Read on Twitter
Washington Post: "Are you a morning person? You may be a Neanderthal descendant."
An absolutely amazing example of how liberals need to compartmentalize to avoid wrongthink on race, and how little sense their worldview makes.
As the title implies, the article points to scientific evidence that Eurasian interbreeding with Neanderthals made certain individuals more likely to get up early in the morning.
But wait a minute!
Isn't this a racial difference? Something that Eurasians have that people in sub-Saharan Africa don't? Wouldn't this have serious implications for say, economic development, if some countries are composed of more "morning people" than other countries?
The Post matter of factly reports that the genes involved were selected for at higher latitudes. Surely, this can't be the only thing that was selected for. Why would you suspect that? So if you're acknowledging evolution favored the selection of one trait, why not many others? How could this possibly have no effect on social outcomes, like socio-economic status, crime rates, school achievement, etc?
No one is saying the media needs to assume these differences are genetic, rather the official line is that there is no way that inherent differences between populations have any social relevance. As they acknowledge, this can't possibly be right.
Every other page of the paper tells us that every racial difference that we see is explained by discrimination or white supremacy. But go to the science page, and they matter of factedly tell you that different races are in part *different species*, having incorporated new traits and propensities through interbreeding and natural selection.
How do they maintain all of this in their heads at the same time?
An absolutely amazing example of how liberals need to compartmentalize to avoid wrongthink on race, and how little sense their worldview makes.
As the title implies, the article points to scientific evidence that Eurasian interbreeding with Neanderthals made certain individuals more likely to get up early in the morning.
But wait a minute!
Isn't this a racial difference? Something that Eurasians have that people in sub-Saharan Africa don't? Wouldn't this have serious implications for say, economic development, if some countries are composed of more "morning people" than other countries?
The Post matter of factly reports that the genes involved were selected for at higher latitudes. Surely, this can't be the only thing that was selected for. Why would you suspect that? So if you're acknowledging evolution favored the selection of one trait, why not many others? How could this possibly have no effect on social outcomes, like socio-economic status, crime rates, school achievement, etc?
No one is saying the media needs to assume these differences are genetic, rather the official line is that there is no way that inherent differences between populations have any social relevance. As they acknowledge, this can't possibly be right.
Every other page of the paper tells us that every racial difference that we see is explained by discrimination or white supremacy. But go to the science page, and they matter of factedly tell you that different races are in part *different species*, having incorporated new traits and propensities through interbreeding and natural selection.
How do they maintain all of this in their heads at the same time?
Check out the article for yourself, and tell me how it's consistent with every other thing you're suppose to believe about race to be a good person. washingtonpost.com/wellness/2023/…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
