I don’t know how much more clearly to make this. This is scientific racism. It is bunkum. None of it holds up to scientific scrutiny. It is merely a viewpoint that starts with racism and then looks for proof. Science works the other way: look at evidence, then make arguments.
I know, it sucks. You’re reading something, think it makes sense, then you find out it’s all bullshit. But you’ve put in so much effort into believing it that it takes a lot of effort to change. It often seems easier to just find a band-aid and fix it. But it just doesn’t work.
Racism isn’t some secretly true thing that the scientific authorities are trying to hide from you. It’s just false. White people are not special. We just have a mutation that allowed us to adapt to climates with less sun exposure. We also lost our epicanthic folds, likely for similar reasons: wider eyes get in more light. It’s just due to where we live, and nothing more.
While I normally don’t recommend it as an oversimplification of reality, go read Guns, Germs and Steel. Location alone explains so much of any actual differences in ethnicities or races. Not some sort of genetic superiority.
For some Dan Brown shit, sure. For something more complex, like Jemisin? Well, we can see how well that review strategy works out by all that egg on your face…
You … you don’t really hear yourself as you type, do you?
You actually think saying this kind of thing makes you seem…what? Cultured? Experienced? Not weird and sad?
I had hopes…
…but they were short-lived. :rolleyes:
You know what I think one of your (many) problems is? This is going by your preference for podcasts, and reaching sweeping conclusions on only the first chapters of things : you want to appear like some sort of erudite, well-read intellectual, but you’re fundamentally too damn lazy to do the actual work that really takes. Typical, really.
If being a cinephile makes one “weird and sad”, there are an awful lot of us—and we are having a grand old time while you pity us. :rolleyes:
Of course, the reality is that you are simply applying a blatantly hypocritical double standard. If some other cinephile who had the “correct” politics mentioned rating/ranking that many films (hell, ten times as many!), somehow they would not be judged “weird and sad”. Funny how that works.
ETA: Hilarious BTW that you think a self-described slacker will feel insulted by being called lazy! I run into this surprisingly often. Do people think my screen name was chosen by my enemies, or by a sorting hat or something?
No, I did not - I like films a lot, myself. There’s nothing weird or sad about liking films.
Except using the word cinephile to describe yourself - that’s just only a hair less fucking pretentious than cineaste. See what I mean about you being a pretend intellectual?
“Liking films a lot” was not the weird and sad thing I was highlighting in your post.
No, they totally would be. If anyone (who didn’t review films at least semi-professionally) posted the words you did, I would say it came across as weird and sad. Not very weird or sad, we’re not talking cataloguing your toenail clippings here. But just a little bit anorak.
I wasn’t trying to insult you. You know I can do a lot better than “lazy” if I want to insult you. I was trying to tell you why your pretence at any intellectual standing is laughable.
Did you *have *to, andy? The little racist creep had been mercifully keeping his head low for a while now, and now you’ve likely gone and summoned him…
You need a cite that “black people”, a category which contains well over a billion people, including the vast majority of the most genetically variable region on Earth (sub-Saharan Africa), as well as ancestry from every part of the planet (all the mixed-background people that society shoehorns into the “black people” category), has more genetic variation than a single medium-sized city?
TO me virtue signaling always had an element of disingenuity. Acting virtuous when in fact you are just trying to humblebrag about how woke you are. It was the woke version of holier than thou attitudes.
I don’t think blacks can really “virtue signal” about anti-black racism, no one thinks better of them for it nor does it identify them as an ally or anything like that.
Most virtue signalers are privileged liberals who get offended on behalf of all the oppressed people they don’t actually know in real life.
Click my signature! If you’re a sci-fi fan, I’d be happy to send you a free copy of the e-book (an offer I extend to any Doper who likes to read sci-fi novels, regardless of past disagreements).
I thought you were saying that 300,000 randomly chosen blacks had more genetic variability than the 300,000 Pittsburgh residents. Which doesn’t really seem self evident.
I’m making the point that “black people” is no more valid (and even significantly less valid) a biological indicator, in terms of genetic ancestry, than “Pittsburghese” (or sub in another random city). Take sets of two random “black” people on Earth, and sets of two random Pittsburghese folks, and chances are the Pittsburghese are going to have more in common, in terms of genetic ancestry, than the sets of black folks. Probably by a helluva lot.
