[santoshalper]

He literally starts out describing it as a "narrative" and the first statement he makes is that he dislikes it. It is clear that he is not interested in finding out whether it is true, he simply doesn't like what it implies and is suspicious of the messenger. The actual argument against it is weak and really just reinforces it (it takes entire generations to come around on an issue - we know dude, that's what we're talking about!)

We are all doing this shit all the time. Denying it just gives it more power. Admitting you have biases that color every interaction at least gives you a fighting chance to examine them.

[ARandomerDude]

I think you've misunderstood. I didn't say I agree (or disagree) with the OP. My point is that simonh got the cause-effect relationship of im3w1l's argument backwards. The cause is not necessarily stated before the effect.

For example: "I don't like eating brisket. It always gives me heartburn." In that case, the heartburn causes the dislike, even though it was stated after the effect (non-enjoyment).

In this case, im3w1l described an emotional state (effect), followed by his reasons (cause). You're free to disagree with his reasons, but it's important to understand the argument or you're responding to a straw-man.