@Godsend @DiamondMind @Economic_Hitman @GhostOfMoshe @JVKO @Mombi @NonPlayableClown @SilverDeth @TheBoonieGhoul @VaxxSabbath @bonifartius @ceo_of_monoeye_dating @ceooffuggy @dcc @dorkvalized @fish @fluffy @freemayonnaise @ins0mniak @ins0mniak @mrsaturday @pista @pwm @rebootbrain @samwise @sicp @sj_zero @takao @tsubo @w0rm @yaboisugoi @yomiel

> There were no Palestinian Arabs in the Levant then; there are now. That’s a big demographic shift.

Actually it is not. What is generally meant by "Arab" is cultural and not literally descended from the Arabian peninsula. (What is generally meant by "A-rab" should be obvious.). So, let's say you mean genetics The genes in what you refer to as "Palestinian Arabs" came from the ancient Levant, for the most part, and there's way more genetic similarity between Palestinians and the bones buried under the Levant there is between them and people from the Arabian peninsula. It's the same case for an Egyptian Arab or a Moroccan Arab.

That aside, "All of these people were black and now they aren't!" would leave a goddamn trail. You dig up bones, you find Bronze Age Levantine guys, you get a few stray Anatolian or Mesopotamian or Mediterranean chromosomes.

> There were no Eastern European Jewish proselytes with, what is it, J haplogroups in the Levant back then

Did anyone say Jesus was European? The hell does this have to do with anything?

At any rate, the J haplogroup is Middle Eastern; it wouldn't show up in the Kaifeng Jews otherwise, but it does. (The origin of J1 is Iraqi Kurds, at any rate.)

> How is it that your write some that sounds so smart, but you don’t steelman it with obvious “unit tests”?

If you write a test, you don't test for "what if some idiot bashes the computer with a hammer", you test for "what if I have fucked up". So I didn't attempt to answer things that are obviously absurd. If someone asks me the ERP of a transmitter, I do the math rather than trying to start with an explanation that radio waves are not witchcraft; everything would take forever if you couldn't speak without first accounting for any idiot idea that may pop into any of the 8 billion idiots' heads. So when the thread looks like it is jokes, I say "A-rab looking", which is obviously not a remark about haplotypes, but you seize on that even after clarification: I don't typically account for someone thinking they've proved black Jesus based on a joke when I make a joke, I generally tend to think "Is this funny?" You didn't remark on the other half of the sentence, which was "Which scientist made the motherfuckers in this thread?" because the post was obviously a joke and the use of "A-rab" rather than "Arab" should have made it obviously facetious.

I should ask you the same, though: why is it that you tug at obviously stupid threads--not even attached to the sweater--and completely fail to address the actual point? You dodge, you latch onto an example and ignore all of the counterexamples, you treat ridiculous shit as evidence. That painting of Napoleon in full dress uniform charging over the Alps in a white stallion, you know not to take literally: he was wearing a field uniform, they rode mules over the Alps so as not to injure the horses, and odds are good that he had a couple of blankets on. Stained glass is even less literal, but somehow it "proves" black Jesus instead of Levantine Jesus; they have paintings of white Jesus and Chinese Jesus and all kinds of Jesuses.

> Your assertion “DNA studies…levantine people substantially genetically the same” is easily and provably false without hardly any research.

"Hardly any research" seems very popular, but I think "Youtube and Tiktok" are a rung below that.
this_is_a_painting_and_all_paintings_are_basically_photographs_but_slower--zero_symbolism.jpg