Why are so many countries in the world “developing” and poor, while essentially only Western countries have a high standard of living?
Why are so many countries in the world “developing” and poor, while essentially only Western countries have a high standard of living?
You're viewing part of a thread.
Yes, correlation is exactly what I'm saying. I'm not saying "white" as a race, I've been explicitly saying "white" as skin tone. The same environmental conditions which reward efficient agriculture and the conditions for industrialization also correlate to pressures toward sun-absorbant skin.
My position has nothing to do with "race" and everything to do with coincidentally correlated environmental effects. Was I not sufficiently clear? When did I even bring up race, distinct from skin tone in-and-of-itself? "White" isn't even a race, so far as race is even a rational concept.
I do understand the point you’re making actually, but you’re wading into emotionally charged waters here. I would argue “white” is an inherently racial term, but the more importantly, the correlation is not really relevant to the discussion and needlessly muddies your broader point (that climate may inspire or disincentive industrialisation) by injecting it with racial discussion.
The fact that they refuse to acknowledge that the skin tone part of their argument is irrelevant leads me to believe that they are being disingenuous about their motivations. You’ve clearly pointed out that climate is a sufficient explanation and that references to skin tone are unnecessary and misleading.
What are you talking about? I have multiple times clearly pointed out that climate is the explanation, and skin color is just another result of climate. I'm trying to explain a correlation, not imply causation.
Why are you trying to explain this correlation? Nobody else had mentioned skin tone, so you weren’t correcting anyone. You just brought up a completely unrelated correlation out of the blue for no reason? And you’re defending it in comment after comment instead of just saying “sorry that was a non-sequitur, my bad”.
Because it's not a non-sequitur? The whole post is about the observed development of Western Europe. I didn't realize no one was allowed to make comments unless they correct people, I guess I'm using outdated discussion modalities. I forgot that now we over-simplify everything to place ideas into simple, emotionally-directed groupthink boxes
All I said was the development in Western Europe was jump-started by the environmental pressures to develop the technologies that lead to it (seasonal variation, low sunlight, cold climate), and that the same environmental pressures also selects for paler skin. People like you started twisting that into some bullshit about "evolutionary racial advantage", in comment after comment even after I repeated that that has nothing to do with my point.
Not everything has to be racially charged, but since you insist, I'm done. Bully someone else with your emotionally reductive bullshit.
People are just trying to point out why you’re getting shit my dude. You don’t want to hear it. If you want to be part of conversations in the future, learning to accept criticism is a skill you might want to work on developing.
There's no criticism of anything I've said here, only a series of emotionally twisted straw men. If you want to be part of conversations, be a part of them. Don't make up your own imaginary conversations to criticize. I'm done with your nonsense
You’re big mad about this, huh? Everyone else is crazy, you’re the only one making any sense. Couldn’t possibly be something wrong with your argument.
That might be a salient point, had anyone actually engaged the argument I actually made.
I'm not mad, I'm just... disappointed. Nostalgic for rational, good faith discussion on old forums. Frustrated with the post-rational labyrinth of echo-chambers that the Internet seems to have become. Saddened by the apparent abandonment of sincere engagement in favor of sterile down votes. A bit heartbroken that maybe it was always this way and I was just young enough to ignore it, and lucky enough to find little temporary oases of respite over the years.
But not mad, certainly not mad. Mad is groupthink down votes, truth by mindless consensus, rejection of discussion. I'm just... bleh. I saw this shit at Reddit, I thought this place would be better. But I think it's just people, I don't think it can be any different. I'm just... kinda done. Whatever, I don't really care anymore. Bleh.
Quite a few people engaged with your argument. If you read back through the responses with a charitable eye you might be able to see it. Those who criticized you were ultimately trying to help you get your point across to others by suggesting you drop the part of your argument that addresses white supremacist talking points. That part of your argument was distracting and largely irrelevant to the conversation, and it made people think you were attempting to covertly inject racist ideas into the discussion (a common white supremacist tactic).
I don't know how else to specify that my point is purely about melanin levels in the skin being coincidentally correlated, and NOT related in any way to implicit genetic arguments. I explicitly defined "white" by melanin levels, not by race. "White" isn't even a coherent race.
You could easily have used geographical notions, and not bothered with the melatonin point. It even took a stretch to pull in colour into your point. If you drag evolutionary advantages of being white into a conversation, then you might be a racist.
Again, nothing to do with race. Western Europeans, Persians, Chinese, Turks, and various other races/ethnicities all have light skin. Again, not an evolutionary advantage, just coincidental effects of geographical pressures of regions with low light and greater seasonal causing.
I feel like twisting what I'm saying into having anything to do with race, especially after repeatedly clarifying, is in bad faith. I'm specifically trying to explain the relative technological advancement of lighter-skinned people in a way that completely nullifies the notion of evolutionary advantage. I'm specifically trying to counter any notion of racial advantage. Why are you trying to flip that around to the exact opposite of what I'm saying?