Why is it so hard so anthropologists to say this? And no, modern humans are not all homo-sapiens. You think niggers are modern?
You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
11
PurestEvil on scored.co
5 days ago11 points(+0/-0/+11Score on mirror)4 children
There is a genetic map, I have it saved as a file, which depicts how niggers are on an isle, distant from all others. The distance (even to dark skinned Indians!) is higher than that between wolves and coyotes, which we consider distinct species. Thus, if we are scientifically consistent, it means that niggers are a different species than humans.
> Why is it so hard so anthropologists to say this?
Because it would be "racist", and academia doesn't want to be seen as "bigoted", "racist", thus "hateful" and irrational. And whoever dares to think this among them will be ostracized as such from his peers. So who wants to be the first to throw rocks in a glass house?
You have to understand that science is not the pinnacle of objectivity. It's just better than making literal shit up from nothing, or plain wishful thinking. At least they adhere to a modicum of reality, or at least try to do, or at least claim to do. Yes, that's a low bar. It means you cannot blindly trust it, ESPECIALLY when it's controversial in any way.
Don't be fooled by their pretense of authority. Some are just idiots disguised as smart. Some are smart giving their best to brute force idiocy (literal sophists, anti-intellectuals). Some are genuine scientists, but afraid of ostracization. Some are genuine scientists who aren't afraid - they are by default stripped of their science badges.
Ideology is vastly determinant of the scientific process, even if they say it's not. But claiming you are not biased is the standard for those who are most biased.
Just wait for all the anthropologists who come out in their 80s and 90s to say their life's research was bullshit (just like that one woman who recently admitted her landmark studies that pushed adhd on the public were bullshit).
It's only when they're free from the pressure of needing their next grant that they begin to speak openly about the truth.
> Why is it so hard so anthropologists to say this?
Because it would be "racist", and academia doesn't want to be seen as "bigoted", "racist", thus "hateful" and irrational. And whoever dares to think this among them will be ostracized as such from his peers. So who wants to be the first to throw rocks in a glass house?
You have to understand that science is not the pinnacle of objectivity. It's just better than making literal shit up from nothing, or plain wishful thinking. At least they adhere to a modicum of reality, or at least try to do, or at least claim to do. Yes, that's a low bar. It means you cannot blindly trust it, ESPECIALLY when it's controversial in any way.
Don't be fooled by their pretense of authority. Some are just idiots disguised as smart. Some are smart giving their best to brute force idiocy (literal sophists, anti-intellectuals). Some are genuine scientists, but afraid of ostracization. Some are genuine scientists who aren't afraid - they are by default stripped of their science badges.
Ideology is vastly determinant of the scientific process, even if they say it's not. But claiming you are not biased is the standard for those who are most biased.
It's only when they're free from the pressure of needing their next grant that they begin to speak openly about the truth.
[Here](https://files.catbox.moe/esrww7.jpeg)'s the wolf-coyote thing.
And I just found a better version of it [here](https://files.catbox.moe/scf7s3.jpg).