Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)GY
Posts
14
Comments
1,226
Joined
1 yr. ago

  • Holy fucking shit. I almost was exposed to a swear word on the Internet by some asshole cunt. That bitch didn't know it's fucking illegal to swear on the Internet. Thank fucking god someone blurred a very small part of there of five letters making it impossible to read the word "shit". I was about to shit a fucking brick.

    fuck

  • I didn't say the theories are racist, I said they are founded in racism.

    A large amount of the ancient aliens stuff stems from Chariots of the Gods? by Erich Von Daniken, who is very clearly racist.

    If we look to von Däniken’s work, there can be little doubt that his racial beliefs influenced his extraterrestrial theories. After a short stint in jail for fraud and either writing or appropriating the material for a number of other books that developed his ancient astronauts theory, von Däniken published Signs of the Gods? in 1979. It is here that many of his racial views are most boldly stated. British archaeology officer Keith Fitzpatrick-Matthews points out on his Bad Archaeology blog just a few of the many racist questions and statements posed by the author: “Was the black race a failure and did the extraterrestrials change the genetic code by gene surgery and then programme a white or a yellow race?” He also printed beliefs about the innate talents of certain races: “Nearly all negroes are musical; they have rhythm in their blood.” Von Däniken also consistently uses the term “negroid race” in comparison with “Caucasians.”

    https://hyperallergic.com/470795/pseudoarchaeology-and-the-racism-behind-ancient-aliens/

  • Ah yes, the "splurdge" part of the article, a word everyone knows as a very technical term that's used for filling in for an inability to articulate an actual line of logic. Instead of logic, just explain that "I don't like the conclusion of the article, so it must be wrong somehow even though I can't explain why."

    It's also important for people to chime in that an article must be wrong because it just "feels wrong". Of course don't actually provide any reasoning for it, because why would that be necessary?

    Don't forget how useful it is to ask a question, completely ignoring that the article addresses it. Don't even bring it up in the questioning. When someone points that out, then the best strategy is to lash out at them, because they were such a big meanie by pointing out the obvious problem of not reading the article.

    Lemmy communities are all about feelings, not information!

    Oh, also I took a screenshot of your comment because I knew you were going to edit it.