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

    If you read back through the responses with a charitable eye

    made people think you were attempting to covertly inject racist ideas into the discussion

    Yeah, this is the source of my disappointment, and this response is only more disappointing. You only expect nuanced, charitable perspective from one side, and that’s reasonable to you? I clarified multiple times, but some of the words look like an easily opposed argument I wasn’t making, so ignore those clarifications. Way easier to tear down an unrelated straw man than to engage with the nuanced position actually being presented.

    The Internet was a mistake. I’m done with these echo chambers. Thank you for the perspective.

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

      Did I say I only expect nuance or charitable interpretation from one side? I expect it from both, but I’m not seeing it from you. I see people largely agreeing with you but begging you to reconsider the way you frame your argument. I see you responding only to the negative and evidently not even SEEING the positive responses. You might be right that the internet isn’t a good place for you, you seem ill-equipped to handle even gentle disagreement.

      • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        My charitable interpretation was calmly clarifying. The response was “Nuh uh, you’re saying white people are racially superior and evolutionarily advantaged”. One can only talk to a brick wall so long.

        Gentle disagreement I love. Straw-manning, the majority of the responses, is pointless. I have only seen one person even remotely agree, the only one who seemed to engage with my point. Everyone else is straw-manning.

        The Internet is not gentle disagreement, it’s dominated by oversimplification and echo chambers. It’s toxic. I’m done talking to brick walls.

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

          Seems to me you’re pissed off that you made a stupid argument and people called you out for it. Frankly, you came in with white supremacist talking points and you shouldn’t be surprised that people were distrustful. You got a lot more grace than you deserved from most in this thread. Not from me, admittedly, I assumed you were malicious because you didn’t seem thick. Now I think you’re just overly emotional about the whole thing and it’s clouding your perception.

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

            You insist I’m using white supremacist talking points after I clarified several times that I wasn’t, in fact the exact opposite.

            You insist that I’m mad despite clarifying several times that I’m not, and consistently using calm, rational tones.

            You’re doubling down on proving my point: it’s easier to debunk the argument you wish someone made than to engage with what they actually say.

            I’ve been having perfectly pleasant discussions online for 20 years. It’s a shit show now. The majority of the discussions now devolve into this same self-righteous refusal to deviate from assumptions. You continue to demonstrate this behavior . Enjoy your echo chamber.

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

              “I have always assumed that white light-skinned people have a leg up because they’re white light-skinned.“

              You’re voicing white supremacist talking points. You don’t even really debunk them in your original post. You just propose an alternative. You still haven’t explained why you felt the need to even bring this line up. Nobody was wondering about skin tone’s role in economic development. Except you I guess.

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

                The very next sentences clarify

                That is, they’ve lived for an evolutionarily relevant duration of time in places where you need low melanin to get sufficient vitamin D to survive. Places with low sunlight and harsh winters, which means places where failing to develop efficient agriculture, food preservation/storage, insulated shelters, and textiles meant starving or freezing to death.

                I brought it up specifically to debunk white supremacy. To point out that any apparent correlation between skin tone and economic development that an actual white supremacist might claim is sufficiently explained by this coincidence. Not because of being smarter, or more industrious, or any other notion of racial superiority. Purely because of certain coincidental environmental conditions.

                Not that these conditions are currently relevant, not that they’ve been relevant since the agricultural revolution, simply that those environmental pressures gave people in certain regions a head start in, specifically, the technologies that facilitated the developed West. Not all technologies, not even most. I specifically addressed the main topic of conversation of why Western Europe appears more developed.

                I would imagine actual white supremacists would passionately disagree with my claim that that development is due purely to environmental coincidence and not, y’know, supremacy. And yet, thanks to knee-jerk reactions to sloppy reading comprehension, my attempt to debunk white supremacist talking points was misconstrued as support. Because it’s easier to argue against the point you want to debate then the one someone actually made.

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

                  You still haven’t answered why you’re bringing up white supremacist talking points (even for the purpose of “debunking” them).

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

                    You’re really set on trying to insist I have the exact opposite argument than I do, huh? Despite repeated explanations, and directly calling out the straw-manning, you’re just dead set on it. Despite the fact that “Western countries being developed is a quirk of environment, not the consequence of any innate superiority” is about as diametrically opposed to white supremacy as possible. Anything to validate your assumptions.

                    Did you forget what the entire topic of the post is?

                    Why are so many countries in the world “developing” and poor, while essentially only Western countries have a high standard of living?

                    Debunking white supremacy seems like an extremely relevant and logical response. Unless, of course, you believe that white supremacy is the explanation.