Consider the implications of this:
Nature documentaries presented by “white, male voices” could put off ethnic minority views, according to a report funded by Britain’s major environmental agency.
Last year, the Environment Agency financially supported the study by an international climate change group which said the use of white narrators could make the sector feel “inaccessible to people from ethnic minorities”.
The melaninly diverse (and genderly, perhaps) discriminate by melanin content (and perhaps gender) on who they will accept scientific information from. That’s what that statement above is.
It’s also widely accepted that those with the gammon melanin are more racist than others. This is justified by defining racism as only ever punching downwards – when it’s punching upwards it’s maintaining community or cultural cohesion or some such.
OK. So, now we’ve got those two points being made as factual statements by the grievance industry. This does therefore mean that gammons will be even more racist in who they will accept scientific information from, doesn’t it? If the two grievance statements are true then so must that conclusion.
Which therefore means that we must have exclusively gammons presenting scientific information to the populace. Gammons are 84% of all, gammons are more racist than the diverse, therefore to gain maximum acceptance of science, science must be presented by gammons.
The only way this cannot be true – unless we going to go down that apartheid route of separate but equal – is if one of the two original statements about melanin discrimination by the melaninly is untrue, or if all can be equally racist.