3 ms·

This is a garbage non-article. It admits some people have sensitivity to MSG. It doesn't offer evidence against some other additive in chinese food is making

This is a garbage non-article. It admits some people have sensitivity to MSG. It doesn't offer evidence against some other additive in chinese food is making people experience racing heart. It doesn't even consider the possibility that in the past MSG had some impurity that caused a health issue that may not be reproducible now. It doesn't even consider how detached the long-term effects of food are (think how long it takes to put on weight). It likens the situation to anti-vaccine, which is basically the new Godwin's Law. It has an obnoxious air of "Science knows everything right now and anybody who doesn't believe me is anti-science." (The problem is that studies take decades to come to a consensus. The initial studies about leaded gasoline said it was totally safe, for example. But in this case the author doesn't bother to cite a single study that supports his case! Rather he just relies on name-value and a tone of superiority)

alexandercrohde 8y ago
Anybody care to explain the downvotes?
- nkurz 8y ago
  It's almost certainly due to your opening statement "This is a garbage non-article." Over 100 people have upvoted this story, and thus it's likely that they think that this is an article worth reading and recommending. You are indirectly telling them that their judgement is similarly "garbage", and they are reacting with downvotes. The contents of your objections seem reasonable to me, but if your goal is productive discourse, the overall tone of your comment off-putting. You'd probably get a better response if you found a way to offer improvements to the article without offending those who liked it.
  - alexandercrohde 8y ago
    Yeah, honestly I knew that. And that is basically how I feel, I think this article is egregious and mildly destructive to the pursuit of truth. My question was to force those downvoting to confront/concede the reality that they are downvoting because they got emotional rather that the facts at hand. Which is why I imagine none responded.

alexandercrohde 8y ago

Anybody care to explain the downvotes?

nkurz 8y ago
It's almost certainly due to your opening statement "This is a garbage non-article." Over 100 people have upvoted this story, and thus it's likely that they think that this is an article worth reading and recommending. You are indirectly telling them that their judgement is similarly "garbage", and they are reacting with downvotes. The contents of your objections seem reasonable to me, but if your goal is productive discourse, the overall tone of your comment off-putting. You'd probably get a better response if you found a way to offer improvements to the article without offending those who liked it.
- alexandercrohde 8y ago
  Yeah, honestly I knew that. And that is basically how I feel, I think this article is egregious and mildly destructive to the pursuit of truth. My question was to force those downvoting to confront/concede the reality that they are downvoting because they got emotional rather that the facts at hand. Which is why I imagine none responded.