1344
Selective rage
(slrpnk.net)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 23 Sep 2024
1344 points (89.3% liked)
memes
10549 readers
2125 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Not sure how viable these sites are as sources, but also i don't know enough about genetics to determine full extent of changes over long stretches of time. All i know is trying to apply a logical sense of possibilities. In my speculation, just though it to makes sense for climates that are more hot and sunny for people to adabt with darker skin. Even if different races have all the same genetics, might not mean the genetics are not used in different ways. Clearly there is something there that instructs people to have different skin colors and other minor changes. It's not a bad thing to ask what causes these physical differences and why they occur. What you thoughts on what causes the variations of physcal differences if not genetics?
Why are you bothering to write all that shit when you can't be bothered to take the few minutes to read those links? Which are from actual scientists, and not someone having racist brainfarts.
Bold to assume i hadn't read it, also i wanna hear your thoughts. This a disccussion, not a debate. Im not used to this reddit style sites, im usually on messeagers with talking to people from logical perspectives, not people who just toss source links from jurnalist sites that tell you random scientist claims it true. You can throw as many journalist sources, scientist claims, bars, graphs as you like, i'd still like to hear your own individual thoughts that arent just random sources to claims. I wanna know you formed your own sense of reasoning or are just repeating what your told.
It's really not "bold" to assume you haven't read it when you just wrote a whole lot of asinine shit you think sounded proper and smart, when you didn't even understand the part I quoted from them:
See you plain do not understand what that means. It's clear as day from your comment.
Dude you're literally saying that science doesn't matter, while insisting that you must be right and that you're "using logic" and that all the actual facts and science on the matter is "some random sources". It's not "some random sources". It's everyone. That the scientific consensus on the subject. If you claim it isn't, then you get some fucking science to show instead of your weird gibberish.
It's beyond obvious you haven't read either of the links. DO SO.
I have read, perhaps you should had asked if i understood it. I did mention i didn't understand enough about genetics. You seem to be having an arguement, where as im having a discussion. Science is important, yes. But blindly trusting words of an article. All scientific consensus says is basically "this is the popular vote of agreement, so it must be true" im not saying its wrong, im saying should blindly trust a general consensus as fact. The obvious thing is you being haneous about having your perspective challenged. Could we discuss this like gentlemen rather than you throwing a hissy fit. There was really no reason get all spiteful and uncivil. This isnt even about the intial discussion any more, but you just getting irrationally angry when i asked for an opinion of your own.
"Blindly trusting the words of an article"
No. Again, it's the SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS.
"All scientific consensus means is the agreement of the global scientific community, that's not something you can trust, EVER, so you should listen to me, a random person online, rambling. It's for sure gonna be more accurate, despite me having actually admitted that I don't even understand genetics."
Are you smoking crack or something?
You clearly haven't read them. Honestly, it's incredible that you've spent all this time here, when you could've just read them and understood why race isn't a thing. You don't understand the argument they're making. You don't understand that no such thing as a biological race exists according to the BEST understanding we have. Do you think your half-assed ideas are better than the research of THE ENTIRE GLOBAL COMMUNITY THROUGHOUT HISTORY?
I'm not angry. I'm trying to emphasise the thing you've clearly missed. You don't understand that we aren't on an equal footing in this. You admit yourself you don't understand genetics, yet think you can have a "discussion" about pushing your ideas which rely on not understanding genetics. If you did understand genetics, you wouldn't hold those idiotic ideas in the first place, which is WHY YOU SHOULD READ THE STUDIES.