Then please write up a dispassionate rebuttal citing published findings that dispute his claims. This piece is not that. It's mostly links to smug twitter posts and material that debunks really old "race science" that has nothing to do with Hancock's claims. The author claims scientists have "repeatedly addressed" Hancock's ideas, yet doesn't really provide that material. It feels super lazy and reactionary since most of the "refutation" is to other peoples' ideas not echoed by Hancock. I don't even care if Hancock is wrong or right and I'm not going to die on this hill, but I'm smart enough to take his show at face value as a fun speculative "what if". Sorry, just not buying the white supremacy/race science angle here. Feels like the easy straw man attack.