A Stitch in Haste

A medical blogger tries to parlay the Coulter-Edwards incident into a witty blogpost:

The second patient, a 30 something year old man, was brought in by his boyfriend.
...
He tolerated the procedure like, well, John Edwards.

Another medical blogger expresses his indignation:

I figured, there's no way in hell he's calling his patient a faggot, is he? Honestly? Maybe there's some new big campaign to label John Edwards as a coward, or weak, or a wimp or something?

To which the first blogger responds:

[B]logs are for ranting and stereotypes are for ridiculing. There is no hatred in my heart for anyone except politically-correct liberal douches[.] ... Every other pointed comment I make about any other demographic group is purely for amusement sake. If you don't like it, then don't read it.

Well yes, "don't read it" is pretty much a given at this point.

Still, it seems to me that someone smart enough to become a doctor is also smart enough to do better than the du jour equivalent of Polock jokes. Perhaps Poles are entitled to mock Polish stereotypes, or Italians to mock Italian stereotypes, or physicians, or lawyers -- or gays. But Poles shouldn't mock Italians and then say it is "purely for amusement sake." Neither should (straight) physicians, or anybody else, mock gays and then cower behind protestations, especially indignant protestations, of "Where's your sense of humor?" That's a cop-out as sophomoric as the joke itself.

Let Poles be the judge of the propriety of Polock jokes. Let doctors be the judge of the propriety of doctor jokes. And give gays the benefit of the doubt about whether a "humorous" anecdote involving a stereotype or epithet is indeed humorous or offensive.

(Via Kevin, M.D.)