".  I think we've been pronouncing it wrong all this time.


Dr Pepper, so misunderstood.
 
2014-06-03 02:46:15 PM  
Nice makeout session you two:

"You're the non-racist guy"
"No you're right and you're the non racist guy"
"Your incorrect opinion is right"
"Oooh now give me a reach around"
 
2014-06-03 02:48:35 PM  

ikanreed: Nice makeout session you two:

"You're the non-racist guy"
"No you're right and you're the non racist guy"
"Your incorrect opinion is right"
"Oooh now give me a reach around"


Well, if nobody was taking you seriously before, this will surely get them to believe in you.  =)
 
2014-06-03 02:49:25 PM  

someonelse: UtileDysfunktion: Queen Latifah isn't really a queen, either.

And Prince Fielder isn't really a fielder.


This post is more deserving of an honorary degree than Maya Angelou is.
 
2014-06-03 02:49:56 PM  

Z-clipped: lamecomedian: These are true by definition; they are not predictions.

Incorrect.  They are predictions which are assumed to be true based upon past experience for expedience.  Gravity may cease to work tomorrow. Ice may cease to melt. Everyone may in fact be immortal in his or her particular quantum timeline.  They are not assured, only obviously highly likely.  We call these things facts in normal conversation.


Maya Angelou's legacy is not so obvious, especially given how the popularity of different poets has waxed and waned historically.  If I recall correctly, John Donne didn't come back into fashion until T.S. Eliot re-popularized him (don't quote me on that, though) and he's all the rage today.
 

lamecomedian: Saying that a person will be remembered in the future as fondly as she currently is remembered IS a prediction

Now are you adding qualifiers to my statement that I didn't put there.


I thought the original statement was that she would be remembered as a great poet or something to that effect.

lamecomedian: a lot of people thought Rudyard Kipling was awesome back in the day, but his reputation has suffered since then.

So, you're saying that Kipling is not now considered a "great writer"?


In my program, if one were to admit to being a fan of Kipling, one would likely be ostracized into finding a different line of work.
 
2014-06-03 02:50:05 PM  

lamecomedian: And while it's fair to say I haven't posted an erudite, scholarly critiques of her work in this thread... well, it's Fark.


Interesting.  I find quite a lot of technical discussion on other subjects on Fark.

So you think her acclaim is entirely political, and not because of her ability to profoundly resonate with huge groups of people, give them hope, and help them find the inner strength to overcome certain shared adversities?
 
2014-06-03 02:50:40 PM  

Fubini: stan unusual: To assert that because he was not a physician.he was not entitled to the title Doctor is quite frankly silly, since unlike an M.D. he had earned both the first professional degree and an advanced professional degree that required  him to demonstrate he had advanced the field of knowledge he studied.

I think that there's a segment of the population that has started to think less of PhD degrees. Partly, we have a lot more PhDs around now than we did before WWII, because of the massive expansion of government funded research at that time, and they think more people with the degree must mean that the degree has cheapened to some extent.  There's also a more modern backlash against academics, learning, and science in general, with the perception that college professors and other PhDs don't do a lot of worthwhile work. Throw into the mix the ever-rising cost of college attendance, and I can see how some people might start to feel bitter at the biggest public face of these institutions.

Some people just want to make it a competition, and try to claim that one of a MD or a PhD is better or harder than the other. Let me tell you this: people who actually have MDs and PhDs couldn't care less. They're completely different degrees for completely different work and types of work. The work that a PhD does in industrial or academic research, or in academic teaching, is completely different than the work that an MD does in clinical care. You absolutely would not someone with a PhD in biology trying to do medicine, and you absolutely would not award a random MD a multimillion dollar research grant.


This is how I take it when someone says that only MDs can be called Dr.  I wouldn't say MDs have no right to be called Dr., but PhDs have every right to be called Dr., and historically more of a right than MDs.  Just because people are ignorant doesn't mean that I don't get a title that I've earned.

Now, I think MDs and PhDs could probably agree that many other degrees have diluted the title.  If your degree is taking classes/writing papers, it's basically a glorified M.A.  If it's contributing original research or extensive practical apprenticeship, then I think you have earned the title of Dr.
 
2014-06-03 02:52:06 PM  

stonicus: lamecomedian: stonicus: ikanreed: stonicus: So, saying I don't respect Mike Tyson's skills as a boxer isn't racist. But saying I don't respect Maya Angelou's skills as a poet is. You are a confusing person.

Re-read.  I made it clear, I was specifically only calling the person who defended that idea in the context of Franklin somehow being different from Angelou is deserving a distinction.  That wasn't you.  I never called you racist, and you're being tremendously defensive over someone elses' easily reconsidered position.

You took that accusation(that in the context of argument presented was reasonable to conclude was racist) as me being willing to drop the charge willy-nilly.

But I held the exact same opinion as the guy you called a racist, so what's the difference?

I pissed him/her off more.

Because you're a racist.  =)


i0.kym-cdn.com
 
2014-06-03 02:53:06 PM  

bdub77: [i.imgur.com image 411x500]


I'll see your troll pic and raise.


img.fark.net
 
2014-06-03 02:54:43 PM  
Leonard Washington: I don't give a fark what they called people in the middle ages, you're not a doctor anymore. My dad is a doctor, nothing pissed me off more than some borderline competent to teach high school liberal arts professors insisting on me calling them doctors. You want to get called a doctor, get approved by the state to write a prescription.

1. M.D.s date back to the late 19th century, not the middle ages or earlier.  Before the 20th century not all physicians held medical degrees,  and many states did not require licensing of physicians.  Further, MD's were not the standard medical degree until the 20th century.
2.  I suggest you  brush up on the middle ages and learn to distinguish between them and the renaissance which is when the term Doctor became an academic title and was not a religious one.
3.  Many states allow Physician's Assistants and Nurse Practitioners  to write prescriptions, but do not allow them to refer to themselves as Doctors.

Leonard Washington: You quit deserving to be called doctors the second someone else figured out how to help people better.

See above.  Also, Surgeons in the UK who have medical degrees are still traditionally referred to as "Mister So and So" while other physicians are referred to as "Doctor So and So" Surgeons in the UK can write prescriptions, so are they Mister or Doctor?

lennavan: MDs write prescriptions for cures/treatments a team of PhDs spent decades developing.  Your MD didn't cure cancer, a whole crap load of PhDs did.
Professional degrees are a bit of an odd duck in the academic world in that many researchers and teachers in the professions hold only the first degree in the field- JD, MD, DDS etc while in the rest of the academic world those positions are reserved for holders of advanced degrees. But your point is still a good one that illustrates the difference between practitioners of the profession and academics advancing the state of knowledge in it.
 
2014-06-03 02:56:17 PM  
Mike Tyson in his prime would have destroyed any of these UFC guys in their prime. Any one of them you could possibly name.
 
2014-06-03 02:57:15 PM  

stonicus: Well, if nobody was taking you seriously before, this will surely get them to believe in you. =)


Oh, I'm sooooooooooooo worried about my reputation here.  Yep.  That's the thing on the line.  You guys are literally slavering all over each other over how not racist you are, and it's really disturbing.
 
2014-06-03 02:57:37 PM  

Z-clipped: lamecomedian: And while it's fair to say I haven't posted an erudite, scholarly critiques of her work in this thread... well, it's Fark.

Interesting.  I find quite a lot of technical discussion on other subjects on Fark.


I try to keep my posts on the internet pretty short (individually).  It helps me walk away when I need to.  Also, longer posts are more appropriate for a conversation between two people (at least, that's my opinion).

So you think her acclaim is entirely political, and not because of her ability to profoundly resonate with huge groups of people, give them hope, and help them find the inner strength to overcome certain shared adversities?

Oh no, not entirely.  But all kinds of stuff that isn't given the same kind of plaudits that her work has received has given people hope, helped them find inner strength, etc.  Chicken Soup for the Soul is probably more widely read (and thus more quantitatively "inspirational") than Angelou's stuff, but it's never going to get a Pulitzer.

I don't bear the woman any ill-will at all, nor do I find her work harmful or offensive.  I just don't think it's of very high quality, that's all, and I think her career benefited from the political currents of her time.  That doesn't make her a bad person.
 
2014-06-03 02:58:32 PM  

Fafai: Mike Tyson in his prime would have destroyed any of these UFC guys in their prime. Any one of them you could possibly name.


That's Dr.  Tyson to you.
 
2014-06-03 02:58:41 PM  

ikanreed: stonicus: Well, if nobody was taking you seriously before, this will surely get them to believe in you. =)

Oh, I'm sooooooooooooo worried about my reputation here.


I might've believed that if you had actually quit posting a couple of pages ago.
 
2014-06-03 02:59:49 PM  

lamecomedian: I thought the original statement was that she would be remembered as a great poet or something to that effect.


So now we're off the semantics, and just going for the general gist of things?   Then yes, I'd say that for at least the next... 50 years...?... It's a fact that Maya Angelou will be remembered among the great American writers.  Even if... especially if... as you seem to think, her value is purely political.
 
2014-06-03 03:00:28 PM  

Mambo Bananapatch: HeartBurnKid: Mambo Bananapatch: Of course she has the right to demand that people refer to her as "Dr.".

I have the right to demand that people refer to me as "Your Holiness".

Nobody is under any obligation to call me anything at all, nor forbidden from calling me whatever they want.

Therefore, this entire discussion is stupid.

Did she ever demand it, or did others simply do it as a sign of respect?

I just assumed. If she didn't, then the discussion is even stupider than I thought. Because who the hell else would care?


Yes, it is a magnificently stupid discussion.  Thank you for realizing it.  Unfortunately, you're looking at it from the wrong direction.  The people who are getting butthurt over other people calling Dr. Angelou a doctor are incredible morons, for a number of reasons.
 
2014-06-03 03:00:31 PM  

stonicus: ikanreed: Nice makeout session you two:

"You're the non-racist guy"
"No you're right and you're the non racist guy"
"Your incorrect opinion is right"
"Oooh now give me a reach around"

Well, if nobody was taking you seriously before, this will surely get them to believe in you.  =)


Did you notice the anti-gay sentiment that's implied by that post?  We may be racists, but at least we're not HOMOPHOBES!
 
2014-06-03 03:01:43 PM  

Z-clipped: lamecomedian: I thought the original statement was that she would be remembered as a great poet or something to that effect.

So now we're off the semantics, and just going for the general gist of things?


I'm just too lazy to look it up.

Then yes, I'd say that for at least the next... 50 years...?... It's a fact that Maya Angelou will be remembered among the great American writers.  Even if... especially if... as you seem to think, her value is purely political.

Let's meet up in fifty years and see who was right.  Loser owes the winner a coke.
 
2014-06-03 03:02:21 PM  

ikanreed: stonicus: Well, if nobody was taking you seriously before, this will surely get them to believe in you. =)

Oh, I'm sooooooooooooo worried about my reputation here.  Yep.  That's the thing on the line.  You guys are literally slavering all over each other over how not racist you are, and it's really disturbing.


Well, nobody, even us, likes being called out.  I am sure you wouldn't like it if we started pointing out how anti-semitic you've been in this thread.
 
Displayed 50 of 548 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report