Your link goes to the page for the genus “homo”, not to the page for “human,” which starts:
Modern humans (Homo sapiens primarily ssp. Homo sapiens sapiens)...
i.e. neanderthals are not normally included. The word can have different shades of meaning, but it is quite standard to use “human” to refer to homo sapiens sapiens. I didn’t want to quote the precise bile spewed by Mr. Beale, as it doesn’t seem relevant, but you can find what he actually wrote in the link above.
But look, in what sense is that relevant? Beale’s remark is offensive and trollish regardless of whether the word “human” fairly encompasses neanderthals. It’s not the technical truth-value of the claim that causes objections, it’s that it’s phrased offensively, tendentiously, is irrelevant to the question, is false by implicature (and other objections too). That’s what makes it trolling.
Your link goes to the page for the genus “homo”, not to the page for “human,” which starts:
But, of course, if you go to the disambiguation page), it points to the genus (that I linked) as another use of the word.
That’s what makes it trolling.
I agree that “trolling” describes a person’s intention more cleanly than it describes a claim’s truth, but the claim’s truth remains more important to me than whether or not the claim-maker is trolling.
I didn’t want to quote the precise bile spewed by Mr. Beale, as it doesn’t seem relevant, but you can find what he actually wrote in the link above.
So, I went and looked it up. You do realize that he is complaining that she doesn’t have enough Neanderthal admixture, right? (But even then, I don’t think species-level distinctions capture his true point, so much as the selective pressures of living in civilization / the slow change of cultures.)
Well, but that’s not true, since Neanderthals are human.
Your link goes to the page for the genus “homo”, not to the page for “human,” which starts:
i.e. neanderthals are not normally included. The word can have different shades of meaning, but it is quite standard to use “human” to refer to homo sapiens sapiens. I didn’t want to quote the precise bile spewed by Mr. Beale, as it doesn’t seem relevant, but you can find what he actually wrote in the link above.
But look, in what sense is that relevant? Beale’s remark is offensive and trollish regardless of whether the word “human” fairly encompasses neanderthals. It’s not the technical truth-value of the claim that causes objections, it’s that it’s phrased offensively, tendentiously, is irrelevant to the question, is false by implicature (and other objections too). That’s what makes it trolling.
But, of course, if you go to the disambiguation page), it points to the genus (that I linked) as another use of the word.
I agree that “trolling” describes a person’s intention more cleanly than it describes a claim’s truth, but the claim’s truth remains more important to me than whether or not the claim-maker is trolling.
So, I went and looked it up. You do realize that he is complaining that she doesn’t have enough Neanderthal admixture, right? (But even then, I don’t think species-level distinctions capture his true point, so much as the selective pressures of living in civilization / the slow change of cultures.)