• sparky@lemmy.federate.cc@lemmy.federate.cc
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    10 months ago

    I do understand the point you’re making actually, but you’re wading into emotionally charged waters here. I would argue “white” is an inherently racial term, but the more importantly, the correlation is not really relevant to the discussion and needlessly muddies your broader point (that climate may inspire or disincentive industrialisation) by injecting it with racial discussion.

    • atomicorange@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      The fact that they refuse to acknowledge that the skin tone part of their argument is irrelevant leads me to believe that they are being disingenuous about their motivations. You’ve clearly pointed out that climate is a sufficient explanation and that references to skin tone are unnecessary and misleading.

      • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        What are you talking about? I have multiple times clearly pointed out that climate is the explanation, and skin color is just another result of climate. I’m trying to explain a correlation, not imply causation.

        • atomicorange@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          Why are you trying to explain this correlation? Nobody else had mentioned skin tone, so you weren’t correcting anyone. You just brought up a completely unrelated correlation out of the blue for no reason? And you’re defending it in comment after comment instead of just saying “sorry that was a non-sequitur, my bad”.

          • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            10 months ago

            Because it’s not a non-sequitur? The whole post is about the observed development of Western Europe. I didn’t realize no one was allowed to make comments unless they correct people, I guess I’m using outdated discussion modalities. I forgot that now we over-simplify everything to place ideas into simple, emotionally-directed groupthink boxes

            All I said was the development in Western Europe was jump-started by the environmental pressures to develop the technologies that lead to it (seasonal variation, low sunlight, cold climate), and that the same environmental pressures also selects for paler skin. People like you started twisting that into some bullshit about “evolutionary racial advantage”, in comment after comment even after I repeated that that has nothing to do with my point.

            Not everything has to be racially charged, but since you insist, I’m done. Bully someone else with your emotionally reductive bullshit.

            • atomicorange@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              People are just trying to point out why you’re getting shit my dude. You don’t want to hear it. If you want to be part of conversations in the future, learning to accept criticism is a skill you might want to work on developing.

              • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                There’s no criticism of anything I’ve said here, only a series of emotionally twisted straw men. If you want to be part of conversations, be a part of them. Don’t make up your own imaginary conversations to criticize. I’m done with your nonsense

                • atomicorange@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  You’re big mad about this, huh? Everyone else is crazy, you’re the only one making any sense. Couldn’t possibly be something wrong with your argument.

                  • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    10 months ago

                    That might be a salient point, had anyone actually engaged the argument I actually made.

                    I’m not mad, I’m just… disappointed. Nostalgic for rational, good faith discussion on old forums. Frustrated with the post-rational labyrinth of echo-chambers that the Internet seems to have become. Saddened by the apparent abandonment of sincere engagement in favor of sterile down votes. A bit heartbroken that maybe it was always this way and I was just young enough to ignore it, and lucky enough to find little temporary oases of respite over the years.

                    But not mad, certainly not mad. Mad is groupthink down votes, truth by mindless consensus, rejection of discussion. I’m just… bleh. I saw this shit at Reddit, I thought this place would be better. But I think it’s just people, I don’t think it can be any different. I’m just… kinda done. Whatever, I don’t really care anymore. Bleh.

    • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      10 months ago

      I don’t know how else to specify that my point is purely about melanin levels in the skin being coincidentally correlated, and NOT related in any way to implicit genetic arguments. I explicitly defined “white” by melanin levels, not by race. “White” isn’t even a coherent race.

      • jaxxed@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        You could easily have used geographical notions, and not bothered with the melatonin point. It even took a stretch to pull in colour into your point. If you drag evolutionary advantages of being white into a conversation, then you might be a racist.

        • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          10 months ago

          Again, nothing to do with race. Western Europeans, Persians, Chinese, Turks, and various other races/ethnicities all have light skin. Again, not an evolutionary advantage, just coincidental effects of geographical pressures of regions with low light and greater seasonal causing.

          I feel like twisting what I’m saying into having anything to do with race, especially after repeatedly clarifying, is in bad faith. I’m specifically trying to explain the relative technological advancement of lighter-skinned people in a way that completely nullifies the notion of evolutionary advantage. I’m specifically trying to counter any notion of racial advantage. Why are you trying to flip that around to the exact opposite of what I’m saying?