This kills the /pol/edditor

>doesn't realize I'm a /pol/faggot too
>doesn't realize everyone he replied to is a /pol/faggot
>doesn't realize he himself is a /pol/faggot without knowing it
/pol/ is everywhere, even places it is not.

another authentic nerd moment

>By ideologues who haven't read it, yes
Acemoglu and Fukuyama?

Is there an actual argument against geographical determinism or just /pol/ reeeeing?

>whiteness isn't inherently good or bad

I'm okay with this. Don't blame white people. Blame geography.

Well, everything I disagree with is /pol/ reeeeing, so probably not

Not really. /pol/tards are scum, but I don't think GG&S does a good job of refuting them. Jared Diamond clearly started out with the fixed assumption that races are equal, and then spent a bunch of time backing up that assumption with speculations. It isn't really a free investigation into the truth of things.

Cont...
Although to be fair, I haven't read the book in years. Maybe I'm misremembering something.

This stands on the assumption that all humans were equal, blank slates who exploited the geographical resources around them to create unequal civilizations. If he weren't a subversive Jew he would have written that humans developed unequally because of geography and exploited the resources around them creating unequal civilizations.

Equality is a lie.

Geographic determinism is embraced by /pol/ if you don't come at it with the assumption that all humans are equal. Which makes no fucking sense why JD would come at it from that perspective. The only way his theory makes any sense is by coming at it from a biblical sense in that humans were created fully developed and only came to be unequal due to the geographical resources in their settled areas.

The conclusions drawn from the model of geographic determinism still work if you factor in biological differences in ethnic groups. Conversely, these biological differences alone don't do much to explain the historical development of said groups.
I can only assume Diamond approached the model from a perspective of perfect human equality to either more clearly delineate the roles geographical elements play in the deterministic process, or to avoid being labeled a race realist (which, hoo boy did that backfire)

Veeky Forums rapes this book all day. Don't bother trying to get critique from these kids. I bet they liked the book for its prose.

Its basically a worse version of determism, for obvious reasons.

Also, remember that blacks having less intelligence can be true even if Jared is 100% correct.

I would post a pic of a zebra being ridden with the caption "this kills the il/lit/erate" but I can't be arsed to.

Zebras aren't domesticated animals.

Veeky Forums probably knows more about history than most Veeky Forums posters do t b h

>2 lines
>2 posts
did you forget you weren't on twatter or something?

He's most likely one of the shills from yesterday.

The institutional argument. Diamond can explain why Spain conquered the new world, but he can't explain why Congo is hell on earth but Botswana is relatively functional. Inclusive vs exclusive institutions does.

This is true, but also that book is shit, almost as shit as the city of Veeky Forums

>Diamond
Really fires up them neurons, thanks greatest ally

>biblical sense
If that's what you got from Genesis...

Jared Diamond didn't blame white people. he blamed geography. you haven't read it, have you?

That was what surprised me about that book. It seemed to be written to refute the idea that genes determine history- but afaik nobody had seriously argued that for many decades- it's /pol/ meme territory.

On the other hand, I guess evolutionary psychology etc might be bringing some of that stuff back, so maybe that's what he was after. Still felt like a weird anachronistic strawman to me.

...

He's attributing Europe's success to geography and not to Europeans, and, say, Aborigine Australia's failures to geography and not to Aborigines.

This new, progressive narrative really tilts the pool table in a more thinky-making direction. It's like getting your world rocked in a rabbinic debate - such clever use of definitions, shuffling cause and effect like cards. Such chutzpah.

>Jared Diamond's pseudoscientific sociological nonsense BTFO in a single image

>He's attributing Europe's success to geography and not to Europeans, and, say, Aborigine Australia's failures to geography and not to Aborigines.

From what I remember he doesn't attribute "success" or "failures" at all in such an opinionated way.

Aboriginal peoples failures were primarily that they were isolated for many many years and as a result had very little technology or disease resistance, otherwise they would have continued to live rather nice lives in what was essentially an abundant paradise of seafood and wallaby meat.