No Stupid Questions
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
view the rest of the comments
I get what this guy is trying to say but the phrasing and unnecessary racialising explains the downvotes. A better and less offensive way to put this could simply have referred to climate: that you suspect the harsher climate in Europe rewarded industrial and penalised agrarian lifestyles in a way that wasn’t true for civilisations near the equator. Being white or not has nothing to do with it - correlation versus causation.
There's something to say about winters leading to social orders around food storage and planning ahead, but then England didn't really need to do that that much (it's quite mild there, gulf stream and all) and they were the first to really start the industrialisation game. It was plain and simple pure capitalism. The Nordic countries, where those climatic conditions are very much real, are way more naturally Socdem than the Anglos.
Another geographic, not so much climatic, factor is the availability of water power: Europe is blessed with a metric fuckton of small streams large enough to build a mill on. Wheat and rye are also quite easy to deal with, you can use a scythe to harvest, etc. That meant a comparatively productive agriculture, which meant more tradespeople, traders, and with that finally a bourgeoisie which could do that capitalism and industrialisation thing and exploit the serfs harder than the nobles ever managed to do, being stuck in age-old social relations which didn't allow for ordering people around like that. Then a ton of other small factors, including things like Luther lobbying nobles to institute public schools so that people would learn to read -- so they could read the Bible, but they could of course also now read an Almanach and do some maths.
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).
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.
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.
My charitable interpretation was calmly clarifying. The response was "Nuh uh, you're saying white people are racially superior and evolutionarily advantaged". One can only talk to a brick wall so long.
Gentle disagreement I love. Straw-manning, the majority of the responses, is pointless. I have only seen one person even remotely agree, the only one who seemed to engage with my point. Everyone else is straw-manning.
The Internet is not gentle disagreement, it's dominated by oversimplification and echo chambers. It's toxic. I'm done talking to brick walls.
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 ~~white~~ light-skinned people have a leg up because they're ~~white~~ light-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?
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?