This sounds like "edenics" (as in garden of Eden), which posits that there was original language (probably Hebrew) from which all languages descend. Other popular "original" languages are Tamil, Sanskrit, Basque, or whatever language some nationalist crackpot decides they want to promote. It's totally disconnected from reality. Here's a Language Log post on it: http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/005278.h...
> If you insist (why?) that semitic alphabets can have made no contribution, and you are correct, then the evidence will show that
How could evidence show lack of contribution? You can’t prove a negative like that. You can’t prove lack of influence from Korean or ancient aliens either.
If you are certain that comparing the oldest runes to semitic glyphs won't show up a closer match than more recent runes do, what is wrong with comparing them, or talking about comparing them? The only possible objection is that you don't like what might come from it.
That work was all done without this new evidence. New evidence might reinforce old conclusions, or undermine them. Nobody knows without the work having been done.
Comparing scripts is the only way to identify similarities and differences. We can be confident Korean is not an influence just on geographic grounds, but all Mediterranean scripts are in play, because whoever started using runes could have been exposed to any or all of them.
You may say nobody can prove a negative, but cocksure deniers are fairly swarming out of the woodwork, here.
"says something about you" is a warning shot for a potential shaming campaign. The expected reaction is for the warned party to backpedal to avoid having their defects loudly discussed. You can see it play out in other responses, wherein terms like "decent people" and "old, dead narrative" are deployed. In other words, trouble in the same sense that those subjected to "microaggressions" have trouble.
What you are doing is interpreting everything as you like, not as it is meant. You paint yourself as the victim when this all started with your baseless accusations. If you don't like people reacting to your accusations, you should not use a public forum.
Classic response. Gaslight on the connotations, random accusation of assuming victim status (a sacred cow to the progressive), and the much loved "maybe you shouldn't express your opinions if you don't like our behavior"
As it happens, though, I don't see myself as a victim. I don't mind in the least people reacting to my opinions. But I also feel perfectly comfortable pointing out the nature of the reaction, which is generally not to engage with content but to turn it into a question of character. Which you have done.
This whole struggle session thread is a perfect example of how progressive values are enforced and advanced.
Acknowledging the existence of obvious branding or political affiliation means subjecting yourself to an inquisition where 30 people take turns trying to pigeonhole you as a bigot.
