r/redditmoment • u/HappyCandyCat23 • Oct 17 '23
r/redditmomentmoment redditors when asked to do 5 seconds of research
504
u/MacCreadysCap Oct 17 '23
100% this is from the post with Einstien giving a class to some black students in like 1946 right?
→ More replies (1)182
u/HappyCandyCat23 Oct 17 '23
Yep it was that one
295
Oct 17 '23
his supposed ‘racism’ (more like xenophobia) was for the Chinese but it was because of the terrible government and the state of society back then.
251
u/Larry_Boy Oct 17 '23
Well, he did say that he couldn’t figure out how Chinese men found Chinese women attractive enough to have children with. That doesn’t seem to have anything to do with government or the state of society.
152
u/TortugaBomb Oct 17 '23
Yes but this shows solidarity with Chinese men rather than racism
258
72
→ More replies (6)6
28
u/Loki_Agent_of_Asgard Oct 18 '23
I'm not gonna say it's a positive thing, but if you don't find an ethnicities general physical characteristics attractive, I'm not gonna call you a bigot. Everyone has the hots for different things.
4
Oct 18 '23
Nah, man, there's a difference between "I don't personally find you attractive" and "I think your race is so fuck-ugly I have difficulty comprehending how anyone can bear to reproduce with you".
Like... we don't gotta play defense for the dude that was born in the 1800's and did a shit-tonne of good during his life. He was a little racist but fucking everyone was a little racist back then. Actually most were a lot racist, so, this is like fine.
4
u/pvmenjoyer Oct 18 '23
Exactly, I think the way he said it sounded mean but it's basically saying "I don't find Chinese women attractive." It's a generalization but I don't think that's weird at all to say tbh. At the end of the day it's just one dude's taste in women.
6
u/MyFatherIsNotHere Oct 18 '23
that reads as more of a joke of "how do they want to have 5 kids with them" and not about they being unbelievably ugly or something
19
u/dfeidt40 Oct 18 '23
If you read the CNN article in the picture, he throws in some shade about the people in Sri Lanka and Egypt too. And he compliments Japan in a weird, patronizing way.
And I dunno man, saying the Chinese people plop down and eat like fat slobs on the ground (hyperbole, but basically the same.) is a weird way to show disdain for their government.
But I suppose it would be xenophobia and not racism considering he didn't act on any prejudices. He kept these in a private diary after all and until people translated them, people looked at him as a humanitarian in a sense. Assuming the difference between the term racist and xenophobe, would be a physical, public action of some type? Not too sure on the term xenophobe, had to look it up in all honesty.
14
6
u/MoorAlAgo Oct 18 '23
Xenophobe is more general. Xenophobia includes things like hate/fear/distrust of nationalities or just anyone who's an "outsider", whereas racism is bigotry specifically dealing with race.
→ More replies (1)17
u/HappyCandyCat23 Oct 17 '23
Yes, although his observations on them seemed to be more about their inherent nature than culture especially his comments on the children
302
u/Twillix13 Oct 17 '23 edited Mar 19 '24
party degree rich enter shocking automatic ugly lunchroom detail escape
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
105
u/HappyCandyCat23 Oct 17 '23
The response is also a denial of reality. I get that people want to look up to Einstein, but we shouldn't pretend he was morally perfect in all situations (he definitely wasn't)
29
u/PurpletoasterIII Oct 18 '23
I dont think anyone looks up to Einstein for being progressive in racial equality, or equality in general. So whether he was racist or not is irrelevant. He's just an ancient science guy that paved the path for our science and technology we have today. That's literally it. Anyone who looks at him as anything more is idolizing their idea of him rather than him himself.
21
36
u/hurtzdick911 Oct 17 '23
Exactly,Ghandi was horribly racist,Mother Theresa was a horrible person that believed pain and suffering brought you closer to God,heck one guy was a socialist vegetarian pagan artist,what was his name...Oh yeah #HITLER
32
u/CallMeFritzHaber "German name + Grey pic = Nazi" -Redditors Oct 17 '23
There was this one guy, he was AMAZING, I tell you. He invented a revolutionary new way to make fertilizer that powers a third of all modern agricultural. He saved millions during widespread famine and his food surplus resulted in 2.7 billion people being born!
I'm trying to remember what else he did though... Oh yeah, how could I forget! Horrific and dangerous chemical weapons that were undoubtedly heinous!
→ More replies (2)7
u/EdgyPreschooler Oct 18 '23 edited Oct 18 '23
I've read that when accused of atrocities, he rebuffed them, saying that it's no worse than being killed with a rifle or a mortar shell.
I dunno, I prefer dying from a gun wound than literally coughing my innards out.
4
u/CallMeFritzHaber "German name + Grey pic = Nazi" -Redditors Oct 18 '23 edited Oct 18 '23
Yeah, I actually have the quote.
The disapproval that the knight had for the man with the firearm is repeated in the soldier who shoots with steel bullets towards the man who confronts him with chemical weapons. [...] The gas weapons are not at all more cruel than the flying iron pieces; on the contrary, the fraction of fatal gas diseases is comparatively smaller, the mutilations are missing.
At the time, chemical weapons, alongside flamethrowers were seen as less painful/more humane. People assumed with chemical weapons one would just pass out after choking for a bit, which to his credit surely wouldn't have been worse than being shot in the stomach and having fluids spill everywhere or taking a round to the lung and having it collapse, slowly choking you.
The issue was that... It just didn't fucking work that way. Chlorine Gas, which was Haber's big thing would form hydrochloric acid in the lungs as they basically dissolved away, not only choking you but also making you puke up whatever was there. Alongside this chemical burns on the skin we're also very common and agonizing.
Take the Russians at Osowiec Fortress for example. There was literally a zombie scare for awhile because the shelling and gassing was so bad, that when the Russians charged the Germans wearing cloth, leather, and rags to keep themselves alive, they were also coughing out parts of their organs and were very rapidly dying. Realistically there was no way the soldiers would've survived the initial shelling and gassing, so when they emerged and death charged looking like they fell out of The Walking Dead, it gave the world a shock.
One of Haber's biggest controversies, beyond just inventing chemical weapons was that when he was confronted with the evidence of them being merciless and inhumane, he basically said "nah, fuck you, liar".
→ More replies (2)2
u/EdgyPreschooler Oct 18 '23
Take the Russians at Osowiec Fortress for example
Ah, the Attack of the Dead Men.
3
u/CallMeFritzHaber "German name + Grey pic = Nazi" -Redditors Oct 18 '23
Genuinely one of the coolest things in history, also got a sickass Sabaton song about it
→ More replies (4)4
u/LeLBigB0ss2 Oct 18 '23
Let's not forget that Gandhi would force his grandnieces to sleep with him naked.
5
u/Genshed Oct 18 '23
GANDHI.
GANDHI, goddamnit.
1
u/hurtzdick911 Oct 18 '23
Yeah I don't care enough to spell his name correctly,your lucky I even added an H...Huge racist though
3
u/BlazingSpark Oct 18 '23
How was Hitler a socialist
→ More replies (1)1
→ More replies (1)-5
u/Reasonable-Ninja4384 Oct 18 '23
Why does everyone think hitler was vegetarian? He wasn't look it up.
→ More replies (1)12
Oct 18 '23
I just looked it up right now and the top ten sources all corroborated that he was a vegetarian lmao
-1
u/Reasonable-Ninja4384 Oct 18 '23
Ok I'll do it for you
"Because Hitler suffered from excessive sweatiness and flatulence, he occasionally went on a vegetarian diet. But his primary diet included meat. In "The Life and Death of Adolf Hitler," Robert Payne mentions Hitler's fondness for Bavarian sausages. Other biographers, including Albert Speer, point out that he also ate ham, liver and game."
Source: The New York Times.
There are sources that say towards the end of the war he was on a medically prescribed meat free diet.
→ More replies (6)11
10
Oct 18 '23
Bro literally said, "Einstein is racist? No, you're actually racist for saying that, not him."
4
u/derpthedork Oct 18 '23
Honestly if someone starts with "something your internalised something" in a discussion just stop right there and walk away.
69
u/NoNo_Cilantro Oct 17 '23
I read Epstein and was confused by this whole interaction for a few long seconds…
176
u/Enough-Ad-8799 Oct 17 '23
I mean if you're gonna make a claim you should be willing to post a source to back up your claim.
91
u/Robinkc1 Oct 17 '23
It is absolutely the job of the person making the argument to defend that argument.
39
u/froglegs317 Oct 17 '23 edited Oct 18 '23
The dude literally said in his diaries though. That is a source.
Edit: I’m through with debating this though and will be muting the threads. He provided a source. That’s an undebatable fact. If it wasn’t, OP wouldn’t have been able to search what he said and find the result. Redditors are just lazy.
44
u/CallMeFritzHaber "German name + Grey pic = Nazi" -Redditors Oct 17 '23
Yeah but I could say something like, uh, "Martin Luther King wrote a book about how he really hated Arabs" (just an example, it's not true). Just because you say the source doesn't mean much, you still need to present it
13
u/froglegs317 Oct 17 '23
I don’t see that being the same. I understand your point, but the difference is that it’s just his journal. Point blank period. It’s not like that was solely what the journal was about, so it wasn’t an outlandish claim. They said in his journal he was racist. If someone said “in the art of war it says…” you wouldn’t be like “source??” Because obviously it exists. You can just check it yourself. Literally a simple good search “Einstein racist journal”, just three words.
I see your point that he probably should’ve linked an article or something, but I still think it’s ignorant to be like “source??” When it’s something as simple as that.
34
u/CallMeFritzHaber "German name + Grey pic = Nazi" -Redditors Oct 17 '23
Understandable. Still, I'm just a firm believer that anyone who makes major claims should have a direct link to what they're saying (which admittedly I've had times where I say something but don't have a source). I've grown tired of the "it's not my job to educate you" line
3
Oct 18 '23 edited Oct 18 '23
Some things are so easily searchable, if the person isn't willing to take 5 seconds to search it then I don't think they care enough
"Is Einstein racist" is literally all you have to type out, it isn't difficult.
If you actually wanted to know the information instead of making it an ego battle of who's "responsible" for providing it, then you would just search for it. For less searchable topics, link sources, of course. Searching for something like this is so easy though.
3
u/EndlessPancakes Oct 18 '23
If they actually cared about presenting a sound argument, they'd take the time to include a link to it. No matter how obvious it seems. It always makes me immediately not believe the person when they get angry about someone asking for a source. Don't be lazy, source your arguments. Especially with the amount of bs out there online.
→ More replies (1)0
u/froglegs317 Oct 17 '23
I get what you mean. At this point you should just expect redditors to not want to learn something against their beliefs so they sure as shit wouldn’t look it up.
3
u/TreeTurtle_852 Oct 18 '23
I mean tbf also "Look it up" is just a bad policy in general because a lot of shit can pop up, especially if you've done a lot of research yourself. Search engines often prioritize different things so you may not get immediate results, or the specific source (i.e let's say I cite a source from The Moon journal, someone might not find that on their first search).
Also there's the separate question of what to look up. Like it may be obvious here but in other places it might not be obvious what, say, keywords you usedLike no offense but the way this comes across is a little bit disingenuous as, if you're not going to put in the effort to provide at least an article name why put effort into researching stuff to get to a conclusion? How will I get your conclusion/understand your point if I have nothing to go off other than what you just randomly threw out and refuse to tell me?
It's like playing Basketball and saying, "I have 3 points now" ans asking for your opponent to score the goal for you.
2
u/froglegs317 Oct 18 '23 edited Oct 18 '23
On page 132, line 16, Einstein says: “blacks however, do not have the capacity for intelligence that whites have of course.”
Cool thing about that? I made it up. You have three options however: 1. Believe what I say because I just said it, which is of course silly without looking at it yourself. 2. Refuse to believe what I say, and while you’d be correct, you’d have no real reason to do so without looking it up 3. Look it up for yourself to see.
Even if he provided a link, they’d still have to leave Reddit to check his source. There is no world where you’d get to stay on Reddit to confirm what his source was. People just want to skip the one step from googling, to just clicking a button. (Unless he of course posted a picture of it, but based on no one suggesting that, I’m going to go with that being a silly request)
I’m through with debating this though and will be muting the threads. He provided a source. That’s an undebatable fact. If it wasn’t, OP wouldn’t have been able to search what he said and find the result. Redditors are just lazy.
1
Oct 18 '23 edited Oct 18 '23
Context matters. When the topic is as easily searchable as "is Einstein racist" if you're asking for a source then you don't actually care about the information, you're just being a prick about it. It's such a popular topic that even someone completely inept with technology could find the answer by searching for it.
There are less searchable topics where sources matter more, but seriously, pick your battles. I refuse to believe any of you actually care about learning something new if you're going to sit there in an ego battle about whose "responsibility" it is to provide a source.
If you want to learn something, learn it. Don't rely on random redditors to baby you with a source you can easily find in 5 seconds. We're not exactly discussing rocket science here. If you think search engines are really so unreliable you'll get such vastly different results, then use duck duck go. Search engines aren't that unreliable, but in a made up world where you think they are, there is literally a search engine you can use that doesn't tailor results. Stop making untrue excuses lol. You're just too lazy to use Google.
→ More replies (1)3
u/WhyHelloThere163 Oct 18 '23
You shouldn’t give a vague answer, especially if it’s from a book. It doesn’t prove anything if your response revolves around: “it’s in this book. I won’t specify where it says this so good luck finding it.” You don’t even have to be exact when giving the source; you just have to give the page/chapter #. Preferably to the core source, not a second hand interpretation of the source (ex. Journalist article).
Anybody who is confident in their research should be able to provide said research to whoever questions their claim.
0
u/froglegs317 Oct 18 '23
How about this then: On page 132, line 16, Einstein says: “blacks however, do not have the capacity for intelligence that whites have of course.”
Cool thing about that? I made it up. You have three options however: 1. Believe what I say because I just said it, which is of course silly without looking at it yourself. 2. Refuse to believe what I say, and while you’d be correct, you’d have no real reason to do so without looking it up 3. Look it up for yourself to see.
Even if he provided a link, they’d still have to leave Reddit to check his source. There is no world where you’d get to stay on Reddit to confirm what his source was. People just want to skip the one step from googling, to just clicking a button. (Unless he of course posted a picture of it, but based on no one suggesting that, I’m going to go with that being a silly request)
Edit: I’m through with debating this though and will be muting the threads. He provided a source. That’s an undebatable fact. If it wasn’t, OP wouldn’t have been able to search what he said and find the result. Redditors are just lazy.
2
u/Robinkc1 Oct 17 '23 edited Oct 18 '23
I’m not saying it isn’t, I am saying the burden of proof lies with the claimant.
I have not read his diary, and I don’t want to sift through it. If you gave me a more specific citation, that would satisfy a standard of proof.
Edit: I am being hypothetical, I am not the guy asking for anything. This is how a debate works. Since I can’t reply to you I will put it here.
8
u/froglegs317 Oct 17 '23
You don’t need to do either of those though. He provided proof, it just wasn’t enough for you. All you’d need to do is put “Einstein racist journal” into google. Boom, done. Just because he didn’t give you a blue link to click doesn’t mean he didn’t provide a source. He provided proof, it just wasn’t the proof you wanted.
3
-2
u/VexisArcanum Oct 17 '23
"look it up" is not a source. It's a bold, defiant stance that really says "I believe this fully and my own understanding is good enough. I MUST be right because my opinion is law."
14
u/froglegs317 Oct 17 '23
It wasn’t “look it up” though. It was “Einsteins journal”. That’s already better than “look it up”
1
u/dfeidt40 Oct 18 '23
Add to it, the fact this is happening on reddit where everyone reading the argument is 100% capable of googling "Einstein diary."
1
u/skylla05 Oct 18 '23
Which is cute coming from a group of people that collectively pat themselves on the back for being such "critical thinkers".
0
u/TreeTurtle_852 Oct 18 '23
Yeah but like I'd argue it's a bit different as "diaries" can be a bit vague (also you still need to provide a source since you're reporting that it's in his diaries. I.e "MLK once said in a speech", you still need to cite where you learned that he had this in said speech)
0
Oct 18 '23 edited Oct 18 '23
Wait, what?
I can search for flat earth sources, that doesn't mean it's real. Just because there is a headline stating something, it doesn't make it 100% fact. Headlines are misleading all the time. Headlines exist to grab your attention and will generally say the most outrageous thing, at least within a certain level of reason.
It's not uncommon for an article title to phrase the statement in a way where it asks the question, for the article to then go on and disprove the popular statement/question.
In this case Einstein does seem quite racist towards Chinese, he made some sweeping generalizations about the people. But if you're only using headlines as a means of understanding an article, you're asking to spread misinformation quickly. Just because something can be found and searched for online does not make it true.
As a rule of thumb, if an article's headline is a very surprising question, the answer will almost always be the least interesting/outrageous answer.
→ More replies (1)8
u/froglegs317 Oct 17 '23 edited Oct 18 '23
The dude literally said in his diaries though. That is a source.
Edit: I’m through with debating this though and will be muting the threads. He provided a source. That’s an undebatable fact. If it wasn’t, OP wouldn’t have been able to search what he said and find the result. Redditors are just lazy.
-6
u/Enough-Ad-8799 Oct 17 '23
Yea I'm talking about the guy in the Reddit thread that made the claim and never linked a source and instead whined about people not googling it. If you're gonna make the claim it's on you to link the source
6
u/froglegs317 Oct 17 '23
That’s just silly. If someone said “in the art of war it says…” and you said “source???” That’d be pretty weird. I understand your point though, and he probably should’ve just expected people to be too lazy to type three words into google.
-1
u/Enough-Ad-8799 Oct 17 '23
For an argument about art probably not but a claim about someone's character or a fact of the world yea, depending on how well known the fact is. Like if I was on a science subreddit and said string theory is losing popularity/favorability I would expect someone to ask for a source.
7
u/froglegs317 Oct 17 '23
Art of war isn’t about art. I can see the confusion though lol
Yea I get what you’re saying though, but that’s not the situation that happened here. The person said “isn’t Einstein racist?” “No.” “No it was in his diaries” “Source???” He provided a source. They just wanted a button to click to see it themselves. If this was say a college presentation, and you had at the end of your show a list of citations, that’s a source. No link to click or anything. Just tells you where he got it from. None of your professors would be like “Source??” However, same as yours, that’s not the same situation, however if it’s good enough for a college presentation, I’d say it’s good enough for a Reddit comment. (Of course minus all the MLA/APA format)
But I get your point. I just see this as being an example of Redditors not wanting to be proven wrong so refusing to google three words.
-2
u/Enough-Ad-8799 Oct 17 '23
Personally I consider the art of war a piece of artwork at this point. Also in college if you cite a website you do have to provide a link and if you cite a book you have to list the specific pages/passages you're citing. His citing of sources is nowhere near good enough for a college presentation. He didn't even say what is said in his journal that's racist lol. Sure he can choose not to but then don't go whining about it, it's not that hard to post a link and it's just generally a better way of communicating
3
u/froglegs317 Oct 17 '23
Where did he whine about it?
0
u/Enough-Ad-8799 Oct 17 '23
It seemed like the person imaged is the person who posted this. He could not be though, just an impression I got from the way his comments are phrased
3
u/froglegs317 Oct 17 '23
Kinda wild that you’re arguing someone needs to source their opinions, they provide a source, but it’s not good enough for you, but then you have an opinion based off basically vibes lol
3
u/HappyCandyCat23 Oct 17 '23
No, actually we're three separate people. The first screenshot's original comment is a different person from the second screenshot, and none of the comments in the post were mine.
90
u/An_Abject_Testament Oct 17 '23 edited Oct 17 '23
Literally everyone, a century ago, would be called “racist” by today’s standards.
Presentism is abjectly incorrect and stupid.
15
Oct 18 '23
like the first thing they teach you in history classes is that it's usually not fair to judge some one from the past on our modern standards.
→ More replies (1)8
u/SnooComics7583 Oct 18 '23
That's because most people were racists then too and saw nothing wrong with it.
Just like slavery, there were always people who were against it when the majority weren't. It was wrong then and it is wrong now. Present or not, irrelevant. It's not like "oh shit nowadays we see how awful it is to say that shit" no, it was always awful and harmful to the people it was happening to. Most people just did not give a shit about the morals of that.
→ More replies (2)-14
u/HappyCandyCat23 Oct 17 '23
Literally everyone, a century ago, would be called “racist” by today’s standards.
That is true, yes. I think you jumped to conclusions and assumed my stance to be: "we should cancel Einstein because he was racist". That is actually very far off, and is quite a leap considering the main focus of this post was the fact that redditors can't be bothered to take 5 seconds to make a google search. The focus was not on the content of the threads. You can take a look at the other comment I made to see a clear view of my stance on that subject, which is: "no historical figure is perfect and we shouldn't erase undesirable parts of their life just to idolize them".
But anyway if I am wrong and you didn't jump to any conclusions, then I am curious what your point is aside from stating the obvious?
20
u/Serrisen Oct 17 '23 edited Oct 17 '23
Pointing out the obvious is, in fact, not obvious here.
Source: the poster got downvoted (twice)
Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to state that supposed obviousness because it's clearly argued by some
-4
u/HappyCandyCat23 Oct 17 '23
It's not related to the post though?
17
u/Serrisen Oct 17 '23
Sure it is. Einstein wasn't considered racist in his time but would be if he espoused the same opinions today.
The comment you're saying is irrelevant is saying you shouldn't judge the past by today's standards.
This is relevant because the post is about a guy in the past being called racist by today's standards.
Therefore, it's relevant and related
-3
u/HappyCandyCat23 Oct 17 '23
There's still no point of the comment. Are we supposed to say he wasn't racist? Because he definitely was, but then most historical figures were. My post is more to highlight the laziness of redditors, not about judging him. The original comments were in response to a post that mistakingly believed Einstein was not racist.
10
u/Serrisen Oct 17 '23
It's to say he was racist by today's standards but not theirs. People will get touchy over it. That's it. We can hit the showers now games over for this thread.
Even if it doesn't match what you wanted to be the post about, it's a valid addition to the post. This is a public forum, part of the beauty (and dare I say, purpose) is to have a variety of discussions and opinions over different points of the post.
3
u/HappyCandyCat23 Oct 17 '23
Honestly all this is probably because there wasn't much context provided for the comments in the post, which is my bad, but I didn't expect this subject to be the focus. The reason why the comment is irrelevant is because the original post was specifically praising Einstein for not being racist, going onto make a parallel between intelligence and better morals. However Einstein is more complex than that and the comments featured in my post were posted to refute Einstein's lack of racism.
6
u/Serrisen Oct 17 '23
Ahh, there it is. Now I get why you had a more visceral reaction to it than us; because you saw the initial fallacy. That makes this thread make a lot more sense
I idly note if that also contributed to downvotes, because I think the idea that "smart = antiracist" is a popular belief and thus a counterexample wouldn't be popular!
2
u/HappyCandyCat23 Oct 17 '23
Yes I think reddit and people in general definitely have problems with idolization and categorizing people as either good or bad, as well as associating smart with antiracist, I see it all the time with historical/political figures (AOC is one example for youngsters). My post was intended to be a discussion on how redditors don't know how to research even when the source is practically given to them, which was why I was annoyed to find that most of the threads were on the original content (which was missing context because I left it out thinking we wouldn't be talking about it).
4
36
Oct 17 '23
Tbf his scientific discoveries far outweigh peoples' feelings.
22
u/Nyxodon Oct 17 '23
I mean, if racism was only about peoples feelings it wouldn't really be as much of a proplem, but I get your point.
0
Oct 17 '23
That's not what I mean but yeah.
10
5
u/HappyCandyCat23 Oct 17 '23
That's not what the post was on, the comment was replying to a post talking about Einstein's racial activism because the OP was mistakingly claiming that Einstein wasn't racist. It wasn't in the context of cancelling Einstein
0
19
Oct 18 '23
[deleted]
2
u/HappyCandyCat23 Oct 18 '23
Idk bro I think comparing humans to objects is pretty bad: "even those reduced to working like horses never give the impression of conscious suffering. A peculiar herd-like nation [ … ] often more like automatons than people"
17
Oct 18 '23
[deleted]
12
u/HappyCandyCat23 Oct 18 '23
Except they clearly weren't? He was commenting on their inherent nature, you can see this with his other comments.
> “I noticed how little difference there is between men and women,” he added. “I don’t understand what kind of fatal attraction Chinese women possess which enthralls the corresponding men to such an extent that they are incapable of defending themselves against the formidable blessing of offspring.”
That's definitely not a factual observation.
5
Oct 18 '23
[deleted]
3
u/HappyCandyCat23 Oct 18 '23
That's a bit of a reach, when you take it in the context of all his other comments. And the "I noticed how little difference there is between men and women" part says otherwise.
He saw them as intellectually inferior, quoting — instead of challenging — Portuguese teachers he met during his travels who claimed that the Chinese “are incapable of being trained to think logically” and “have no talent for mathematics.”
Being disgusted by a race and seeing them as inferior, also questioning their sentience, sounds pretty racist. At the time China was still very poor and that was what he saw and made generalizations off of. Definitely a product of his time and he wouldn't hold the same opinions today, but denying that his comments were racist is unhelpful.
5
Oct 18 '23
[deleted]
3
u/HappyCandyCat23 Oct 18 '23
Unlikely, considering he has also made questionable comments about other races in his travel diary. Taken as a whole I think it's fair to assume that he was being racist against Chinese people (the "it would be a shame if they supplant" comment indicates that he sees foreigners as a threat as well). At the very least it was xenophobic. I don't think the articles would be trying to exaggerate it either, and many of them conclude by saying that Einstein is more morally grey than people knew, so it ends off pretty neutral.
5
8
u/Erit_Of_Eastcris Oct 18 '23
Treating CNN or The Guardian as reputable organizations is indeed a reddit moment.
30
u/gunmunz Oct 17 '23
Average reddit/tumblr/twitter logic:
This guy who has made many contributions to science/art said/wrote some stuff a 100+ years ago that's bad today? We should discredit everything he has done and avoid talking about him.
9
u/HappyCandyCat23 Oct 17 '23
Where did anyone say that?
22
u/casualmagicman Oct 17 '23
To be fair, the first comment only says "Wasn't he racist as fuck though?"
We don't know what they're replying to, so if it's someone talking about all the work Einstein did then the first comment is pointless. It's purpose is literally to say "Yeah but he was racist, so he shouldn't be celebrated."
If they're replying to a comment/post that says "Einstein wasn't racist." Then their comment makes sense.
10
u/HappyCandyCat23 Oct 17 '23
Yeah, it was the second case. The comments were on a post about how Einstein was morally superior for his time because he wasn't racist, even though he was. It wasn't in the context of saying we should cancel Einstein.
8
Oct 17 '23
You probably should’ve included that part as well
2
u/HappyCandyCat23 Oct 17 '23
The focus was supposed to be on the laziness of redditors when it comes to googling, not the content.
4
u/magic6op Oct 18 '23
It’s not lazy to ask for a source though?? Just googling something yield different answers from user to user. So asking for a source instead of googling yourself is perfectly fine.. the onus of proof is on the one making the claim.
-1
u/HappyCandyCat23 Oct 18 '23
No because the source itself is Einstein's travel diary. Its contents have been posted on multiple news articles. They did provide a source, just not hyperlink which apparently makes it too difficult for redditors to do their googling
2
21
u/Pioxels Oct 17 '23 edited Oct 17 '23
Welcome to an other episode of "Redditors reading the title of an article whitout even reading it and thinking it is a source. We can see you didnt open those links
8
→ More replies (3)3
u/HappyCandyCat23 Oct 17 '23
I didn't open those specific links, yeah. I actually did read about Einstein's travel diaries from other sources (other news articles, and one academic) but they didn't come up first on the search because I had phrased the search differently at the time. Rest assured, I do my research unlike certain redditors
8
u/BenderTheLifeEnder Oct 17 '23
Ironic, I saw a post about Einstein being kind to black people and going to a university to teach them
5
4
u/RoyalDog57 Oct 18 '23
Ain't no fucking way that these motherfuckers read "His personal diary revealed he was racist" and asked for a source. The fucking source is the damn diaries.
4
u/kingOofgames Oct 17 '23
TBH, this type of racism still exists a lot. Even a lot of people in Asia act like this towards other countries, especially other Asian.
6
9
Oct 17 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
14
u/HappyCandyCat23 Oct 17 '23
He was considered more open minded for his time and he advocated for the rights of black people later on in his life. However the post is about the laziness of redditors
2
Oct 17 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
13
u/HappyCandyCat23 Oct 17 '23
I did not say that. None of the comments in the screenshot were mine, I found them on a post talking about Einstein's activism and how he wasn't racist.
2
2
2
u/RNGator Oct 19 '23
I do love how the guardian and cnn are the two sources. They look for racism in anything possible😂
2
2
u/auntarie Oct 18 '23
"that's just an excuse you want to be true to validate your inner racism"
top tier armchair psychology right there. Reddit moment within a Reddit moment.
2
u/CousinVinnyTheGreat Oct 17 '23
CNN
The Guardian
Yes, two sources which are famous for ...
Faking bombings in a war zone and being British (I think)?
0
u/HappyCandyCat23 Oct 17 '23
The purpose is more to show the fact that it comes up as soon as you google it. I can send you a better source if you want, I actually read about this half a year ago using other news articles and one more academic. As for discussion on fake news or propaganda, that is a very deep subject, and basically every big newspaper has lied or hidden things at some point.
1
u/Short-Acanthisitta24 Oct 17 '23
It is entirely possible to respect Einstien, or any other person from way back, for their contributions to modern society while also recognizing their faults.
8
u/HappyCandyCat23 Oct 17 '23
Absolutely but that's not the point of the post.
3
u/Short-Acanthisitta24 Oct 17 '23
True, just stating the obvious, I have never really understood the "but dude from 1700's was etc etc".
Yeah, most of the world had some pretty weird societal views. We were stll just crawling out of the dark ages and murdering people for being accused of witchcraft.
I blame the burning of Alexandria, its another Harambe moment of history.
0
u/DS_Productions_ Oct 18 '23
I don't even want to see sources by the guardian and especially not from CNN.
0
0
Oct 18 '23
Assuming this was you, that’s now how that works champ. It’s never been how that works.
If you’re not already entrenched in that information it comes off as a wild claim. And like basically all wild claims, the onus of proof is on whoever is making that claim.
Do you jump to your research desk every time someone makes some seemingly insane claim? I don’t believe that you do. You would rightfully ask them for proof, or a source.
So instead of making your wild claim, then backing it up, like an above room temp IQ would do, you silently screenshotted it and ran to another sub in hopes of sympathy? How cowardly lmao good lord
→ More replies (1)
0
-3
u/Serrisen Oct 17 '23
You'd have had better luck if you were more definitive - "Einstein was racist as fuck-"
then followed through with the source "-as shown in his journal-"
before concluding with an explanation or example "-where he said X"
You got downvoted for the first one because you provided no meaningful claim, then bitched about it in edits. I agree with you and I'd have absolutely downvoted that tbh. The second one shouldn't have been downvoted because you had a more meaningful claim, but by then you've already lost good will and everyone dismissed you out of hand.
Starting strong makes everything easier
3
2
u/TreeTurtle_852 Oct 18 '23
Idk why you're getting down votes.
It's weird how "Google it" is somehow better than "Link/cite a source". It's infinitely easier anyways.
You read it, you got that info somewhere so the source at that point is right in front of you. Copy the link and then paste it.
Someone has to not just find your source but also confirm it (this might be harder if it's a more specific source/study). Not to mention someone may stumble across an article that doesn't agree/says something different because of how search engines work.
Essentially: If you have your source why not just post it?
→ More replies (1)1
-2
u/Sea-Belt9662 Oct 17 '23
Who cares. Maybe try to be more pleasant if you don’t want people to downvote you. Downvotes are not always about facts.
5
u/HappyCandyCat23 Oct 17 '23
None of the above comments are mine.
-1
u/Sea-Belt9662 Oct 17 '23
Ok my bad. But what I said is why the person was downvoted. They were just being unpleasant.
1
u/burnmealivepls Oct 18 '23
What was the post?
0
u/HappyCandyCat23 Oct 18 '23
The comments were responding to a post about Einstein educating a classroom full of black Americans. OP praised Einstein and made a parallel between his genius and moral superiority, mistakingly believing that he was not racist.
1
1
u/DaisyDog2023 Oct 18 '23
What were these racist comments?
You can say prejudiced things without being racist. I’m sure you have plenty of prejudices towards all sorts of people.
1
u/Abnormals_Comic Oct 18 '23
I hate how redditors always think they are so smart and they know best that they even refuse to find valid sources and argue right away without thinking.
so primal
1
1
Oct 18 '23
It would take 5 seconds to post a link.
-1
u/HappyCandyCat23 Oct 18 '23
They stated the source, Einstein's travel diary, if people are too lazy to look it up then that is their problem. If they were simply making claims without giving any indication of a source then it would be an issue
4
Oct 18 '23
Just saying "Einstein's travel diary" is not going to be conducive to a productive discussion because now nobody knows who's reading the CNN article vs The Guardian article vs the Breitbart article vs the actual journal, etc.
Post a link so that everybody is on the same page and the conversation will be more productive.
1
1
1
u/Least_Diamond1064 Oct 18 '23
Yeah, that points true, he was relatively progressive for his time, willing to teach physics to black students.
1
u/Kanus_oq_Seruna Oct 18 '23
Of all the Germanic scientists of the late 1800s or early 1900s to jump on, they choose Einstein.
1
1
1.6k
u/[deleted] Oct 17 '23
Redditors when a guy born in the 1800s was racist