> This is hate speech, especially considering the disproportionate rates of black and hispanic people who are unvaccinated.
It is not. Black & hispanic people are vaccinated at lower rates than white people mostly due to access issues, not refusal to get the vaccine. One of those access issues is, in fact, that they are disproportionately members of a part of society we've demanded to take a lot of risk: essential workers.
Edit: a quote from the "fact check" that thinks they debunked this claim:
>“When you are vaccinated, your cells use the mRNA (or DNA from adenovirus vector) to make spike protein in your cells. Your cells “show” your immune system the spike protein and pieces of the spike protein. The spike protein does not kill those cells, it is not cytotoxic,” Durbin explained.
This shows how the "fact checkers" didn't even understand the claim to begin with. Dr. Malone wasn't saying the spike protein is cytotoxic to the cells which produce it, but when it falls off those cells and spreads to other parts of the body (heart, brain, ovaries, etc.) it is cytotoxic to other cells.
No, we're not. That wasn't the stated purpose of the research, and is deeply unlikely to have been a covert purpose either. What is the use of a "weapon" you can't aim?
>In an unlikely but conceivable turn of events, what if that scientist becomes infected with the virus, which leads to an outbreak and ultimately triggers a pandemic? Many ask reasonable questions: given the possibility of such a scenario...
>Scientists working in this field might say – as indeed I have said – that the benefits of such experiments and the resulting knowledge outweigh the risks. It is more likely that a pandemic would occur in nature, and the need to stay ahead of such a threat is a primary reason for performing an experiment that might appear to be risky.
So the basic risk calculation Fauci is using (which is disputed by many scientists and virologists) is this:
Lives saved by GoF research > lives lost by inevitable lab leak + lives lost by inevitable natural pandemic
Gain of function research has been going on for decades now. What evidence is there that this research has actually served its purpose to help save lives? Did GoF help us at all with the current pandemic?
>Growing to overcome past problems is not sufficient.
Their assumption is moreso that we cant grow to overcome past problems. So the only way to build themselves up is to tear others down.
Thats why the popular "anti-racism" philosophy is so antithetical to and ignorant of the lives and philosophies of many of the greatest civil rights leaders such as Frederick Douglass, Booker T Washington, and MLK.
Could you point me to the paragraph in question? I've read the article a few times now, and I don't see
A) anyone described as anti-racist or
B) anything saying people who do racist things cannot grow.
Sorry! Somehow I managed to paste completely the wrong link, and now it is too late for me to edit my previous comment. I realise now that scrolling down on that website automatically loads new articles and updates the address bar.
Here[0] is the article I had meant to link to.
Ah man… I really feel bad that you read the wrong article a few times after I unwittingly mislead you. I'm genuinely sorry about that.
Ah, thanks for the corrected link, I appreciate it. I hate when websites do that, it's super confusing.
I actually agree with her here, but I don't think that's the same as saying that racist people can't get better:
> While citizens can work on addressing racism, they can never be free of it, she said.
“We don’t arrive and now we are not racist,” DiAngelo said.
In her view (and mine), becoming "not racist" isn't really a thing that happens and then you're done, and you don't have to worry about not being racist anymore. Rather, it's an ongoing effort, the same way being a kind person or a hard worker is. In this understanding, "all white people are racist" is not a condemnation of white people or an attempt to cast white people as inherently bad or irredeemable. Rather, it's meant as a wake-up call - "Yes, all white people, even you, believe racist things and sometimes act in racist ways." If you want to be anti-racist, it is important to recognize these things within yourself and improve them, in the same way that you work to improve the world outside you.
Since this is a different definitional understanding (semantics?) than the person who says "I'm not racist," it can be a tricky point to communicate properly without being misunderstood or taken out of context.
I don't agree with all of DiAngelo's points or writing, but on this core one, I think she's not too far off the mark.
I mean sorry, but no amount of context to "all white people are racist" is going to make people see the nuance.
It's a stupid statement no matter the explanation.
And honestly even the intent at bwst is advocating purity over practice, her point will waste a lot of resources on people who are more or less on board with said idea of anti-racism but are flawed.
I'm going to have to start asking for better sources on antiracism than a white woman who makes a career out of corporate "diversity training." Like, of course that's her entire thesis.
White fragility is a very useful concept, for sure. But the way DiAngelo uses it seems to be more focused on making white people hem and haw and feel guilty for even trying instead of doing mutual aid, reading theory, forming community, anything actually helpful or useful.
If I wanted to set up a strawman, that's exactly what I'd do.
In case anyone finds this, I should probably clarify that my beef is with DiAngelo specifically rather than with CRT in general. I think that what she puts forth leads to unhelpful, performative activism, and I think she characterizes Black people erroneously as a monolith. In my opinion, the end result is white people getting bounced off of important work by one excessively moralizing book with a profit motive. For this and other reasons White Fragility is being taken off of some antiracism reading lists.
I'll probably read her new book that's coming out soon, but my prior assumption is that it's more of the same. I hope to be proven wrong.
I remain unconvinced that CRT is at all constructive and I find it peculiar that you recognise it as erroneous to characterise black people as a monolith when this is exactly what CRT does.
My perspective aligns neatly with that describe here[0].
As Trevor Phillips would say[1], Critical Race Theory is exactly the idea I would invent if I were a racist.
Could you expand on that? Are Phillips’ (a decorated former MP, and the former head of the Commission for Racial Equality, and also a black man) positions on racism invalid in your view? Is he unqualified? Are you better qualified? Or do you just find his views heretical?
Oh absolutely, and that was never my claim. That is however the implicit claim of Critical Race Theorists. It’s a racist claim, which is why I’m challenging your support for it now.
> That is however the implicit claim of Critical Race Theorists.
You have provided evidence that it is the implicit claim of exactly one critical race theorist.
> which is why I'm challenging your support for it now.
This is a strawman. I began this discussion by pointing out that this very claim is counterproductive, which is why I'm not a fan of DiAngelo's work. Reasoning in the abstract about marginalized groups and the systemic issues they tend to face is not the same as asserting that they individually have all the same views or background.
>Why do people feel the need to socially shame people publicly for an offense over a decade ago?
Because they're playing a game of Moral Supremacy one-upsmanship. In the long run, everyone who plays this game must lose, because were all humans. But in the short term this game can be quite lucrative in terms of attention getting, internet points, and money.
Can you quote where exactly they are "conflating the state of Israel and Jewish people and lumping it all together."?
>Plenty of Jewish people that live both inside and outside of Israel are critical of the state.
Is this not exactly what this thought experiment of an article is talking about? Trying to put themselves on the shoes of a Jewish person who is critical of Israels politics
Clinical trials are conducted over many years (rather than just 1) for historical safety reasons[1]
>There is a faction of fools out there who resist being a part of society, but claim all of its privileges. These are sub-human individuals
This is hate speech, especially considering the disproportionate rates of black and hispanic people who are unvaccinated.
[1]https://www.brightfocus.org/clinical-trials/how-clinical-tri...