amino @ amino @lemmy.blahaj.zone

Posts

1

Comments

286

Joined

6 mo. ago

how can I be racist against my own race? are you okay?

please define racism, who created it, when it was created and why it was created

LMAO racism against... white people? when did we ever experience systemic oppression based on being white?

I think it's a way for white Americans to distance themselves from the cognitive dissonance of being a settler by adopting an "embrace, extend, extinguish" strategy towards any term or cultural signifier that was made cool by Black people

they have a great point though because the courts are simply an extension of the police state. these are the same courts that are more likely to give a harsher sentence to Black men than their white counterparts. From the USSC:

Black male offenders continued to receive longer sentences than similarly situated White male offenders. Black male offenders received sentences on average 19.1 percent longer than similarly situated White male offenders

you can't be racist against white people since we invented racism

more like white Americans

One major difference is that Romania is much more racially homogenous than America.

The legal system in the States is descended from the chattel slavery era (similar to Romania), but America also is obsessed with prosperity gospel from Evangelical Christianity. When you combine these 2 factors, you get a system where anytime a conflict happens, you have no community resolution to rely upon. Anyone who can't enact justice on their own is seen as weak, that's why you see so many school shootings happen. I'd say they're not only a symptom of white supremacy but also of collapsed social cohesion.

Sure, America is definitely more litigious but that's kinda what happens when you don't have legislation for tenant rights, labor rights, healthcare, racial justice, etc. Your only options left are to either pay a lawyer if you're privileged enough, take matters into your own hands or seek a communal solution.

Communal solutions are very unlikely to be pursued in a state that despises social welfare solutions to social problems. During FDR's presidency, America was seen as the golden age of American history due to better than usual material conditions at the expense of non-white people being excluded from these welfare programs. Thus, the "welfare queen" stereotype was created to demonize Black women simply for wanting to enjoy the same level of prosperity that their white counterparts were. You can see a similar pattern of violence emerging in the EU when white people invent a "white replacement" myth as soon as white people drop below 90% in a given neighborhood. Said neighborhood gets labeled as a "refugee hellscape" and gets segregated from mainstream society as to not infect "the civilized white culture". You also see this manifesting in Romania as "lawless"(according to white society) Romani ghettos that are systemically segregated from mainstream society. Romani people having no choice but to rely on internal solutions get labeled as barbaric, white Romanians doing the same thing get called heroes.

Courts everywhere are much more likely to side with the abuser, what America does a bit differently is that they industrialize their police force to lock up as many people as possible since that keeps the existing hierarchies in place. Romania is more keen on sweeping violence under the rug because that way it's cheaper to rely on local mobs of men against women, whites against Romani, rich vs poor, etc. to uphold the police state. There's also the fact that the Romanian state is more corrupt in a not wanting to enforce laws way and they benefit from receiving bribes or turning the other way when a problem is brought up.

TLDR: poverty and racism means you can't afford to be litigious. It's mostly middle class and higher white people in both countries who enjoy the privilege of being litigious. Even the poor white people who wanna sue end up bankrupt from legal fees or have to crowdfund for legal costs.

LLM can be used for unclogging a shit pipe if you wish. doesn't mean it's gonna be a good idea

we're talking about genAI here not AI in general. let's not kid ourselves...

this is a masterclass in polite racism

except calculators function as a disability aid if you have discalculia and actually foster your math skills instead of hallucinating a wrong result for your input

Black Desert Online, as if real life wasn't pay-to-win enough

insert virgin Meta employee vs Chad seedbox nerd meme

I can't find any sources saying Red 40 has been banned. You're probably confusing it with the recent Red 3 ban by the FDA?

Speaking of the FDA Red 3 ban, this decision was motivated by the Delaney Clause, not by any scientific evidence showing harm to humans. The FDA's own studies found it safe for human consumption, yet the aforementioned outdated legislation gives them a legal obligation to deem said ingredients unsafe. source:

Studies showed that male rats exposed to very high levels of Red #3 developed thyroid tumors. Here's the crucial context: this occurred through a hormone mechanism specific to male rats that doesn't exist in humans. The FDA's own analysis shows a 210-fold safety margin between typical human exposure (0.25 mg/kg body weight per day) and levels causing effects in rats (35.8 mg/kg per day).

Even more telling: studies in other animals - including female rats, mice, gerbils, and dogs - showed no cancer effects. Human studies have consistently failed to show evidence of harm at normal exposure levels.

Some additional context you might find useful.

For the same reasons, Red 40 causing cancer in mice in really high roses doesn't imply a causation of harm to humans

totally normal way to respond to a scientific critique of misinformation

what's the source for your candy being carcinogenic?

we use antibiotics in the EU as well. it also doesn't affect meat taste, the reason why it's regulated is to prevent antibiotic resistance

CR uses shit science, doesn't open source their papers, isn't peer-reviewed and goes against WHO and FOA recommendations. source

CR's latest article on heavy metals in chocolates advised readers that "kids and pregnant people should consume dark chocolate sparingly, if at all, because heavy metals pose the highest risk to young children and developing babies."

But medical toxicologists who spoke with Ars disagreed with the "sparingly, if at all" suggestion.

"I don't see evidence that pregnant people or children will be harmed from eating food from time to time with concentrations at the levels described in the article," Stolbach told Ars.

he's a US citizen that lives in the US, that's how