I never get tired of 'em. I know we've discussed this before. I know the process is ongoing, not necessarily based on a single event, and depends a lot on your position in society. If discussing the radicalization of others, don't mention any methods unless people specifically told you that certain things radicalized them.
For me, I was a left-liberal for most of my life. Long story short, I ran in a state senate election trying to be as friendly to everyone as possible. The one thing I really wouldn't budge on was universal health care, since I knew from experience that it worked. I lost my election BADLY to a guy who ran on no platform at all, although he had much better name recognition. I worked so hard on that campaign and really was devastated and had to look for answers. Stupid as it sounds, at around that time I found the r/chapotraphouse subreddit and started listening to the podcast. That led to me listening to much better podcasts (like Revleft Radio), reading actual theory, and giving up on the Chapo podcast entirely once Bernie lost the last primary.
I'm always trying to radicalize others but I just usually get nowhere. George Floyd's death plus coronavirus I think resulted in a lot of people reconsidering things, but it seems like many of them have kind of swung back in the other direction now, at least as far as I can tell from watching my friends on Facebook. I've been arguing with my lib dad for months about all of this shit, with the result that he has actually gotten much better at deflecting Marxist points than the average lib lol. Sometimes I can get him to admit that everything is fucked and that Marxism is the only answer, at other times he'll say that we need to make friends with local business owners (some of the worst fucking people in the universe) and not alienate them.
Anyway, if you feel like writing your radicalization story or the radicalization stories of others, I'm happy to read.
If you’re interested in sharing some sources I’d like to take a look.
I can't give you a really good source because there is basically no source that explains this stuff at a basic level accessible to laymen. The ones that do (pop science rags) omit key facts or spin stuff in order to appeal to European bias.
For example, every time a thing gets found in Europe, there's a new "HUMANS MIGHT HAVE ORIGINATED IN EUROPE" headline, because the hordes of chuds want to see the African origin of Homo sapiens denounced. So the popsci rags tacitly spin things in order to get more chud views.
I've been thinking about making a website or youtube channel or something along those lines, but there's a problem.
The problem is that I would be pointing out a lot of eurocentrism/eurocope, which turns off white people in general.
But at the same time, I would be talking about genes, anthropology, ancestry as a genetic construct, and I think that turns off leftists in general. So effectively my material would cockblock me from my two main audiences
Do it anyway
Gotta retake the domain somehow, you're the man for the job
Yeah, I've been working on my video editing skills. I know that I have to be the change I wish to see in this world.
I meant it as a problem that must be overcome, didn't mean to sound defeatist and say that I'm explicitly not doing it because of that.
So to look at this a bit more closely:
It seems like as long as you very clearly delineate the original intent of race science--and point out the certain figures like Charles Darwin and Franz Boas, the gods of their fields, were anti-racist, you'll make headway. Further, if you point out the flaws of popular ideas of race science and re-establish it as something more factual and more 'neutral,' you'll get through to them.
Liberals love science as an aesthetic already. You're halfway there.
Charles Darwin wasn't an anti-racist though, unless I'm severly mistaking something. I remember many explicitly racist passages from darwin
I do believe that a minority of the work done by race "scientists" of the 1800s-1900s may have been legitimate, but it's very hard to tell which those are. Additionally, even if the work was unbiased a huge deal of it is confounded by environmentally changeable variables (for instance just getting proper food causes North Koreans to shoot up from 5'4" to 5'9" in just two generations--even though there's still a huge lack of calcium even in the South Korean diet)
Not anti-racist, you're right--I was thinking anti-slavery. But you get the idea.
It doesn’t turn me off at all. I find it all fascinating. Have you heard of Richard Lewontin or Christopher Caudwell? They both have a lot to say about this.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Chao_Ning4/publication/334706747/figure/fig2/AS:784900378607616@1564146241938/PCA-and-ADMIXTURE-Analysis-for-Shirenzigou-Samples-We-projected-the-ancient-data-in-this.png
Comparison of ancient and modern DNA. Each color is a genetically distinct group. (Of course, genetic variation is a spectrum gradient--but at the same time there were localized periods of stark isolation and small population size which formed highly distinct gene patterns, which we know as "ancestry")
Notice that the geographically peripheral peoples (Nganassan Siberians, or Atayal Taiwanese Indigenous) have solid colors, meaning they have comparatively "purer" genes, aka less recent mixing.
Meanwhile the larger and interior populations (Han, French, Mongol) have multiple colors, meaning recently mixed ancestries.
Some of these are ancient samples, and come up as mostly solid colors.
WHG = "Western Hunter Gatherer", from France 9000 years ago. Solid yellow.
Anatolia_N = "Anatolia Neolithic", farmers from Anatolia 8000 years ago. Solid green.
"French" are a mix of yellow and green--meaning they are a mix of indigenous Western Hunter Gatherers, and Anatolian farmers. Functionally, this means that French people are half Middle Eastern, and half European.