#disposable gloves industry | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

toolequipment · 7 months ago

Text

Are Grizzly nitrile gloves suitable for people with allergies? [2024]

Introduction

Grizzly Nitrile Gloves are renowned for their high-quality material and exceptional performance in various applications. As a popular choice in medical, industrial, and personal settings, these gloves are designed to provide superior protection while minimizing the risk of allergic reactions. This article explores whether Grizzly Nitrile Gloves are suitable for people with allergies, examining their composition, benefits, and how they compare to other types of gloves.

Importance of Allergy-Friendly Gloves

In environments where gloves are essential, such as healthcare and food industries, the risk of allergic reactions can be a significant concern. Allergies to glove materials, particularly latex, can cause severe discomfort and health issues for individuals. Therefore, selecting the right type of glove is crucial for ensuring safety and well-being.

Purpose of the Article

The purpose of this article is to provide a comprehensive analysis of Grizzly Nitrile Gloves, focusing on their suitability for individuals with allergies. By examining the materials, benefits, and real-life usage scenarios, we aim to offer valuable insights into why these gloves might be the ideal choice for those prone to allergic reactions.

Understanding Nitrile Gloves

What are Nitrile Gloves?

Nitrile gloves are a type of disposable glove made from synthetic rubber. They are widely used as an alternative to latex gloves due to their superior resistance to punctures and chemicals. Nitrile gloves are known for their durability and are commonly used in medical, industrial, and household applications.

Composition of Nitrile Gloves

Nitrile gloves are made from nitrile butadiene rubber (NBR), a synthetic polymer derived from acrylonitrile and butadiene. This composition provides the gloves with high resistance to oils, chemicals, and physical wear, making them suitable for a variety of tasks that require strong and reliable hand protection.

How Nitrile Gloves Differ from Latex and Vinyl Gloves

Nitrile gloves differ significantly from latex and vinyl gloves in several ways:

Latex Gloves: Made from natural rubber latex, they are elastic and offer excellent fit and comfort. However, latex gloves can cause allergic reactions in some people due to the proteins present in natural rubber.

Vinyl Gloves: Made from polyvinyl chloride (PVC), they are less durable than nitrile and latex gloves and provide lower protection against chemicals and punctures. Vinyl gloves are often used for tasks that require minimal protection.

Nitrile Gloves: Combining the benefits of latex and vinyl gloves, nitrile gloves offer excellent durability, puncture resistance, and chemical protection without the risk of latex allergies.

Allergies Related to Gloves

Types of Allergies

Latex Allergy

Latex allergy is a common concern, particularly in healthcare settings. It occurs when the immune system reacts to proteins found in natural rubber latex, causing symptoms that can range from mild skin irritation to severe anaphylactic reactions.

Chemical Sensitivity

Some individuals may experience allergic reactions or sensitivities to the chemicals used in the manufacturing of gloves. This can include accelerators and other additives that help in the production process.

Symptoms of Glove-Related Allergies

Common symptoms of glove-related allergies include:

Skin redness and itching

Hives or rashes

Swelling

Respiratory symptoms like sneezing and runny nose

Severe cases may involve difficulty breathing and anaphylaxis

Causes of Glove-Related Allergies

Allergic reactions to gloves can be caused by:

Natural rubber proteins in latex gloves

Chemical residues from manufacturing processes

Powdered gloves, which can disperse allergenic particles

Benefits of Nitrile Gloves for Allergies

Hypoallergenic Properties of Nitrile

Nitrile gloves are considered hypoallergenic because they do not contain the proteins found in natural rubber latex. This makes them a safer option for individuals with latex allergies, reducing the risk of allergic reactions.

Absence of Latex Proteins

One of the key benefits of nitrile gloves is the complete absence of latex proteins. This eliminates the primary cause of latex allergy, providing a safer alternative for those who are sensitive to latex.

Reduced Chemical Residues

Advanced manufacturing processes used for nitrile gloves often result in lower levels of residual chemicals, further minimizing the risk of allergic reactions. This makes nitrile gloves a preferred choice for individuals with chemical sensitivities.

Specific Features of Grizzly Nitrile Gloves

Material Quality

Grizzly Nitrile Gloves are made from high-quality nitrile butadiene rubber, ensuring durability and resistance to punctures, chemicals, and other hazards. The superior material quality also contributes to their hypoallergenic properties.

Manufacturing Process

The manufacturing process for Grizzly Nitrile Gloves involves rigorous quality control and advanced techniques to minimize chemical residues. This ensures that the gloves are safe for use by individuals with allergies.

Certification and Standards

Grizzly Nitrile Gloves meet various international standards and certifications, confirming their safety and efficacy. These certifications ensure that the gloves are manufactured in compliance with stringent health and safety regulations.

Usage Scenarios

Medical and Healthcare Settings

In medical and healthcare settings, Grizzly Nitrile Gloves provide essential protection against pathogens and chemicals while minimizing the risk of allergic reactions. Their durability and hypoallergenic properties make them ideal for prolonged use.

Food Handling and Preparation

For food industry professionals, Grizzly Nitrile Gloves offer a safe and reliable option for handling food without the risk of contamination or allergic reactions. Their chemical resistance also protects against foodborne pathogens.

Industrial and Laboratory Use

In industrial and laboratory environments, Grizzly Nitrile Gloves are valued for their resistance to chemicals and punctures. They provide reliable protection for workers handling hazardous materials.

Domestic and Personal Use

For everyday tasks such as cleaning and personal care, Grizzly Nitrile Gloves offer protection without the risk of allergies. They are suitable for individuals who need to wear gloves for extended periods.

Comparative Analysis

Grizzly Nitrile Gloves vs. Other Nitrile Brands

Compared to other nitrile brands, Grizzly Nitrile Gloves stand out for their superior material quality and rigorous testing. They offer enhanced durability and comfort, making them a preferred choice in various industries.

Grizzly Nitrile Gloves vs. Latex Gloves

While latex gloves offer excellent elasticity, Grizzly Nitrile Gloves provide better chemical and puncture resistance without the risk of latex allergies. This makes them a safer and more versatile option.

Grizzly Nitrile Gloves vs. Vinyl Gloves

Vinyl gloves are less durable and offer lower protection compared to nitrile gloves. Grizzly Nitrile Gloves, with their superior resistance to chemicals and punctures, provide better safety and reliability.

Common Myths and Misconceptions

Myth: All Nitrile Gloves are the Same

Not all nitrile gloves are created equal. The quality of the material and the manufacturing process can vary significantly. Grizzly Nitrile Gloves are distinguished by their high standards and rigorous testing.

Myth: Nitrile Gloves are Completely Allergy-Proof

While nitrile gloves significantly reduce the risk of allergies, they are not entirely allergy-proof. Some individuals may still react to residual chemicals, though the risk is much lower compared to latex gloves.

Misconception: Cost of Nitrile Gloves

There is a misconception that nitrile gloves are prohibitively expensive. While they may cost more than vinyl gloves, their superior protection and hypoallergenic properties justify the investment, especially in professional settings.

Real-Life Stories

Case Study: Healthcare Worker with Latex Allergy

Sarah, a nurse with a severe latex allergy, switched to Grizzly Nitrile Gloves and experienced a significant reduction in allergic reactions. She highlights the gloves' comfort and durability as key benefits.

Case Study: Food Industry Professional

Tom, a chef in a busy restaurant, found Grizzly Nitrile Gloves ideal for food preparation. The gloves provided excellent protection without compromising his ability to handle delicate ingredients.

Case Study: Laboratory Technician

Emily, a laboratory technician, chose Grizzly Nitrile Gloves for their chemical resistance and hypoallergenic properties. She reports that the gloves have improved her work efficiency and safety.

Preventive Measures

Choosing the Right Glove

Selecting the right glove involves considering the material, durability, and potential allergens. Grizzly Nitrile Gloves are a reliable choice for those seeking hypoallergenic protection.

Proper Glove Usage

Proper usage includes ensuring the correct fit, avoiding prolonged use without breaks, and regularly changing gloves to prevent contamination and skin irritation.

Handling and Disposal of Gloves

Safe handling and disposal of gloves are crucial to prevent the spread of contaminants and reduce environmental impact. Used gloves should be disposed of according to local regulations.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q. Are Grizzly Nitrile Gloves Truly Hypoallergenic?

A. Grizzly Nitrile Gloves are designed to be hypoallergenic, significantly reducing the risk of allergic reactions due to the absence of latex proteins and minimal chemical residues.

Q. How Do I Know if I Have an Allergy to Gloves?

A. Symptoms of glove allergies include skin irritation, redness, itching, and in severe cases, respiratory issues. If you experience these symptoms, consult a healthcare professional for testing and advice.

Q. What Should I Do if I Develop an Allergy?

A. If you develop an allergy to gloves, discontinue use immediately and consult a healthcare professional. Switching to hypoallergenic gloves like Grizzly Nitrile Gloves can help prevent future reactions.

Q. Can Nitrile Gloves Cause Any Allergies?

A. While rare, some individuals may react to residual chemicals in nitrile gloves. However, the risk is much lower compared to latex gloves, making nitrile a safer option for most people.

Conclusion

Summary of Key Points

Grizzly Nitrile Gloves offer a hypoallergenic, durable, and versatile solution for individuals with allergies. Their superior material quality, rigorous testing, and certifications ensure they provide excellent protection across various applications.

Call to Action for Allergy-Safe Practices

Choosing the right gloves and following proper usage guidelines are essential steps in maintaining allergy-safe practices. Grizzly Nitrile Gloves provide a reliable option for those seeking to minimize allergic reactions.

Encouragement to Choose Grizzly Nitrile Gloves

For individuals and professionals concerned about allergies, Grizzly Nitrile Gloves offer a safe and effective solution. Their high-quality construction and hypoallergenic properties make them an ideal choice for various settings.

#Grizzly nitrile gloves #Grizzly industrial nitrile gloves #Heavy-duty nitrile gloves Grizzly #Grizzly nitrile disposable gloves #Grizzly nitrile gloves bulk #Affordable Grizzly nitrile gloves #Grizzly nitrile gloves puncture-resistant #Grizzly nitrile gloves sale

0 notes

marketstudyinfinium · 11 months ago

Text

#Vietnam Disposable Surgical Gloves Market #Market Size #Market Share #Market Trends #Market Analysis #Industry Survey #Market Demand #Top Major Key Player #Market Estimate #Market Segments #Industry Data

0 notes

lpsis · 1 year ago

Text

LPSIS Hand Protection Gloves — Safety, Comfort, and Quality Combined

LPSIS is your go-to source for premium hand protection gloves that prioritize safety, comfort, and quality. Our hand protection gloves are designed to shield your hands from various hazards while ensuring all-day comfort.

Key Features:

Superior Protection: LPSIS hand protection gloves are engineered to safeguard your hands from cuts, punctures, chemicals, heat, and more, making them suitable for a wide range of applications.

Premium Materials: Crafted from high-quality materials, our gloves are built for durability and lasting performance.

Comfortable Fit: Designed for a snug and comfortable fit, our gloves enable you to work efficiently and confidently throughout the day.

Versatility: Our gloves cater to diverse industries, including construction, industrial, healthcare, and more.

Compliance with Standards: Rest assured, our hand protection gloves adhere to industry regulations and standards, ensuring the highest level of safety.

Choose LPSIS Hand Protection Gloves to protect your hands while maintaining comfort and quality. Contact us today to discuss your hand protection glove needs, place an order, or inquire about bulk purchasing options. Your safety and satisfaction are our primary concerns.

Visit- https://lpsis.co.in/

#hand protection gloves #lpsis #hand gloves #cotton gloves #disposable gloves #industrial safety equipment #safety equipment supplier #industrial safety equipment suppliers #mro products #lpsis mro solutions

0 notes

latestmarketresearchnews · 2 months ago

Text

Disposable Gloves Market Forecast Report 2030 by Size, Revenue, Business Growth and Demand

The global disposable gloves market was valued at USD 9.57 billion in 2023 and is projected to grow at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 8.4% from 2024 to 2030. The market's growth is driven by several key factors, including favorable occupational safety regulations, the increasing emphasis on workplace safety and security, and a rising healthcare expenditure worldwide. The healthcare sector in developing economies, in particular, is expected to experience significant growth, driven by increased public and private sector investments, population growth, a high influx of migrants, and the rising geriatric population. The growing demand for healthcare services will likely spur the need for medical supplies, including disposable gloves, which are crucial for maintaining hygiene and safety in healthcare settings.

Gather more insights about the market drivers, restrains and growth of the Disposable Gloves Market

Regional Insights:

North America Disposable Gloves Market Trends:

North America led the global disposable gloves market in 2023, holding 37.3% of the global revenue share. The region's demand for disposable gloves surged significantly, particularly due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which increased awareness of hygiene and the importance of infection control. This trend continues as healthcare spending increases, particularly in the aging population, and there is a growing consciousness about healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). Investments in improving public healthcare systems and infrastructure, particularly in the U.S., are expected to further increase the demand for medical equipment, including disposable gloves.

Central & South America Disposable Gloves Market Trends:

The Central & South American market for disposable gloves is expected to see significant growth during the forecast period. This growth is attributed to the increasing focus on public-private partnerships in the healthcare sector, improvements in healthcare infrastructure, and overall expansion within the healthcare industry. These factors are expected to create substantial demand for disposable gloves, particularly in Brazil, Argentina, and other major economies in the region.

Asia Pacific Disposable Gloves Market Trends:

The Asia Pacific region is experiencing heightened demand for disposable gloves across several sectors, including medical, food & beverage, and industrial applications. The COVID-19 pandemic has further exacerbated this demand, particularly in countries like India, Indonesia, and the Philippines, where rapid spread of the virus increased the need for PPE. As the healthcare infrastructure expands and awareness of hygiene improves in these countries, the demand for disposable gloves is expected to rise sharply.

India

India’s industrial sector is set to experience substantial growth, driven by favorable government policies aimed at boosting the manufacturing sector. As the sector expands, particularly in areas like automotive and manufacturing, there will be increased demand for industrial gloves. The vinyl gloves market in India is expected to grow due to their cost-effectiveness and widespread use in industrial applications. The 11.8% annual growth in India’s manufacturing sector in 2021-2022 will likely lead to increased demand for industrial gloves, both in India and other global manufacturing hubs.

China

China remains the largest consumer of disposable gloves in the Asia Pacific region. The country’s position as a global manufacturing hub, with its cost competitiveness due to cheap labor and abundant raw materials, gives it a significant advantage in both the production and consumption of disposable gloves. China is also witnessing rising healthcare expenditure as the country focuses on expanding its healthcare infrastructure, especially in the context of an aging population. These factors, along with continued investment in mega projects, are expected to remain critical drivers of growth in the Chinese disposable gloves market.

Europe Disposable Gloves Market Trends:

Europe has traditionally been a developed market for disposable gloves, with strong healthcare spending. However, European countries have lost some of their manufacturing competitiveness due to high labor costs and taxation, resulting in a shift of manufacturing to countries in Asia. In response, European countries, particularly the EU and UK, are focusing on reviving domestic manufacturing by amending policies to make it more attractive. This move is expected to boost demand for disposable gloves in the region, as Europe aims to restore its position as a major manufacturing hub. Additionally, the COVID-19 pandemic has further highlighted the need for local production of PPE, including gloves, to ensure adequate supply during future health crises.

Middle East & Africa Disposable Gloves Market Trends:

The Middle East market for disposable gloves is expected to benefit from the growth of industries beyond the traditional oil and gas sector. Countries such as Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Egypt are focusing on diversification of their economies, and sectors such as manufacturing and healthcare are seeing substantial growth. The increased healthcare budget in the region, alongside a focus on improving public health infrastructure, is expected to create opportunities for disposable glove manufacturers in the region.

Browse through Grand View Research's Category Specialty Polymers Industry Research Reports.

The global perlite market size was estimated at USD 1.55 billion in 2024 and is projected to grow at a CAGR of 6.9% from 2025 to 2030.

The global aseptic packaging market size was valued at USD 77.1 million in 2024 and is projected to grow at a CAGR of 10.8% from 2025 to 2030.

Key Companies & Market Share Insights:

Prominent players in the disposable gloves market include global leaders such as Top Glove Corporation Bhd, Hartalega Holdings Berhad, Ansell Ltd, and Kossan Rubber Industries Bhd. These companies dominate the market due to their extensive manufacturing capabilities, wide product portfolios, and strong distribution networks.

Top Glove Corporation Bhd: As one of the largest manufacturers of rubber gloves globally, Top Glove produces a wide range of disposable gloves, including latex, nitrile, and vinyl gloves. The company serves various sectors, including healthcare, food processing, and industrial applications, and is known for its robust production capacity and ability to meet global demand, particularly during periods of high demand, such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

Hartalega Holdings Berhad: Specializing in the production of nitrile gloves, Hartalega is a key player in the disposable gloves industry. The company is known for its focus on innovation and technological advancements, particularly in the area of manufacturing efficiency and quality control. Hartalega primarily serves the healthcare and laboratory sectors, where the demand for high-quality gloves is particularly strong.

Ansell Ltd: Ansell is another major player in the disposable gloves market, offering a wide range of gloves for healthcare, industrial, and food processing The company is renowned for its commitment to sustainability and innovation in glove design, offering products that meet stringent safety and regulatory standards across various industries.

Kossan Rubber Industries Bhd: Based in Malaysia, Kossan Rubber is a leading global manufacturer of disposable gloves, producing a wide array of latex, nitrile, and vinyl gloves. The company serves markets in healthcare, food processing, and industrial sectors, focusing on high-quality products and a global distribution network.

Order a free sample PDF of the Disposable Gloves Market Intelligence Study, published by Grand View Research.

#Disposable Gloves Market Size #Disposable Gloves Industry Trend

0 notes

researchreportinsight · 2 months ago

Text

Disposable Gloves Market 2030 Share, Revenue, Drivers, Trends and Influence Factors

Gather more insights about the market drivers, restrains and growth of the Disposable Gloves Market

Regional Insights:

North America Disposable Gloves Market Trends:

Central & South America Disposable Gloves Market Trends:

Asia Pacific Disposable Gloves Market Trends:

India

China

Europe Disposable Gloves Market Trends:

Middle East & Africa Disposable Gloves Market Trends:

Browse through Grand View Research's Category Specialty Polymers Industry Research Reports.

The global perlite market size was estimated at USD 1.55 billion in 2024 and is projected to grow at a CAGR of 6.9% from 2025 to 2030.

The global aseptic packaging market size was valued at USD 77.1 million in 2024 and is projected to grow at a CAGR of 10.8% from 2025 to 2030.

Key Companies & Market Share Insights:

Order a free sample PDF of the Disposable Gloves Market Intelligence Study, published by Grand View Research.

#Disposable Gloves Market Size #Disposable Gloves Industry Trend

0 notes

mitigatedchaos · 5 months ago

Text

The Floating Causation of Vulgar Anti-Racism

Post for August 12, 2024 ~7,400 words, 36 minutes

-★-

The late 20th century and the early 21st century were an excellent time for 'catch-up' development in under-developed countries. For example, the GDP per capita of the People's Republic of China rose from $312 in 1980, to $12,720 in 2022, more than a 40x increase. This is despite the People's Republic being nominally communist, 92% Han Chinese, and one of the largest potential geopolitical rivals to the United States. This is not a one-off – exports from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam to the United States rose from $50 million in 1994 to $114 billion in 2023.

While the ideologically liberal government of the United States did invade Iraq and Afghanistan, and placed strict limits on Iran, in practical terms, the United States was willing to direct hundreds of billions of dollars of demand, for everything from disposable gloves to rice cookers, to countries that were neither majority white nor, officially, capitalist, which allowed these countries to build up their industrial base.

Inside the United States, as of the early 2020s, Americans of Indian descent, Americans of Asian descent, and a number of other non-white groups are outperforming the median household income of white Americans. It's not uncommon to see an Indian-American as the CEO of a major US corporation, such as Microsoft's Satya Nadella, Google's Sundar Pichai, or IBM's Arvind Krishna. And while Americans of Nigerian descent aren't earning quite as much money as Sundar Pichai, they are doing better than the U.S. national average. [1]

The American economy is willing to award non-white Americans and non-white immigrants with average pay higher than that the average pay for white Americans, and American society is willing to award members of these same groups with highly prestigious positions – Google is one of the most famous American companies, and to be its CEO is highly prestigious indeed.

Why is it that vulgar anti-racists aren't content to leave well enough alone on negative racial messaging, and take advantage of this opportunity to focus on personal development, ingroup development, and national development? Why is it that they have a strange totalitarian bent, such as Ibram Kendi proposing to give veto power over all government policy to a body of unappointed race experts, which would de facto end democracy?

Last month, @max1461 wrote a post, attempting to find a balanced compromise between the social justice movement and its critics in the discourses on racism over the past 10 years. Perhaps this was intended to close the books and allow the participants to move to a saner footing going forward. Subsequently, Max flagged the post as unrebloggable in order to prevent it from being beat up like a piñata. Near the end of the initial chain, Max wrote:

I can’t stress enough that, for all the excesses of DEI seminars and modern anti-racist academia and whatnot, for however unhelpful or even regressive these things may often be, what they exist in response to is fundamentally a horror of an entirely different and incomparable scale; something unspeakably evil and destructive. And, after 200 years of such an evil world order, which only really began to melt in 1945, I think it would be incredibly naive to believe that all the wounds are now healed.

It would seem that for the most part, the wounds that Japan suffered from America in World War II have already healed. The country already went through reindustrialization, followed by a boom period (which startled Westerners), and then a subsequent crash and the 'lost decade' of the 1990s. The Japanese have a favorable view of the United States, as perhaps they should – Japan has prospered in the Post-WW2 international order, in which they can simply purchase whatever materials they need on global markets with no need to invade or occupy anyone.

Yet for others, the past lingers on.

Ibram Kendi is one of the most famous contemporary self-identified anti-racists, a New York Times bestselling author (his most famous book was titled "How to Be an Anti-Racist") who was not only platformed by major corporations such as Microsoft (in 2020, an advertisement on the login screen of Windows 10 computers linked to a search for "anti-racism books," with his at the top), but even received funding for his own anti-racism center (now under attack for its ineffectiveness).

At one time, Ibram Kendi thought that white people were aliens. A roommate talked him out of it, asking how it was that white people could have children with everyone else if that were the case. To his credit, Kendi did change his mind.

...but how could anyone have come up with Kendi's conclusion in the first place?

In school in the United States, children are taught that the Spanish conquered the Aztecs. It is true that Spanish military forces brought about the downfall of the Aztec Empire, but often people forget the details of what they learned in school, and often what they learn in school is itself a simplified story, designed to be told to children. Encyclopedia Britannica's summary of the Battle of Tenochtitlan largely agrees with the gist of Wikipedia's more detailed article on the Fall of Tenochtitlan, which is littered with instances of "[citation needed]."

Wikipedia, however, provides more numbers. In particular, Wikipedia's version provides one of the Internet's favorite parts of wiki battle articles, a listing of the balance of opposed forces (with citations):

There is a racist narrative of the conquest of the Americas in which the brave Spanish explorers overcame the savage, human-sacrificing hordes of the Aztecs. There is an inverted, anti-racist narrative of the conquest of the Americas in which the powerful, cruel Spanish showed up to oppress the weak, innocent Aztecs.

And then there is a third narrative - a narrative that politics happened. A number of tributary states had grievances with the Aztecs, and the small number of Spanish probably didn't seem like enough to conquer the whole territory from the perspective of the tributaries, but did seem powerful enough to rally around to fight the Aztecs and win.

Nobody comes out looking good in this third narrative. The Spanish brought about a brutal war with tens of thousands of casualties, and devastating disease followed their arrival. The Aztecs and tributaries combined failed to overcome a foreign invasion due to (relative to the foreigners being from another continent) local infighting. The Aztecs were awful enough that a number of tributaries sided with an army of foreigners against them.

Now, suppose that we delete the 200,000 native allies from the balance of forces above, but still record a victory for the Spanish. The effect of the native allies remains, but the cause of that effect disappears. This creates an effect without a cause – unattributed causation, which is disconnected from what came before, or what we might call, "floating causation."

Some might call overcoming a force of 80,000 with only 1,000 or so men a miracle. For those not so inclined, the 'floating' causation gets attributed to the Spanish soldiers – their equipment, their valor, their tactics, and their discipline. Each of a thousand Spanish infantrymen is now somehow worth 200 native warriors.

In this cartoon version of history, the Spanish are an unstoppable psychic warrior race. Their steadfast will in the face of danger and their unit cohesion are quite nearly inhuman, and their technological advantage is overwhelming. The natives have not merely made a political miscalculation similar to others of the pre-modern era, such as the decisions of states facing Genghis Khan, but are buffoons to the slaughter, incapable of putting up any real defense.

In this cartoon, the Spanish can go anywhere. They can do anything. And because of this, they are the only people with agency in the whole world.

They sound... like aliens.

Trying to rebalance this cartoon only leads to greater absurdities, such as the idea that only Europeans ever meaningfully engaged in conquest (contradicted by Genghis Khan), or that industrial technology and its resulting pollution are "European" in nature (China has been quite aggressive about industrializing), or that only "European" countries waged modern and industrialized wars of conquest (the Empire of Japan used guns, bombs, and tanks as part of its project to create the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere).

All three of the above counter-examples are from Asia, which is usually conspicuously absent from self-identified anti-racist thinking, but none of them are obscure.

-★-

It is my belief that floating causation is a source of distortions across the ideological spectrum.

Ideology is not independent from human beings. Manifestos, one might say, do not print themselves. From the other direction, it is not a piece of paper which murders somebody – it is a human being who pulls the trigger.

There is ideology, which is a system of related rules and beliefs, and there are adherents who adopt ideology, spread beliefs, and put ideological rules into practice.

An ideology can contain taboos which prohibit noticing or explaining the true cause of some outcome, separating the cause from its effect. Practitioners can then attribute that effect to a preferred ideological construct instead, making it seem much more powerful, and often dangerous, than it really is.

The Elephants

Imagine (as this example is entirely made-up) that there is some village in which elephants are considered sacred, but the elephants in the area have a habit of trampling crops in the night. To avoid loss of face, the damage to crops is attributed to "bandits" by an initial group of elders. The young children who do not know better are then taught this explanation. Later, after the death of the elders, the initial truth is lost. Anyone claiming to have seen elephants trampling the fields is denounced as choosing the vile bandits over the virtuous elephants. An outsider who did not realize what was happening might be quite impressed to hear that a bandit in the region ruined a dozen fields in a single night, and assume that the bandit has tremendous physical stamina.

But floating causation is not necessarily the result of an ideological taboo. Someone may be ignorant about the cause of an effect, unable to understand the process by which an effect came about, have powerful emotions about the topic which they are unwilling to confront or may not even be aware of, or may simply have poor judgment. An adherent may be drawn to an ideology for these reasons.

Continuing with our example, a fresh-off-the-boat colonial administrator arriving at the village might be unaware that elephants exist, or trample crops, and conclude that there were ongoing feuds driven by animosity among the villagers, with bandits as the cover-story. Alternatively, the new colonial administrator might love the elephants and hate the villagers, and be unwilling to consider the possibility that the elephants are trampling the crops, including cooking up rather elaborate rationalizations.

Ideology

Issues with not understanding a process are more likely to come up with things like economics – occasionally a worker will post a video to social media complaining that he is not paid the full value of the items he sells or creates, ignoring all the money that went into the construction of the facility, the work from other workers putting together the input materials, and so on.

Liberals in the late 00s and early 2010s had an interest in memetics, which concerns the replication and spread of ideas. (This field is where the term "Internet meme" comes from.) Then, as now, they had a tendency to treat people as too similar to each other, and some of them leaned towards the idea that any person could hold any ideology. Ideologies do (in my judgment) influence behavior – there are far fewer monarchists around these days, and far fewer monarchs with real power, for example – but how a set of beliefs is expressed depend on the emotions, motives, and temperament of the person who holds those beliefs.

So do people choose ideologies, or do ideologies choose people?

One way to view this matter is as a cycle. Someone's social environment is partly a matter of choice, and partly a matter of circumstance. The ideologies that show up in someone's environment are generally going to be ones that spread (as ideologies that don't attract new adherents will die out), but which ideology someone actually chooses and how they practice it will be influenced by what type of person they are.

Another way to view this matter is that emotions, motives, temperament, and beliefs are all things that make certain actions or thoughts either easier (and cheaper) or more difficult (and more expensive). A drug addict who believes in hard work and free market capitalism, but finds himself stealing to feed his habit, may find that the influence of his beliefs is not enough to overcome his addiction. (He is likely to feel miserable.) However, when a religious person is choosing what time of day, or day of the week, to worship, the explicit belief of their religion is likely to have a great deal of influence.

Yet another way to view this matter is to treat things like social relations, ideology, and temperament as interacting layers, and then propose that politics spans multiple layers.

Human Talent

I don't believe that all human beings are equally talented, and I don't believe that they all have identical temperaments. Therefore, one of my beliefs is what might be called the "human capital theory of movements." Ideologies consist of networks of related beliefs which can be used to interpret the world, to guide behavior, or to create arguments. But ideologies do not create beliefs or arguments themselves. Humans do.

When a movement has a lot of talented, virtuous people working for it, these people can create new arguments in order to win debates, and change parts of the ideology, the network of beliefs, to adapt the network to changes in conditions. Without talented people, the ideology of a movement will drift farther from environmental conditions, causing its responses to become more misaligned with conditions on the ground.

Talented people are also needed for the implementation of an ideology. An ideological book is just an inert text. No matter how complex it may be, it is fundamentally limited in its complexity. Applying that text in the environment, bridging the gap between what the text says and what that means in the reality of a specific situation, requires both intelligence and good judgment. Not every person is equally talented, and not every person is equally informed. If someone more talented and with better judgment is around, they can read the situation and come up with some simpler rules or orders for others to follow.

The less talented the adherents of a movement are, the lower the ability of the movement to adapt to conditions over both the short-term and the long-term.

A shift in the distribution of talent can precede other forms of political change. Ideologues may smile as the most disagreeable members are driven out of their movement, but at the same time, the lack of criticism will reduce the movement's ability to respond to change.

There are trade-offs. The use of floating causation may make an ideology less aligned with reality, but it may also be useful for the movement to stoke the emotions of their followers in order to drive action. (This emotional motivation bit is why every election in the United States is "the most important in your lifetime.")

-★-

Beliefs are not intelligence. Nonetheless, a person with a belief may act as though they are smarter (or even wiser) than they actually are. This is just the nature of knowledge (as cached intelligence, wisdom, and observation).

I developed the talent theory in the prior section by observing opposition to racism in the United States prior to 2014. In the United States between 2000 and 2014, there was substantial support for individualist "colorblindness," while at the same time, there was immense social pressure against overt white racial organizing.

Racial organizing takes time and effort. Because white Americans were not subject to racial discrimination, they could simply go out into the market and earn what their work was worth. For talented white Americans, the gains from white racial organizing would be marginal, so the penalties could easily overcome those gains. The less talented would have the most to gain due to the ability to reduce the amount of economic competition they would be up against, but they were also less able to organize. [2]

There was somewhere famous for white racial organizing in the US during this era: prisons.

Racial prison gangs have been particularly noted in the California prison system. Prison gangs offer inmates a credible threat of retaliation if the inmate is harmed, so every inmate has an incentive to join one, and the bigger the gang the better that threat of retaliation is, so every gang has an incentive to recruit. If you're a gang member and a new guy comes in and starts causing trouble, and you don't want to escalate (and thus risk extra charges for your guys or reduced privileges), what are you to do? You would prefer to negotiate with someone that has leverage on him. Race is very visible, even if inmates move around between prisons, so if all inmates get sorted into gangs by race, then someone is responsible for this guy, and by talking to the right people, you can make sure he knows it. (If the troublemaker still doesn't respond, and his own gang cut him loose, then you can punish him without fear of retaliation from other inmates.)

Different incentives produce different results.

Four Options

Glenn Loury is a black man, and an economist at Brown University. He views himself as an American and therefore an inheritor of human rights philosophy of the American founders and their English forebears. He has his own show on YouTube in which he regularly discusses matters with John McWhorter, another black man, who is a linguistics professor at Columbia University. (John strikes me as more liberal, and I heard that he was frightened of Donald Trump, a sentiment shared by many white American culturally liberal Democrats.) Both of these men are quite smart, and if you watch the show, you'll see them easily consider arguments from various perspectives and toss hypotheticals back and forth.

Neither of these men are vulgar anti-racists.

Roland Fryer is a black man, and is an economist at Harvard (although he was suspended for 2 years) who I have discussed previously. He thinks like an economist, and has conducted studies such as paying children to read books. In previous appearances, it seemed that he believes that education gaps can be closed through extremely rigorous selection of teachers and other methods.

Mr. Fryer does not appear to be a vulgar anti-racist.

These men are all relatively prominent voices. If you go looking for the sort of content they produce, they aren't that hard to find. And they're all smart. They might have disagreements with each other and with some of my readers, but smart people can disagree.

However, during the 2014-2022 era, when it was decided to push a black academic to prominence, political forces settled on Ibram Kendi instead. There must have been dozens of other candidates.

When I think about why that happened, I suspect that the answer is that while the first three men care about the interests of black Americans, all three of them are willing to say, "No." Although I doubt they would phrase it in exactly these terms, I suspect that all three understand human rights as rooted in high-order consequences, limits on information, and human bias.

If you proposed to John McWhorter that we should give veto power to a committee of unelected race experts, he would immediately recognize the problem with just that.

Why Vulgar Anti-Racism?

With all of that said, I believe we can think about vulgar anti-racism by means of comparison.

a. Economics

Loury and Fryer are both economists. They know about gains from trade, prices as a distributed form of economic planning, property rights as enabling investment, specialization of labor, economies of scale, and dozens of other things. They understand where wealth comes from.

The typical vulgar anti-racist that you will encounter on an Internet discussion board has little knowledge of economics, and tends to think of total production as fixed. From their perspective, if someone has more resources than another person, it has nothing to do with production, and is purely the result of hoarding.

The typical vulgar anti-racist also doesn't think in terms of entropy, the tendency of things to break down over time. They tend not to discount temporally-distant advantages. (If a well was built 400 years ago, they treat that advantage as retained today.) They tend to think of capital as fixed and not as something that is constantly being rebuilt and adjusted. They don't understand that the ability to create new capital is generally more important than the initial capital in the long-run.

Thinking about production is probably why we see Fryer focused on educational gains. His theory is likely that if the children have a good base of education, they'll be able to produce more, avoid losses, overcome entropy, and net accumulate wealth. If they don't have a good base of education, then they'll be less productive, and entropy will eat a higher percentage of their earnings, leading to reduced wealth.

If someone doesn't know economics, then the wealth of developed countries is "unexplained," and so are the motives of many people within developed countries.

b. History

I don't know about Fryer specifically, but Loury and McWhorter seem to have a good grasp of history.

A solid understanding of history leads to seeing actions as emerging from their historical contexts. This places a limit on the range of expected behavior.

For example, for most of history up until about the 1900s, the child mortality rate was about 50%. That example is relevant for feminism, as under such brutal conditions, we would expect any society that didn't push for women to have at least 4 children to die out. Gender-based oppression didn't occur for no reason, or because of pure male greed, but was influenced by material circumstances.

If we run this understanding backwards, it follows that 1700s or earlier gender norms would be unlikely to return without 1700s or earlier child mortality rates.

Likewise, some basic historical knowledge would reveal that wars of conquest have happened pretty much everywhere, so it's quite unlikely that Europeans are uniquely conquerors. You end up having to declare everything from feuding Chinese kingdoms, to the Māori, to chimpanzees, be "European" in order to fit the model.

The typical vulgar anti-racist's position is, implicitly, "Everyone lived together in peace and harmony, until one day, for no reason at all, the Europeans became possessed by the spirit of greed, and attacked."

If someone somehow doesn't know that war existed outside of Europe prior to 1492, then the wars of colonialism are "unexplained," and so are the motives of the people who fought them.

When vulgar anti-racists do research history, they generally focus on collecting racial grievances in order to build up a case that the group they favor are poor, oppressed, not responsible for anything bad their group has ever done, and are owed indefinite benefits for incalculable harms. They don't proceed from the idea of, "How does this work?" They don't, say, look at the tremendous economic success of South Korea, and ask, "Based on how South Korea obtained their wealth, how can our group achieve such riches?" (They don't even look at South Korea's birthrate and ask how they can avoid such a fate!)

Even before World War 2, Japan did look afar to ask how they could become rich. That kind of mentality is part of how they were able to become a developed country (who could threaten other people with tanks) in the first place.

Looking to Asia is useful for people making comparisons to figure out how things work, but is not useful for collecting racial grievances in order to build up racial claims to make demands. That's why vulgar anti-racists often don't know basic facts about Asian history, like that state testing to determine government positions was practiced in ancient China. [3]

c. Racial Attachment

Even during the individualist colorblindness of 2000-2014, there were still white Americans with some talent engaged in racial organizing. In general, these were people to whom race was very important, and thus who were out-of-step with the mainstream of white America.

It's my opinion that there is a natural range of tribalism among human beings. Sometimes, the rival tribe on the other side of the mountain just want to trade. Other times, they really are out to kill you. The trait doesn't disappear, because wars still happen, and even if they didn't happen, someone could just reinvent war and start it all back up again.

In my view, this tribalism trait isn't attached to race specifically. It can attach to religion. It can attach to sex. Some of the rhetoric from radical feminists sounds the same as rhetoric from hardcore ethnic nationalists – or at least it would, if we treated men as an ethnicity. In our modern environment in which race is highly legible due to intercontinental travel, for a lot of people, it gets attached to race.

Rather than assigning people a single number on a scale from "moral" to "immoral," it's probably better to think of people as having virtues and vices, strengths and weaknesses.

Some level of racial attachment itself is not inherently evil. Based on his research topics, for example, Roland Fryer seems interested in bringing about the success of people with a similar background to himself. His virtue (his interest in truth) and his strength (his intelligence) convert that attachment into something that's beneficial to society.

High levels of racial attachment fly much closer to the wire. A highly racially attached individual might do good work in other domains, but there's a risk that they'll end up routing too much of their sense of self-worth through their race, and become obsessed with guarding their race's self-perceived reputation. For such a person, any information deemed unflattering to the group may be interpreted as an attack on himself (or herself).

The Mayo Clinic (a network of hospitals in the United States) describes narcissism as:

Narcissistic personality disorder is a mental health condition in which people have an unreasonably high sense of their own importance. They need and seek too much attention and want people to admire them. People with this disorder may lack the ability to understand or care about the feelings of others. But behind this mask of extreme confidence, they are not sure of their self-worth and are easily upset by the slightest criticism.

A number of users on Twitter (now known as X.com) began using the term "ethnic narcissism" to describe this sort of disordered thinking when done on behalf of a racial or ethnic group rather than oneself specifically.

2019 and 2020 were banner years for platforming this sort of behavior, with the nation's leading newspaper arguing, in its own words, that we should make the suffering of a particular racial group the core narrative of American history, that everyone should define their identities around:

The 1619 Project is a major initiative from The New York Times observing the 400th anniversary of the beginning of American slavery. It aims to reframe the country’s history, understanding 1619 as our true founding, and placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of our national narrative.

Obsession with self-perceived ethnic reputation is part of what leads to the "rebalancing the cartoon" behavior I discussed earlier:

How does someone end up so ignorant that they don't know that Genghis Khan existed? By being the kind of person that doesn't want to know that Genghis Khan existed. They don't look it up. If you tell them, they either forget or they take a conflict theorist approach and think that it's some sort of trick.

Unfortunately, while a fairly accurate description of the behavior at issue, the term "ethnic narcissism" can also be used as an attack by ethnic narcissists themselves, as well as people engaged in ethnic conflict. This makes it of limited utility in practice.

The Mysterious Anglo

Option #1: In general, the right wing would consider the vulgar anti-racists to be liars working to selfishly advance their own personal interests and those of their preferred groups. Left-wingers would tend to take a negative view of this, as they believe that right-wingers are unjustly dismissive in order to 'protect the unearned and unquestioned advantages of the privileged.'

In this version, vulgar anti-racists won't drop the issue and hit the GDP gym because they're bullies who think the particular groups they dislike are easy targets. The appropriate response is to become a harder target by systematically defunding any institution that supports them, putting them on the same footing as conventional racial supremacists in the US.

I tend to agree that many of the vulgar anti-racists are just being selfish. There is a question of just how consciously aware of it they are, however.

Option #2: A left-wing view would be that the vulgar anti-racists are "good people, just a bit misguided." Right-wingers tend to take a negative view of this, because if a right-winger published a book titled "Black Fragility" that was as circular in its reasoning as the "White Fragility" of Robin DiAngelo appeared to be, he would be hounded as a racist.

In this version, vulgar anti-racists just need patient guidance to put their empathy back on the right track.

I tend to believe that a good chunk of the vulgar anti-racists are just low-tier progressives who get their opinions socially. If the social consensus changes among progressives, they'll forget ever fretting about "microaggressions." Arguing with them individually mostly won't work, though, because it doesn't override their social consensus, and it won't make them think harder about the issues.

Many left-wingers would disagree with me on this assessment.

Option #3: A more centrist view would be that vulgar anti-racists are a mix of people with excessively high racial attachment, enthusiastic people who are underinformed, and people who serve their niche of the information and political economy, and that this isn't that different from the lower quality wings of other left and right political movements (look how bad "degrowth" is, for example), except that race feels much more core to people's identities (it's certainly not easy to change one's race), so it evokes more powerful emotions. A centrist would likely say that there are more academically and philosophically serious opponents of racism out there, but because the things they say are more serious, they're less controversial, so they get less coverage. ("You wouldn't expect a textbook in the Sunday paper.")

A person with this perspective would say that the appropriate course of action is mostly just to wait for it to blow over.

I would disagree. If vulgar anti-racism is taught in schools for a generation, it would create an expectation that racial blame is the default course of action. This would create a situation which is much more favorable for racial conflict, so it should be shut down now to prevent that from happening.

However, I feel that this does not adequately explain the totalitarian bent. What about other values society might have? What about trade-offs? [4] I would like to throw a fourth possibility into the ring.

Option #4: Life inside the vulgar anti-racist worldview is anxiety-inducing and subtly terrifying.

I don't fully endorse this view, because I think that vulgar anti-racism is a coalition of multiple groups (see the previous three options).

However, while I learned from school that racism and ethnic conflict are extremely dangerous in general (e.g. they can boil over and result in mass murder), the susceptibility of vulgar anti-racists to, "It's impossible to be racist to white people," which is very obviously racist, strongly implies that what they learned was, "Jews good; Germans bad" – basically just a list of which groups are acceptable, and which groups aren't. [5]

I reverse-engineered a sophisticated moral worldview, and when I was young, I assumed that everyone else had done so, too. And for a little while, society approximated that view closely enough for that misconception to kind-of work.

I think that a significant number of people in the vulgar anti-racist coalition don't understand white people.

In terms of anxiety, a number of them seem to think that Europeans and their descendants think about race as much as the vulgar anti-racists do – that they are silently passing judgment, or saying nasty things when others are not listening.

I've been around middle-class and above white Americans my entire life. I've seen some kids make stupid racist jokes, and I can imagine bullying targeting race if it looks like an axis of vulnerability, but in general, among themselves, they don't talk about race much at all.

A skeptic reading this may say that that's just anecdotal. However, according to surveys, "white conservatives" have about the same "racial/ethnic" "ingroup favorability" as either "hispanic moderates" or "asians." "White liberals" were the only group on the chart to have a "pro-outgroup bias."

If we interpret these ingroup favorability measures as racism (which is a stretch, because a favorability measure is not itself a discriminatory policy), then white conservatives have a "normal" (as in typical of most groups) amount of racism. White liberals (probably in the sense that the label "liberal" is used for the entire left in the US) are the only ones who loop around into what might be called "anti-racism." (Razib Khan has his doubts about the stability of this arrangement of anti-racism as opposed to non-racism.)

A vulgar anti-racist doesn't know this, and doesn't want to know this.

Now, for the "subtly terrifying" part. If someone accepts, for instance, that the British were sincere in sending warships to intercept slave traders, then there are all sorts of explanations that they can come up with for that behavior, such as it being a natural result of industrialization, or maybe a result of rising literacy, or motivated by Christianity in combination with previous political developments in England, and so on.

From Wikipedia, here's a map of the British Empire, a map of the Spanish Empire, and a map of the Portuguese Empire. While from the perspective of Europeans at the time, the European states were in competition with each other, if taken together as a group, they were closer to achieving true world conquest than anyone else in history. (Sure, the Mongol Empire was huge, but they didn't make it over to the Americas.)

If someone believes that the Europeans turned off the slave trade for some sincere or enduring reason, then the 1700s are unlikely to come back. If someone believes that the Europeans turned off the 1700s for no reason, or for a secret reason, then one day, they could just... turn the 1700s back on.

And maybe that thought isn't entirely conscious. Maybe it just sits quietly, at the back of the mind.

And they get stuck, much like people who are still focused on "overpopulation" as birthrates plummet in industrialized countries throughout the world.

-★-

Whether they consciously intend to or not, vulgar anti-racists leverage social taboos to make it difficult to argue for one group's innocence without making another, generally more vulnerable, group, look worse. People don't want to be mean and say mean things about a vulnerable group. Vulgar anti-racists exploit this. (This kind of behavior is immoral, but I'm not sure how much vulgar anti-racists consciously understand that.)

Online Tactics

I've developed tactics to argue with them in online space, but I haven't tried them out in in-person institutional spaces where they have institutional influence (power).

In general, you cannot argue with vulgar anti-racists grievance-for-grievance. Building up an ammunition depot of racial or ethnic grievances on behalf of "overperforming" groups won't work – vulgar anti-racists will dismiss you as irrationally motivated by racial hatred and dismiss your entire collection, and normal people will also think it's weird (even though they still don't think many racial or ethnic minorities collecting grievances is weird). [6]

A better approach is to pick one or two grievances to shut down the idea that the group you're defending are "invulnerable." Morally, you shouldn't have to point to, say, children or minors being mass victimized, because it should be obvious that people of any race can be victimized. But that's just the world we live in.

Collect examples of institutional policy, such as by governments, corporations, or universities, that is racially discriminatory against the group you're defending, in order to show that the intent of vulgar anti-racists is racial discrimination. Use center-left, mainstream sources to prevent dismissals. The goal is not to show major harms; most Democrats who are not social justice critical will initially attempt to deny that racial discrimination is a goal of vulgar anti-racism.

(If necessary, it can be emphasized that not wanting to be racially discriminated against is a normal thing to want.)

Vulgar anti-racists will try to shut you down by reciting their list of grievances. Memorizing racial grievances is something that they are strong at. Redirect the conversation to where they are weak: demand that they show whatever policy it is that they want will actually improve things and permanently close racial outcome gaps.

If you find someone who has memorized a list of successful academic or nutrition interventions, you've likely found a philosophical liberal. In my experience, almost no vulgar anti-racist has any even modestly-successful intervention memorized. If they propose an intervention, demand evidence that it will work.

It's possible that they could propose something scientific, but science is undergoing a replication crisis, and 'race scholars' have come under fire for scientific misconduct. If a vulgar anti-racist does come up with something, the next step is to get a binding commitment to close the racial claims against their target group.

If their political leaders will not agree, in writing, with binding mechanisms (and punishments with teeth if they don't follow through), to close out the racial claims against their target groups, conditional on some social intervention going into effect, then they don't believe that the intervention will work.

A working intervention is win-win. Outcomes improve, and the odds of conflict (over this particular issue) decrease.

IRL Tactics

X user CantonaCorona must live somewhere very different from me, because I never hear vulgar anti-racism from people in real life. His advice?

100%. I can’t even tell you the number of times I’ve been in a friendly/polite mutual friend gathering, and someone who knows 10% of the room will add “gawd, white people, gross” etc.

The issue is they are also the person lacking social skills to see the room gets uncomfortable

In 2023ish I started responding by asking them very honest seeming questions and leading them into saying really crazy stuff.

Takes a lot of finesse to not sound like a schizo, but if you can pretend to be genuinely curious it works wonders and someone else will call them out

It does, indeed, take a lot of finesse, even online. Because vulgar anti-racists are exploiting taboos, they have a huge terrain advantage in most encounters due to normal people not wanting to touch reputationally-damaging information. Successfully navigating the situation without sounding "schizo," and without sounding cruel, is difficult.

The advantage of the tactics discussed above are that you don't have to attack the reputation of the vulnerable group that vulgar anti-racists are using to justify their own bad behavior. It isn't surprising that, like a successful hostage rescue, it requires being more careful than the hostage-takers.

"Corrective" racial discrimination that does not permanently close racial outcome gaps is not actually a correction, it's just extra harm for no reason, and the motives of people who support it are suspect.

Demobilization

While the online tactics I've discussed above are reasonably effective for an online debate or argument format (and vulgar anti-racists are increasingly retreating to protected contexts where they don't have to engage in open debate), the long-term goal needs to be demobilization. Ethnic conflict interferes with stability and good government.

There are some supporters that don't recognize the logical errors in their positioning, but they can sense, "Wait, this guy isn't like the others," and flee rather than risk being split off from the social approval of their group.

I propose the fear theory for the potential to develop new angles. If the real motivation is fear, then addressing most of the intermediate arguments won't work, as the intermediate arguments are just products of the fear.

Reportedly, black musician Daryl Davis demobilized many Klansmen just by befriending them. [7] I suspect that most vulgar anti-racists already know a number of white people personally, so that tactic probably won't work here.

I have not conducted field experiments (either online or offline) on using the fear theory during encounters, so I can't provide solid information on its tactical use, yet.

-★★★-

[1] Stylistically, I have chosen to capitalize nationality while not capitalizing racial groups. On a quick reading, the tables provided by Wikipedia don't appear to disaggregate between first-generation immigrants, who have foreign nationality of origin and American citizenship, and second-generation immigrants who only have American nationality. All three CEOs listed were born in India.

[2] The ability to buy off competing talent is one of the reasons for the endurance of capitalism. Capitalist systems tend to be extremely productive. They can offer wages from increased productivity that are higher than the wages that other systems offer from rents.

[3] This is one of the reasons I got into writing about politics. It became common to find people whose professed opinions implied they'd never even heard of Genghis Khan, and at that point, I figured the bar was set pretty low.

[4] Positions on migration appear related, but I'll touch on that in another essay.

[5] One reason it wasn't obvious that people were just making an acceptable targets list at the time was that quite a few people from all over the world have a tendency to get wacky about Jewish people specifically, so putting antisemitism off-limits looked like it was backed by more sophisticated reasoning than it actually was. Obviously, people shouldn't hate Jewish people. The problem with the acceptable targets list approach is that it's fragile – since the list is based on social approval rather than deeper philosophical principles, it can end up being "readjusted" later.

[6] I also suspect that continuing to constantly expose yourself to the worst behavior of other groups may be corrosive. Watching a video where a man is shot on some other street, in some other city, may give you a jolt of adrenaline while you sit helplessly in your chair. Reading about atrocities may make you feel helpless and doomed.

[7] This behavior is morally praiseworthy, not morally obligatory.

#politics #criticism of social justice #idpol #epistemic blues #sj critical #flagpost

56 notes · View notes

industrynewsupdates · 3 months ago

Text

Disposable Gloves Market In-Depth Analysis and Forecast 2024 - 2030

The global disposable gloves market size was estimated at USD 9.57 billion in 2023 and is projected to grow at a compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) of 8.4% from 2024 to 2030.

The market is anticipated to grow over the coming years on account of several factors including favorable occupational safety regulations, increasing importance of safety and security at workplaces, and rising healthcare expenditure. The healthcare sector in major developing economies is anticipated to witness substantial growth on account of several factors, such as increasing investments in both private and public sectors along with rising population, high influx of migrants, and the growing geriatric population. Furthermore, rising healthcare expenditure is projected to drive the growth of the healthcare sector, which, in turn, is estimated to augment the demand for disposable gloves.

The disposable gloves industry in the U.S. is driven by factors such as advanced healthcare infrastructure, higher patient disposable income, and a significant geriatric population. Additionally, the COVID-19 pandemic has heightened the demand for disposable gloves, especially in healthcare, to curb further transmission.

In various industries like healthcare, medical, and mining, exposure to harmful chemicals poses a significant risk to workers' health, leading to issues such as skin diseases, rashes, hand cuts, amputation, and exposure to bloodborne pathogens. The implementation of safety regulations is expected to play a crucial role in driving market growth.

Gather more insights about the market drivers, restrains and growth of the Disposable Gloves Market

Disposable Gloves Market Report Highlights

• Natural rubber disposable gloves led the market and accounted for 36.7% of the global revenue demand in 2023. Natural rubber disposable gloves offer superior performance and protection in various applications such as medical & dental, food processing & service, janitorial & sanitation, pharmaceutical, and automotive

• The demand for disposable nitrile gloves is estimated to witness significant growth owing to their increasing adoption in the chemical, medical, painting, laboratory, dentistry, and oil sectors

• The powder-free product segment accounted for 74.4% of the global revenue share in 2023 on account of the rising preference for non-powdered gloves across many industries, including chemical, medical, and food processing

• The medical & healthcare end-use segment dominated the industry in 2022. Disposable gloves are widely used across the medical industry. They help protect doctors and patients from cross-contamination and transmission of pathogens during medical examinations and surgeries.

• Asia-Pacific region has become a focal point for market expansion. The burgeoning healthcare infrastructure, coupled with a growing awareness of safety measures, has driven the adoption of disposable gloves in countries across the region.

• In June 2023, ANSELL LTD. launched its manufacturing facilities in Sri Lanka. Ansell Textiles Lanka is now the company's first location to be certified to ISO 50001:2018. This noteworthy achievement demonstrates Ansell's dedication to integrating energy-efficient practices and technologies into its manufacturing processes.

Browse through Grand View Research's Specialty Polymers Industry Research Reports.

• The global smart polymers market size was valued at USD 12.84 billion in 2023 and is projected to grow at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 4.5% from 2024 to 2030.

• The global polyolefin (POF) shrink film market size was valued at USD 8.54 billion in 2023 and is projected to grow at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 3.5% from 2024 to 2030.

Disposable Gloves Market Report Segmentation

Grand View Research has segmented the global disposable gloves market based on material, product, end-use, and region:

Disposable Gloves Material Outlook (Revenue, USD Million, 2018 - 2030)

• Natural Rubber

• Nitrile

• Vinyl

• Neoprene

• Polyethylene

• Others

Disposable Gloves Product Outlook (Revenue, USD Million, 2018 - 2030)

• Powdered

• Powder-free

Disposable Gloves End-Use Outlook (Revenue, USD Million, 2018 - 2030)

• Healthcare

• Construction

• Manufacturing

• Oil & Gas

• Chemicals

• Food

• Pharmaceuticals

• Transportation

• Mining

• Others

Disposable Gloves Regional Outlook (Revenue, USD Million, 2018 - 2030)

• North America

o U.S.

o Canada

o Mexico

• Europe

o Germany

o UK

o France

o Russia

o Italy

o Spain

• Asia Pacific

o China

o India

o Japan

o Australia

o South Korea

o Indonesia

o Thailand

o Malaysia

• Central & South America

o Brazil

o Argentina

• Middle East & Africa

o Saudi Arabia

o UAE

o South Africa

Order a free sample PDF of the Disposable Gloves Market Intelligence Study, published by Grand View Research.

#Disposable Gloves Market #Disposable Gloves Market size #Disposable Gloves Market share #Disposable Gloves Market analysis #Disposable Gloves industry

0 notes

ellamrfr · 1 year ago

Link

#market research future #disposable gloves market #disposable gloves market size #disposable gloves market share #disposable gloves industry

0 notes

mostlysignssomeportents · 2 years ago

Text

Hollywood is the single best example of mature labor power in America

This afternoon (May 6), I’ll be in Berkeley at the Bay Area Bookfest for a 3:30PM event with Glynn Washington for my book Red Team Blues; tomorrow (May 7), it’s an 11AM event with Wendy Liu for my book Chokepoint Capitalism.

Weds (May 10), I’m in Vancouver for a keynote at the Open Source Summit and a book event at Heritage Hall and Thu (May 11), I’m in Calgary for Wordfest.

The Writers Guild is on strike. Hollywood is closed for business. The union’s bargaining documents reveal a cartel of studios that refused to negotiate on a single position. This could go on for a long-ass time:

https://www.wga.org/uploadedfiles/members/member_info/contract-2023/WGA_proposals.pdf

If you’d like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here’s a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/05/06/people-are-not-disposable/#union-strong

The writers are up for it. A lot of people are saying this is the first writers’ strike since 2007/8, but that’s not quite right. That was the last time the writers went on strike against the studios, but in 2019, the writers struck against their own talent agents — within the space of a week, all 7,000 writers in Hollywood fired their agents. They struck against the agencies for 22 months.

https://deadline.com/2023/04/hollywood-strike-writers-guild-studios-talent-agencies-1235333516/

The agencies had consolidated down to four major firms, two backed by private equity who loaded them up with debt that could only be repaid if the agencies figured out how to vastly increase their profits. They did so, by unilaterally switching the way they did business with their clients. Instead of taking a 10% commission on the creative wages they bargained for, the agencies started to take “packaging fees” from the studios for putting together a writer, director, stars, etc. These fees came out of the same budget that the talent got paid from, so the higher the fee was, the less the talent made. Soon, some showrunners were discovering that they were getting 10% and their agents were getting 90%!

The agencies weren’t done, either: they were building their own studios, and planning to negotiate with themselves on behalf of their clients. The writers said fuck this shit. They issued a code of conduct ordering the agencies to knock all that shit off. The agencies swore they’d never do it. Why should they? Every job these writers had ever done came through an agency, and the agencies were staffed with the toughest, most obnoxious negotiators on the planet.

They were sure the writers would cave. After all, the top tier of writers had been handled with kid gloves by the agencies and not ripped off to the same extent as their jobbing, workaday peers. They’d break solidarity and the union would collapse, right?

Wrong. Twenty-two months later, every one of the agencies caved on every single point. Bam. Union strong.

(Want to learn more? Check out Chokepoint Capitalism, Rebecca Giblin’s and my book about creative labor markets:)

http://chokepointcapitalism.com

Now the writers are back on strike and it’s triggered a predictable torrent of anti-worker nonsense (“striking writers will lead to public indifference to torture!) (no, really) (ugh):

https://www.readtpa.com/p/on-the-tv-writers-strike-dont-fall

One common theme in these bad takes is that writers aren’t real workers, like, you know, coal miners or Starbucks baristas. They’re coddled intellectuals, and haven’t the intelligentsia been indifferent to proletarian struggle since, you know, time immemorial?

This is wrong in every conceivable way. For starters, it’s ahistorical. Lord Byron and innumerable other toffs and poets and such were right there with the Luddites, demanding labor justice during the Industrial Revolution, as Brian Merchant writes in his outstanding, forthcoming history of the Luddites, Blood in the Machine:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/03/20/love-the-machine/#hate-the-factory

But you don’t have to look back to the stocking frame to find this kind of solidarity. As Hamilton Nolan writes in his newsletter, “Hollywood is the single best example of mature labor power in America”:

https://www.hamiltonnolan.com/p/the-coral-reef-of-humanity-encircling

The entire Hollywood workforce, from grips to carpenters, costumers to plumbers, teamsters to medics, is unionized. That includes writers and actors (I’m a member of IATSE Local 839, AKA The Animation Guild). I live in Burbank, the entertainment industry’s company town (fun fact! The “Hollywood” studios are largely over the city line, in Burbank). Walk down Burbank Boulevard, Magnolia Boulevard, or any of the other major roads, and you’ll pass many union halls.

Burbank is a prosperous place. That’s thanks, in part, to the studios, whose entertainment products are very profitable. But working in a profitable industry is not, in and of itself, a guarantee that you will get a share of those profits. Some of the most profitable industries in the world — e-commerce, fast food, logistics — have the lowest paid workforces.

Burbank is prosperous because the unions made sure that everyone — the grips, the costumers, the animators, the actors, the writers, the teamsters and the pipefitters — gets a decent wage, decent health care and a decent retirement. My pal the set-dresser who worked crazy hours shlepping furniture around sitcom sets for decades? All that work did bad stuff to his joints, which meant that he needed a hip replacement in his forties — which was 100% covered, including his sick leave while he recovered. He was able to take early retirement in his late fifties, with a solid pension, with his health in excellent shape and many years of happiness with his partner stretching before him.

That’s what unions get you: a good job that might be hard at times, and the costs of your work are borne by the employer who profits from your labor. As Nolan writes, the point of unions is to “make sure that people! Are! Not! Disposable!”

Unions deliver the American dream. As Pete Seeger sang in “Talking Union Blues”:

Now, if you want higher wages let me tell you what to do You got to talk to the workers in the shop with you You got to build you a union, got to make it strong But if you all stick together, boys, it won’t be long You get shorter hours, better working conditions Vacations with pay. Take your kids to the seashore

http://www.protestsonglyrics.net/Labor_Union_Songs/Talking-Union.phtml

We tend to focus on wages in union discussions, but unions aren’t merely about getting better pay, it’s about making better jobs. When LA teachers went out on strike in 2019, wages weren’t at the top of their list — they bargained for greenspace for every school, replacing rotting portables with permanent buildings, ending ICE entrapment of parents at the school gates, social workers and counselors for schools…and wages.

I really like how Nolan puts this. The way that the studios make money has changed: streaming is clobbering ad-supported TV and movie theater tickets. The studios are adapting. The workers want to adapt, too. The studios would rather “treat[] their work force as a disposable natural resource to be mined, used up, and then abandoned, as business dictates.”

A union gives workers “the same ability to adapt to changing industries that companies already have.” The studios want to leave workers behind. Unions give workers the collective power to say, “No. You’re taking us with you.”

Union workers are wealthier than their non-union counterparts, but that’s not just because of higher wages. As Nolan writes, “Unions make sure that the people get to adapt to changing industries, and not just the investors and the business owners.”

[Union workers] have a far greater ability to build coherent, long-term careers, as opposed to a constant treadmill of unstable short-term gigs. In non-union industries, businesses can just act like ships cutting through a desperate sea of workers, scooping up whoever they want and then tossing them overboard as soon as it’s convenient. In a union industry, though, the companies are forced to deal with the labor force as an equal. The workers have their own damn boat.

Advocates for market capitalism insist that market forces increase prosperity for everyone. They say that, in the end, having corporations serve their shareholders results in corporations serving everyone.

But a comparison of unionized and nonunionized industries reveals the hollowness of that prospect. Hollywood is wildly profitable and it pays every kind of worker well. That’s because workers have solidarity across sectors and trades. Striking writers like jonrog1 are calling on supporters to donate to the Entertainment Community Fund:

https://twitter.com/jonrog1/status/1654168529728307204

The Entertainment Community Fund supports everyone else who is affected by the work-stoppage, all the other creative and craft trades whose work has been halted by the writers’ struggle. If you want to support these workers, make sure you select “Film and TV” from the drop-down menu when you donate (we gave $100):

https://entertainmentcommunity.org/

Because all the workers are in this together. As Adam Conover explains in this amazing CNN clip, David Zazlav, the head of CNN parent-company Warner-Discovery, made a quarter of a billion dollars last year, enough to pay all the demands of all the writers:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aL-YwKO81go

And Carol Lombardini, spokesvillain for the studio cartel AMPTP, told the press that “”Writers are lucky to have term employment.” As John Rogers says, she “wiped out the doubt of every writer who wasn’t sure this negotiation really IS so important, that it actually IS about turning us into gig workers.”

https://twitter.com/jonrog1/status/1654506611086606336

The stakes in this strike are the same as the stakes in every strike: will workers get a fair share of the value their labor creates, or will that value be piled up in the vaults of $250,000,000/year CEOs? It’s not like the studios especially hate writers — like all corporations, they hate all their workers. The same tactics that they’re using to make it so writers can’t pay the rent today will be turned on every other kind of Hollywood worker tomorrow — and when the writers win this one, they’ll support those workers, too.

There’s a lot of concern about AI displacing creative labor, but the only entity that can take away a writer’s wage is a human being, an executive at a studio. As has been the case since the time of the Luddites, the issue isn’t what the machine does, it’s who it does it for and who it does it to.

After all, as Charlie Stross points out, a corporation is just a “Slow AI,” remorselessly paperclip-maximizing its way through the lives and joy of the flesh-and-blood people who constitute its inconvenient gut-flora:

https://media.ccc.de/v/34c3-9270-dude_you_broke_the_future#video&t=3478

Catch me on tour with Red Team Blues in Berkeley, Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto, DC, Gaithersburg, Oxford, Hay, Manchester, Nottingham, London, and Berlin!

[Image ID: Animators walk the picket-line during the Disney Animator's Strike in 1941.]

Image: LA Times https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Screen_Cartoonist%27s_Guild_strike_at_Disney.jpg

CC BY 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en

#pluralistic #slow ai #luddites #solidarity #unions #writers strike #wgaw #labor

262 notes · View notes