HL should understand how racists communicate their pseudoscience on race and IQ

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

 

[Stone Cold]

Charles Darwin & Fredrich Hegel are the fathers of contemporary

Scientific racism - Wikipedia

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Charles Darwin & Fredrich Hegel are the fathers of contemporary

Scientific racism - Wikipedia

Darwin, not really.

I never saw anything that claimed Darwin was a racist.

Hegel tho?

 

[Dr. Acula]

This is not new. I really have no desire to watch this shyt. It’s the same repackaged white surpremacist bullshyt that has been around forever.

I’m sure most of HL is familiar with it st this point and don’t need a refresher. Again shyt isn’t new. Racism isn’t new.

 

[Dr. Acula]

Charles Darwin & Fredrich Hegel are the fathers of contemporary

Scientific racism - Wikipedia

Tbh I think Darwin has been misattributed with this from everything I read. He was in fact an abolistnist I think and never moved his thinking to social Darwinism. His cousin however was a social Darwinist.

 

[Stone Cold]

The anglo-saxon male is always at the end of every evolutionary scale

Do a image search on it

 

[Black Panther]

The key to countering these claims is ADR.

Always.

Demand.

Receipts.

You'll usually find that the sources used by modern "intellectual" racists are debunked, fringe pieces of pseudoscience. Many times involving a "conspiracy" to conceal the source's findings by [insert big company/mainstream media/shadowy government agency here].

It is very possible, and often very easy, to communicate a completely ridiculous argument in a polished, seemingly intelligent manner.


For instance, which sounds more reasonable?

Racist: "Blacks come from an inferior culture, and they leech off the hard work of the white man!" :infocrazy:

Cacs:

or

Racist: "You know, slavery was a terrible thing. Wouldn't it have been better if the world were made up of ethno-states, where each individual ethnicity could support their own people and posterity?"

Cacs:

 

[Shogun]

How is Darwin's Theory of Evolution racist?

 

[egg]

Darwin, not really.

I never saw anything that claimed Darwin was a racist.

Hegel tho?

Tbh I think Darwin has been misattributed with this from everything I read. He was in fact an abolistnist I think and never moved his thinking to social Darwinism. His cousin however was a social Darwinist.

So i'm guessing you haven't read his books then.

 

[Dr. Acula]

So i'm guessing you haven't read his books then.

Nope I have not. I've read about darwin but never read his books. Enlighten me.

 

[GnauzBookOfRhymes]

By propagating the message under the guise of trying to "expose" the messengers?

 

[egg]

Nope I have not. I've read about darwin but never read his books. Enlighten me.

enlighten yourself on google

 

[Dr. Acula]

enlighten yourself on google

Did. The common reference is to his book Descent of Man. I've founding "Answers in genesis" a christian website who mentions his use of the word savages regarding Aboriginals.

I also found this from "rationalwiki"

Darwin and racism[edit]
Many anti-evolutionists during Darwin's lifetime and to this day have done all they could to project Darwin in as bad a light as possible. One of the most prominent lie about Darwin is labeling him and his theory as "racist."

Darwin was born to a wealthy family in England, surrounded by British Imperialism and the most ethnocentric society in the world. Almost all of scientific authorities, anthropomorphic colleagues, and religious figures all around him trumpeted that whites were the superior race and blacks being the lowest, a racist ideology that goes way back to Plato and Aristotle. That was the environment Darwin was born into, BUT Darwin did not share those views. In fact, Darwin was the most egalitarian and progressive man in the 19th century. He challenged the anthropological and social statues quo and rejected the prevailing prejudices of his time. Darwin often praised those he met from so-called primitive cultures, and said that the nicest man he had ever met was a free colored military man stationed in South Africa.[3] He was not afraid to criticize people of his own ethnicity and frequently criticized the bigotry of his peers against subjugated people. He found every aspect of slavery abominable and wrote extensively against it.[4] He opposed the genocide of indigenous natives and opposed the favoritism of Caucasian invaders.[5] He defined “savages” by their actions, not by their color or race.[6]He also feared that his theory would be used as an excuse for racialism, and unfortunately, it was.

In his last book Descent of Man it starts out sounding like typical English thinking towards different races, but Darwin is merely repeating what he was told about other races, and the further one reads into the book we can see an evolution in his thinking and Darwin constantly criticizes those racist tendencies and begins to question the idea of multiple races. He said that the label “race” was inadequately defined and not of any actual value regarding people. He said that humans were not sufficiently distinct to be considered separate species.[7] While racists today try to claim that there is some kind of division between races (which there are none), Darwin said that our biased judgments against other people were superficial and erroneous, and that no matter how distinguished other people may appear to European eyes, there is no consistent distinction because some Africans shared traits in common with some Caucasians and the same is true of every other group too.[8] Basically, every race blends into every other race at some point that it is impossible to determine any real division. Darwin even pointed out that noted experts in could not agree how many "races" there were or how to categorize people. Before Darwin was born, scientist Charles Linnaeus (creator of Linnaean taxonomy) categorized humans into 6 different “races,” but Darwin criticized that too. He pointed out that not even the best authorities on the subject could agree on the number of races there were, and he pointed out by their broad definitions that he and many other whites would fit into two or more races... even as high as 63 races![9] Darwin also discarded the idea of a “pure” or “superior” race, Darwin argued that “racial purity” would lead to defects and “superiority” was a variable and determined by the environment (not by some act of will of purity), and since ecosystems frequently change it will therefore drive more variations with populations.

I'm not a fan of the "think of the time they lived in argument" but if the rational wiki description is correct, he seemed pretty progressive given his race and time period. He doesn't seem to be a Social Darwinist but like I said, everything I've read, his Cousin definitely was.

Both these sites are pretty biased though. So I welcome any other information outside of just reading the book myself which...will have to sit behind an already large backlog of normal books and textbooks at this point.

 

[afterlife2009]

I want to watch this but Gonna have to throw it into incognito so it doesn't muddy up my recommendations.

Sidenote: I have a theory that the YouTube recommendations page has helped turn people to the alt right.

 

[Apollo Kid]

I want to watch this but Gonna have to throw it into incognito so it doesn't muddy up my recommendations.

Sidenote: I have a theory that the YouTube recommendations page has helped turn people to the alt right.

Yea i think so too. That YouTube rabbit hole is a treacherous path.