• agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    11 months ago

    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.

    • jaxxed@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      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.

      • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        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?