Did Cassandra cry wolf? Some folks need to stick a finger in the undead to accept the least charitable interpretation.

It's not like the argument is irrefutable. But you have to at least engage with it to do that.

In that comment there was not an argument to which someone might engage. There was a string of free associated claims. The post did not contain any links to substantive support for the claims that Atlantean theory is “inherently racist.”

As a form of argument, it was of the class “when did you stop beating your wife?”

This is the comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33860417

Claim:

First, the Atlantis theories are essentially racist.

To make an argument the supporting sentences would address what is meant by “racist” and provide some evidence that “Atlantis theories” meet the criteria established definitionally.

Four supporting sentences:

Fundamentally, what it does is take some impressive structure--Great Zimbabwe probably the most notorious example--and ask who built it.

Claim, not argument. Additionally, as far as I can tell there is no claim that a lost Atlantic civilization built stone forts in SE Africa.

The natural first place to start looking is among the indigenous inhabitants (and in basically all cases, there is substantial evidence that this is indeed the case), but this theory is instead built by another group of people for whom there is really no evidence.

Claims not argument.

In other words, the theory is going well out of its way to avoid the explanation that the indigenous inhabitants, to such a degree that you have to ask why.

  Claim and query, not argument

  Speculation, not argument.

In that comment there was not an argument to which someone might engage. There was a string of free associated claims. The post did not contain any links to substantive support for the claims that Atlantean theory is “inherently racist.”

As a form of argument, it might be of the class “when did you stop beating your wife?” or the Democratic Party of the US are racist because senator Robert Byrd was a member of the KKK.

This is the comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33860417

Thesis:

First, the Atlantis theories are essentially racist.

To make an argument the supporting sentences would address what is meant by “racist” and provide some evidence that “Atlantis theories” meet the criteria established definitionally or at least in common understanding.

Four supporting sentences:

Fundamentally, what it does is take some impressive structure--Great Zimbabwe probably the most notorious example--and ask who built it.

As far as I can tell there is no claim that a lost North Atlantic civilization built stone forts in SE Africa.

The natural first place to start looking is among the indigenous inhabitants (and in basically all cases, there is substantial evidence that this is indeed the case), but this theory is instead built by another group of people for whom there is really no evidence.

This does not establish that proponents of Atlantis theory make speculative claims due to a racist essence. The claim of “natural” isn’t a true claim. Given what is known about human mobility it would not make sense to link the builders of Cahokia with those of Chicago.

In other words, the theory is going well out of its way to avoid the explanation that the indigenous inhabitants, to such a degree that you have to ask why.

Again, doesn’t establish a link between Atlantis folks and the described behavior. In the case of Greater Zimbabwe there was a effort by the Rhodesian government to separate precolonial people from local architecture. Did the Rhodesians invoke Atlantis or is there some link between Atlantis theory people and Rhodesians other than they both engage in speculation? This is not established by the argument of the comment.

And the "why" is probably an inability to believe that the indigenous people could be capable of building such structures.

This is not related to the claim that Atlantis people are racist or not since the series of claims do not establish that Atlantis people do this. Additionally, this statement engages in hedged mind reading. It does not establish a likelihood of beliefs of Atlantis theory folks.

1) the claim of racism is a claim about the intent of the alleged racist. What makes us think Hancock thinks X civilization wasnt capable of Y feat because of their race? Has he ever said anything remotely like that? He hasnt. Furthermore, whats to say that the civilization that he posits actually accomplishes feat Y is not the same race as cilivation X? Hes never said as much.

The racism bullshit is tiring as fuck. And by that I mean actual racism and flippant accusations of racism are old hat. Very tiresome.

In his first book on the topic, he did specifically make the point that the advanced culture was "white", although to his credit, he hasn't explicitly repeated that since.