Scientists find 7.2M-year-old pre-human remains in the Balkans

Post by tacomonstrous » Tue, May 23, 2017, 6:44 AM UTC

flukus wrote: post #49

tacomonstrous wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it really so toxic to point out that the average white male in American society enjoys certain privileges that are unavailable to the average member of any other class? Or that the average black male is subject to multiple dis advantages that members of other classes don't usually experience? Also, the use of the term SJW might appear 'edgy' but its overuse has turned it into a marker of nothing but intellectual v…

> Is it really so toxic to point out that the average white male in American society enjoys certain privileges that are unavailable to the average member of any other class? Yes, it's divisive and helps no one, that's pretty much the definition of toxic.

Post by dragonwriter » Tue, May 23, 2017, 6:46 AM UTC

flukus wrote: post #49

tacomonstrous wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it really so toxic to point out that the average white male in American society enjoys certain privileges that are unavailable to the average member of any other class? Or that the average black male is subject to multiple dis advantages that members of other classes don't usually experience? Also, the use of the term SJW might appear 'edgy' but its overuse has turned it into a marker of nothing but intellectual v…

> Is it really so toxic to point out that the average white male in American society enjoys certain privileges that are unavailable to the average member of any other class? Yes, it's divisive and helps no one, that's pretty much the definition of toxic.

Post by UweSchmidt » Tue, May 23, 2017, 6:48 AM UTC

rubyn00bie wrote: post #40

UweSchmidt wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just upvoted the article for unearthing more hominim, no need for an ad hominem.

I don't see how the article being incorrectly titled is ad hominem. It does appear to reflect the world view as opposed to the science within the article. Can you please explain further or qualify your statement so that I can learn. As I said in my comment I'm happy to be wrong but you provided nothing. I'd say your comment as it stands is ad hominem if anything.

Post by [deleted] » Tue, May 23, 2017, 6:51 AM UTC

Kiro wrote: post #53

rubyn00bie wrote: post #13

The title is misleading (as written on HN) because the meaning of "hominim" is more to do with what we, humans, and other hominim (like neanderthals etc) evolved from. See linked chart: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-yEUEavwMSCE/ULtMp3e_cVI/AAAAAAAAAD... This isn't our specific species but rather whatever we and similar species evolved from. I'm absolutely no expert on the subject. I actually find the title offensive if I…

How is it offensive?

Post by flukus » Tue, May 23, 2017, 6:52 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #54

flukus wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is it really so toxic to point out that the average white male in American society enjoys certain privileges that are unavailable to the average member of any other class? Yes, it's divisive and helps no one, that's pretty much the definition of toxic.

It's factually accurate, and recognizing that fact helps lots of people.