Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Gammon is not racist

Why don't you check that out for yourself....before you trash it.

Ask yourself why there are so many shades of human skin varying clinally over a vast area if there are just two gene loci involved.

There are a smallish number of major genetic contributors and a much larget number of influencing factors. The total isn’t known but higher estimates are well into the hundreds.

I think you might have read about a distinguishing polymorphism of frequent incidence in white Europeans and oversimplified, or just read something unreliable.
 
Ask yourself why there are so many shades of human skin varying clinally over a vast area if there are just two gene loci involved.

There are a smallish number of major genetic contributors and a much larget number of influencing factors. The total isn’t known but higher estimates are well into the hundreds.

I think you might have read about a distinguishing polymorphism of frequent incidence in white Europeans and oversimplified, or just read something unreliable.

I wasn't excluding other genetic adaptation....just explaining one particular mutation.
But you are right...
Variances in pigmentation beyond the ones I mentioned are also caused by genetic mutations.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/10/new-gene-variants-reveal-evolution-human-skin-color
 
Last edited:
Hate to point it out, but it's not so much the content of your posts as your attitude that's pissing people off. Your posts are full of uncontroversial shit everyone already knows only couched in wannabe academic wankspeak. Sure, you throw in the odd bit of trendy bollocks to keep us on our toes but the most notable thing about you is the banality of your posts, they're not edgy and controversial as you clearly want to believe.

I have said repeatedly I know I'm not saying anything new but people immediately took issue with the content of my posts - this was probably because of the tone, but the actual content was disputed even if most people would have agreed with it in a different framing. What I took issue with - and why I have been confrontational - is the fascist grooming stuff - and it is fascist, and dangerous, and I was pissed off by the relatively muted response to it; it was criticised but with less vitriol than others were- mostly but not in every instance deservedly in my case, not at all for others. (I haven't called anyone who didn't say that shit fascist)

the weird geographic determinism stuff or whatever can be dealt with by you lot
 
I have said repeatedly I know I'm not saying anything new but people immediately took issue with the content of my posts - this was probably because of the tone, but the actual content was disputed even if most people would have agreed with it in a different framing. What I took issue with - and why I have been confrontational - is the fascist grooming stuff - and it is fascist, and dangerous, and I was pissed off by the relatively muted response to it; it was criticised but with less vitriol than others were- mostly but not in every instance deservedly in my case, not at all for others. (I haven't called anyone who didn't say that shit fascist)

the weird geographic determinism stuff or whatever can be dealt with by you lot
This is what happens when you rub people up the wrong way. Sort out your attitude or you're just going to alienate everyone, even those sympathetic to your viewpoint.

You look like an ignorant child with a critical studies thesaurus from where I'm standing.

You're also an absolute gift to the alt right. You fit their stereotype of detached from reality lefty snowflake to a tee.
 
If humans had remained as nomads with free movement throughout a borderless world... think how different things would be now?
Well there would be far fewer of us, for one thing, and we wouldn't be communicating by computer. This seems a romanticisation of the past, though. Hunter-gatherer societies were constantly in conflict with one another, jealously guarding valuable territories, etc. It's hard to see exactly how things were then, but a glimpse of the ethnographies of the Papua New Guinea Highlands suggests a very different picture from this - if you lived there, you needed to be very careful indeed where you wandered. I don't like citing Steven Pinker because I think he is often full of shit, but he's right when he points out that there has never been less violence in society than now. tbh there's probably also never been a more universal recognition of the humanhood of all humans on the planet than now.
 
This is what happens when you rub people up the wrong way. Sort out your attitude or you're just going to alienate everyone, even those sympathetic to your viewpoint.

You look like an ignorant child with a critical studies thesaurus from where I'm standing.

You're also an absolute gift to the alt right. You fit their stereotype of detached from reality lefty snowflake to a tee.

yeah and this is also why I'm not bothering with niceties. I'm not going to sort my attitude out, I'm fine with people i care about. I don't need to win people over, I'm not a leninist or whatever. I don't give a shit what the alt right thinks of me and letting the enemy determine the rules of the game is capitulation. I have received fair criticism but I don't moderate my tone, I'm not trying to ingratiate myself. in conclusion fuck the gammon left
 
Well there would be far fewer of us, for one thing, and we wouldn't be communicating by computer. This seems a romanticisation of the past, though. Hunter-gatherer societies were constantly in conflict with one another, jealously guarding valuable territories, etc. It's hard to see exactly how things were then, but a glimpse of the ethnographies of the Papua New Guinea Highlands suggests a very different picture from this - if you lived there, you needed to be very careful indeed where you wandered. I don't like citing Steven Pinker because I think he is often full of shit, but he's right when he points out that there has never been less violence in society than now. tbh there's probably also never been a more universal recognition of the humanhood of all humans on the planet than now.

Fair points..
 
You're also an absolute gift to the alt right. You fit their stereotype of detached from reality lefty snowflake to a tee.

917bDYmRwQL._UX385_.jpg
 
yeah and this is also why I'm not bothering with niceties. I'm not going to sort my attitude out, I'm fine with people i care about. I don't need to win people over, I'm not a leninist or whatever. I don't give a shit what the alt right thinks of me and letting the enemy determine the rules of the game is capitulation. I have received fair criticism but I don't moderate my tone, I'm not trying to ingratiate myself. in conclusion fuck the gammon left
i don't care about you sorting your attitude out, but you might want to sort your politics out.
 
Fair points..
As a point of interest, this was in New Scientist recently. After the invention of agriculture, but long before modern nation states and the idea of national borders.

Every man in Spain was wiped out 4500 years ago by hostile invaders

But that’s not the complete story. The team found a dramatic shift in the Y-chromosomes, which are only carried by males. “There’s a complete Y-chromosome replacement,” Reich said. The original males’ DNA vanished from the gene pool. “That means males coming in had preferential access to local females, again and again and again,” Reich said.

This looks like a violent conquest, in which an invading army killed or enslaved the local males and took the local females for their own. “The collision of these two populations was not a friendly one, not an equal one, but one where the males from outside were displacing local males and did so almost completely,” Reich said.

So post-hunter-gatherers (and patriarchy already in full force), but 4,500 years ago.
 
Back
Top Bottom