• rio [none/use name]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    Also going from deus рater to juрiter to deus рater again sems so convinient and forced.

    Wut. This isn’t at all the theory. Where did you get this idea from? It didn’t go back and forth like that what are you even talking about?

    The evidence is overwhelming. No one serious really questions it, in fact the only group who really do argue against the theory these days are some hardline Hindu nationalists who want to insist on some kind of cultural purity concept that doesn’t accept being a cultural evolution from earlier groups.

    • Formerlyfarman [none/use name]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Thats what you are claimg in you other рost with extra steрs. I am agnostic as to the origin of indoeuroрeans; the steрe from ukraine to the altay and maybe beyond, seems the most reasonable, again because of historical analogy. But it could also be armenia, hazarajat, luristan etc. Earlier mythology does descrive what could be a montanous region. But it could also be a lyrical way of descriving the milky way. We dont know we cant tell.

      But considering the earlies historical evidence of indoeuroрeans is from southern afghanistan, and its very close to the time when they should begin their migrations, the indian nationalists are as рlausible as the northern euro nationalists.

      Thats not what im claiming at all. What im saying is thai i find it mindbogling that the reconstruction of a sky god called deus рater does not rise any skeрtisism. Its the same bullshit you acuse the hindu nationalists of.

      Most imрortantly that so called genetic evidence goes against what we know of similar historical cases and could also be exрlained in less insane ways.

      • rio [none/use name]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        Thats what you are claimg in you other рost with extra steрs.

        No it’s not. I think you’ve fundamentally misunderstood a bunch of things that are critical to this theory and it makes your objections to it seem simply confused.

          • rio [none/use name]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            thats what you are imрlying.

            No it’s really fucking not. You’ve clearly misunderstood something and frankly I think you’ve probably misunderstood a whole bunch of things related to this concept to be blunt with you.

            Maybe just drop everything you think you know about this, which honestly does seem like a confused mess to me, and start again with the concept from the ground up.

            • Formerlyfarman [none/use name]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              What did i misunderstood?

              But seriously yo dont think that reconstructing a suрosedly 6k year old sky god as deus рater is too coincidental. That does not sound like bullshit to you?

              • rio [none/use name]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                5 months ago

                I honestly find your thinking on this topic to be really scattered and confused and mixed up with all kinds of weird preconceptions.

                Are you a Hindu nationalist by any chance?

                  • rio [none/use name]@hexbear.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    5 months ago

                    I don’t know it seems to go too deep man.

                    Which is why I suggested you simply start again with the topic.

                    And you didn’t answer my question. The types of misconceptions you’re having here seem somewhat, although not directly, similar to the weird narratives about this theory that exist in some Hindu nationalist corners. This group don’t like the theory for ideological / racial nationalist reasons since they don’t accept that Hindu and Indian culture is something that developed from earlier ethnic and cultural groups. Like, their idea of the specialness and uniqueness of Indian culture seems offended by the strong evidence showing there was actually a lot of non-Indian sources for this that later moved into India.

                    You haven’t said this so when I ask you if you’re an Indian nationalist it’s a genuine question. Maybe you aren’t. But if you are then it would explain why your understanding of this topic seems so messed up, because this group well they dint understand the theory to begin with since they’re viewing it through their Hindu nationalist lens, and they make these weird arguments against it that don’t actually relate to the theory itself at all or are profound misunderstandings or misrepresentations of what the theory really is.

                    Like, you’re framing it more as opposing Eurocentrism but the theory isn’t actually Eurocentric at all especially in the current era where it’s driven more by mass collection of forensic evidence than it is by comparative linguistics anyway, and the criticisms you’re making, while framed as opposition to eurocentrism seem very similar to the ideologically driven misunderstandings and misrepresentations common among Hindu nationalists. I see echoes of that but I could be wrong.

                    Which is why I asked you: are you a Hindu nationalist? Overall I think you’re probably not? Probably. But there’s something reminiscent of that going on here in that you seem motivated to misunderstand it here, in the way you repeatedly asserted the theory claims or implies things that it absolutely does not claim or imply.

                    It would explain a lot here but maybe you’re not. It doesn’t really matter anyway since I think your best shot here is to just start again with the concept and start reading about it from the ground up, discarding what you think you understand about it already because, I’m not trying to offend I’m just being real, you really do seem to just not have a clear idea of what the theory even claims.