Invoking racism and gender discrimination when it’s not the reason, causes more racism and it gives more than ample opportunity to actual racists within us to exploit it for their own nefarious needs.
Invoking racism and gender discrimination when it’s not the reason, causes more racism and it gives more than ample opportunity to actual racists within us to exploit it for their own nefarious needs.
And now you’re saying that people who call this racism for what is is are the ones responsible for the racism. You’ve got to be kidding.
> MSG sensitivity has never been shown to be true in a replicable clinical environment in humans.
Actually, it has been. The fine article even mentions that. > The few studies that have shown this to cause symptoms use extremely large doses of MSG that aren't used in food (for one thing, the dosages involved would be unpalatable even for those without the symptoms;
So you do accept that some studies have demonstrated MSG sensitivity? So why the lie in the previous sentence? I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I just don't see how you claim the former statement given this statement.In any case, yes, you are correct here. As per the fine article, the dose at which symptoms become common is six times the normal dose. Do you find it utterly impossible that some people could be sensitive at one-sixth the dose that "most people" become sensitive at?
No, some studies have shown that high doses or unusual methods of introduction (e.g., IV) of MSG can cause symptoms; no properly controlled studies have shown sensitivity (i.e., a trait in which people are prone to symptoms at lower thresholds that are typical, such that they might experience symptoms with doses that might actual be encountered outside of deliberate mass ingestion.)
> Do you find it utterly impossible that some people could be sensitive at one-sixth the dose that "most people" become sensitive at?
“It’s not utterly impossible” is not the same thing as “clinical studies have provided evidence for it”.
If that's the most recent example, I'd call it an "ancient history of racism", not a "long history of racism".
> Exclusion was repealed by the Magnuson Act on December 17, 1943, which allowed 105 Chinese to enter per year. Chinese immigration later increased [to 2000/year from the "Asiatic barred zone"] with the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which abolished direct racial barriers, and later by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which abolished the National Origins Formula.
Everyone involved in setting these barriers are dead.
It still has significant impact.
Sort of sounds like the same thing as "the more you test for COVID the more cases there will be"
I've read your sentence like 10 times and it makes no sense to me. How would one exploit someone calling out (false by your definition) racism to cause more racism?
Will this cause more racism? Inadvertently, yes. Racism occurs due to bigotry and ignorance, one which needs to be systematically exposed and the other requiring remedial education (what you think you know is not right). If the problem requires intellectual engagement and discussion, and the intellectual battlefield is a Vietnam helicopter drop off where your average time of survival is 7 minutes before you die, lots of people will be dodging that draft.
So the war never gets fought.
Hence people don't take it seriously... Racism fatigue.
Kinda like quarantine fatigue when particular mitigations don't make scientific sense.
Edit: take my own advice and change "you" to "one."
--------
Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
So, wait, you're saying if someone who's not a racist gets called a racist that's going to be enough to turn him in to a racist?
If that's all it took they were probably racist to begin with.
From that premise we can proceed to the idea that "racists" act on those impulses, while people who are "not racist" resist them. However, these impulses can be extremely subtle, and no matter how we struggle, I don't believe that that any human being lives a life avoiding racist acts entirely.
Would you still argue that I'm a racist perpetuating a false claim as an excuse for my own racism? I mean, I accept that I'm prejudiced and every once in a while racist despite my best efforts, so that part is true in a sense. I'm don't think I'm trying to excuse myself, though.
> enough to turn him in to a racist
If I were to call you a sexist for your choice of pronouns (and throw in "self hate is the worst kind" if your pronouns happen to be he/him), and you were to see several other likely unwarranted accusations being thrown around against you and others, you'd be less likely to take notice when real sexism is called out. Fewer people taking notice of real actionable cases of sexism would likely result in more sexism over time.