• atomicorange@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    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”.

    • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      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 I didn’t realize no one was allowed to make comments unless they correct people, I guess I’m using outdated discussion modalities.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.

      • atomicorange@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        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.

        • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          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

          • atomicorange@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            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.

            • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              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.

              • atomicorange@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                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).

                • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  If you read back through the responses with a charitable eye

                  made people think you were attempting to covertly inject racist ideas into the discussion

                  Yeah, this is the source of my disappointment, and this response is only more disappointing. You only expect nuanced, charitable perspective from one side, and that’s reasonable to you? I clarified multiple times, but some of the words look like an easily opposed argument I wasn’t making, so ignore those clarifications. Way easier to tear down an unrelated straw man than to engage with the nuanced position actually being presented.

                  The Internet was a mistake. I’m done with these echo chambers. Thank you for the perspective.

                  • atomicorange@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    10 months ago

                    Did I say I only expect nuance or charitable interpretation from one side? I expect it from both, but I’m not seeing it from you. I see people largely agreeing with you but begging you to reconsider the way you frame your argument. I see you responding only to the negative and evidently not even SEEING the positive responses. You might be right that the internet isn’t a good place for you, you seem ill-equipped to handle even gentle disagreement.