Human beings have a degree of Neanderthal genetic admixture.
However, if, during an argument about politics and science fiction, this were phrased as:
You are not fully human.
This would be offensive trolling, for all of the above reasons. Especially if the victim were a member of a racial minority historically treated badly. “Haha all I meant was Neanderthal DNA, you hate science,” doesn’t save the statement, it just extends the troll. This is not because people are upset about an “uncomfortable truth,” but because the speaker is being a jackass.
And indeed, that quote is itself trolling. It is a favourite troll tactic to claim to be just a persecuted truth-teller! And surely if you know anything about Vox Day, you would know that he is one of the Internet’s leading trolls, who takes great delight in upsetting his ideological enemies, and no, not merely by “speaking truth to power.” Which makes me suspicious of your motives in posting this here.
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.)
Vox Day
Or because it’s delivered offensively.
Or because it’s phrased tendentiously.
Or because it’s irrelevant.
Or because it’s false by implicature.
And so on.
For example, the following statement is true:
However, if, during an argument about politics and science fiction, this were phrased as:
This would be offensive trolling, for all of the above reasons. Especially if the victim were a member of a racial minority historically treated badly. “Haha all I meant was Neanderthal DNA, you hate science,” doesn’t save the statement, it just extends the troll. This is not because people are upset about an “uncomfortable truth,” but because the speaker is being a jackass.
And indeed, that quote is itself trolling. It is a favourite troll tactic to claim to be just a persecuted truth-teller! And surely if you know anything about Vox Day, you would know that he is one of the Internet’s leading trolls, who takes great delight in upsetting his ideological enemies, and no, not merely by “speaking truth to power.” Which makes me suspicious of your motives in posting this here.
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.)