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.
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.
“I have always assumed that whitelight-skinned people have a leg up because they’re whitelight-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.
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.
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.
You didn’t say “Western countries being developed is a quirk of environment, not the consequence of any innate superiority” though. You said the thing I quoted above. I’m addressing the words you actually said.
Honey, I’m bored. You’re either incredibly dense or unwilling to have a straightforward discussion. I think you should stick to your plan of leaving the internet.
Then go back and read the rest of the words I actually said, instead of stopping halfway to confirm your bias so you can feel superior. You do get that selective reading is exactly the toxicity I’m talking about, right?
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.
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.
“I have always assumed that
whitelight-skinned people have a leg up because they’rewhitelight-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.
The very next sentences clarify
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.
You still haven’t answered why you’re bringing up white supremacist talking points (even for the purpose of “debunking” them).
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?
Debunking white supremacy seems like an extremely relevant and logical response. Unless, of course, you believe that white supremacy is the explanation.
You didn’t say “Western countries being developed is a quirk of environment, not the consequence of any innate superiority” though. You said the thing I quoted above. I’m addressing the words you actually said.
Honey, I’m bored. You’re either incredibly dense or unwilling to have a straightforward discussion. I think you should stick to your plan of leaving the internet.
Then go back and read the rest of the words I actually said, instead of stopping halfway to confirm your bias so you can feel superior. You do get that selective reading is exactly the toxicity I’m talking about, right?