That’s why it’s controversial, it gets the people going…
Even with all the disclaimers input in there with it, I 100% knew someone would say it was racist for zero logical reason, even without me saying that’s the reason it’s controversial.
It changes absolutely nothing about how we all evolved from an (actually insanely small) population that lived in Africa very recently on an evolutionary timescale. If anything it debunks racist beliefs that there’s large divides between who left and stayed.
But well intentioned people get mad and call me a racist, every single time.
I did not call you racist, I was on the contrary pointing out that the only thing that can make it controversial is the wording.
My point was, this is not a controversial take, but phrased badly it can sound like one, which is probably the reason people would end up calling you racist. Not because what you say (and especially what you mean) is racist, but because it can sound like a red flag.
And I totally agree with the fact that the origin changes nothing to humans, or to racism, because nothing will ever prove racism to be right scientifically. I wasn’t disagreeing with you, just commenting on the “controversial” aspect.
Or homophobic, or transphobic, or other flavor of the month phobic.
If you disagree with their stated world view, you are being irrational, hateful, and must be censored. Which is ironic considering that what they demand is of the world to accept their version of reality at face value.
Nah man, I just meant this one specific point, which is why I put it in this thread…
Shane Gillis said it best (paraphrased):
Racism is a lot like being hungry, most people aren’t always hungry. Some people are, but everyone gets hungry under the right conditions.
But it’s all the “isms”, they’re all just different ways to describe “in/out group bias” which older than humans, primates, and considering birds even mammals.
It’s a fundamental part of human life.
The only problem is people weren’t getting socialized first due to distance and then due to instuitional laws. And as people age they fall back on earlier “in/out group biases” of what they were exposed to as young.
Everyone can be guilty of “doing an ism” and most of the time not even realize it, really mean it, or even control it. The brain just stressed and falls back on that shit.
We fix it by understanding it and working towards the current new generation getting properly socialized and motivated enough to keep doing it
That’s why conservatives fight so hard against “indoctrination” seeing a demographic exists when young is all it takes to stop them from becoming “them” later. They’re just another member of the tribe to our monkey brains, they’re always be “us”.
Exactly what I’m talking about.
Bring it up and people will literally change what you say and label it racist.
I don’t even understand how this could be construed as racist. Am I missing something?
That’s why it’s controversial, it gets the people going…
Even with all the disclaimers input in there with it, I 100% knew someone would say it was racist for zero logical reason, even without me saying that’s the reason it’s controversial.
It changes absolutely nothing about how we all evolved from an (actually insanely small) population that lived in Africa very recently on an evolutionary timescale. If anything it debunks racist beliefs that there’s large divides between who left and stayed.
But well intentioned people get mad and call me a racist, every single time.
Well then clearly your opinion is perfect for this thread haha
I did not call you racist, I was on the contrary pointing out that the only thing that can make it controversial is the wording.
My point was, this is not a controversial take, but phrased badly it can sound like one, which is probably the reason people would end up calling you racist. Not because what you say (and especially what you mean) is racist, but because it can sound like a red flag.
And I totally agree with the fact that the origin changes nothing to humans, or to racism, because nothing will ever prove racism to be right scientifically. I wasn’t disagreeing with you, just commenting on the “controversial” aspect.
Or homophobic, or transphobic, or other flavor of the month phobic.
If you disagree with their stated world view, you are being irrational, hateful, and must be censored. Which is ironic considering that what they demand is of the world to accept their version of reality at face value.
Nah man, I just meant this one specific point, which is why I put it in this thread…
Shane Gillis said it best (paraphrased):
But it’s all the “isms”, they’re all just different ways to describe “in/out group bias” which older than humans, primates, and considering birds even mammals.
It’s a fundamental part of human life.
The only problem is people weren’t getting socialized first due to distance and then due to instuitional laws. And as people age they fall back on earlier “in/out group biases” of what they were exposed to as young.
Everyone can be guilty of “doing an ism” and most of the time not even realize it, really mean it, or even control it. The brain just stressed and falls back on that shit.
We fix it by understanding it and working towards the current new generation getting properly socialized and motivated enough to keep doing it
That’s why conservatives fight so hard against “indoctrination” seeing a demographic exists when young is all it takes to stop them from becoming “them” later. They’re just another member of the tribe to our monkey brains, they’re always be “us”.