Home Politics & Debate
Come and join our Support Circle, every Tuesday, 8 - 9:30pm! Anyone is welcome to join. Sign up here

Define White

15681011

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    barkmoss wrote: »
    In other words, does objective reality exist or is reality ENTIRELY subjective?

    Obviously, reality is not ENTIRELY subjective. Thus, objective reality exists and therefore, objective meaning exists as well.

    The (logical ?) conclusion that you arrived at after your "therefore" doesn`t seem logical to me at the time of writing this post.

    Perhaps this could be due to our different "realities" at this moment ?

    Maybe you have your own meaning as to why I currently don`t see it the same as you ?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    meaning is reality
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    barkmoss wrote: »
    meaning is reality

    Whose ?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    seeker wrote: »
    Whose ?

    It isn't about, "who."
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    barkmoss wrote: »
    It isn't about, "who."

    What is "it" about ?

    (And what is "it" ? )
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    seeker wrote: »
    What is "it" about ?

    (And what is "it" ? )

    It is about: "what."

    "It" is "what."
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    barkmoss wrote: »
    It is about: "what."

    "It" is "what."

    What has decided that for you(/everyone ?) ?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    In objective reality there is no "whose?" or "whom?"

    Those only exist in subjective reality.

    In objective reality there is only the "what."

    Denying that "it" exists doesn't make "it" go away.

    However, it does make you ignorant of the "what."
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    barkmoss wrote: »
    In objective reality there is no "whose?" or "whom?"

    Those only exist in subjective reality.

    In subjective reality there is only the "what."

    Denying that "it" exists doesn't make "it" go away.

    However, it does make you ignorant of the "what."

    How do you know this ?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    seeker wrote: »
    How do you know this ?

    How do I know what?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    barkmoss wrote: »
    How do I know what?

    How do you know that :

    In objective reality there is no "whose?" or "whom?"

    Those only exist in subjective reality.

    In subjective reality there is only the "what."

    Denying that "it" exists doesn't make "it" go away.

    However, it does make you ignorant of the "what."
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I know, but which part do you mean?

    Can you be more specific?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If someone says they're white what does it mean? (or just give a good definition)

    Hopefully this will help...

    Official British 16+1 Ethnic Classification System
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Jayzus, 15 pages...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    barkmoss wrote: »
    In other words, does objective reality exist or is reality ENTIRELY subjective?

    Obviously, reality is not ENTIRELY subjective. Thus, objective reality exists and therefore, objective meaning exists as well.

    Well it depends what you are talking about. If you are talking about measurable things (e.g. this person has darker skin than that person), you'd be right. However, that is not meaning - it is an observation. What it actually means, is socially constructed.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Uncle Joe wrote: »
    Jayzus, 15 pages...
    Quite.

    Might this be a lesson to us all... :D
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    barkmoss wrote: »
    I know, but which part do you mean?

    Can you be more specific?

    I`ll do my best.

    How do you know that in objective reality there is no "whose?" or "whom?" ?

    How do you know that those only exist in subjective reality ?

    How do you know that in subjective reality there is only the "what." ?

    How do you know that denying that "it" exists doesn't make "it" go away ?

    How do you know that it does make you ignorant of the "what." ?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    XXXX wrote: »
    That's not what 'race' is to a scientist. Race is not a social construct - it's a biological reality.
    This may already have been covered at some point in the next eight pages after the post I'm replying to, but... when have scientists, outside of the human, social, context, ever talked about 'race'? Races of dogs? Races of whales? Rather, they speak of species', and genus' (genii?). 'Race' is very much a political concept, as you acknowledge in the next post...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Scientists don't talk about "race", at least not with any consensus in any meaningful way. Barkmoss, XXXX etc are bullshitting because they have a racist agenda to push.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    seeker wrote: »
    I`ll do my best.

    How do you know that in objective reality there is no "whose?" or "whom?" ?

    How do you know that those only exist in subjective reality ?

    How do you know that in subjective reality there is only the "what." ?

    How do you know that denying that "it" exists doesn't make "it" go away ?

    How do you know that it does make you ignorant of the "what." ?

    (In the fifth line the word subjective should be objective; it should read: in objective reality there is only the "what.").

    If the correction doesn't answer your question then: because the words objective and subjective mean just that.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote: »
    Scientists don't talk about "race", at least not with any consensus in any meaningful way. Barkmoss, XXXX etc are bullshitting because they have a racist agenda to push.

    That's a pretty extreme, radical and inflammatory claim, but I haven't seen you back it up and that doesn't surprise me.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote: »
    Well it depends what you are talking about. If you are talking about measurable things (e.g. this person has darker skin than that person), you'd be right. However, that is not meaning - it is an observation. What it actually means, is socially constructed.

    "Darker" means dark or dusky or black; that is it's "meaning." And you are right, that is an objective observation even though it is based on the relative spectrum of color that we have been given.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    By the way, the word "racist" is meaningless.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Quite.

    Might this be a lesson to us all... :D

    People want a "real" discussion about race; they are sick of pretending that it doesn't exist.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You're boring now, go back to Stormfront.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote: »
    ...go back to Stormfront.

    You seem to have some kind of paranoid fantasy, that all people in the World who dissent from your paleo-politically correct views, all come from the same place.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    barkmoss wrote: »
    People want a "real" discussion about race; they are sick of pretending that it doesn't exist.
    Since you seem to have taken up residence on this thread, I'll bite. What would be 'a "real" discussion on race'?

    (and why the need to put 'real' in quotes? It implies that you're not using the word in a literal sense, which is kind of a contradiction)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    barkmoss wrote: »
    People want a "real" discussion about race; they are sick of pretending that it doesn't exist.
    Oh really? And who would those people be? :D
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Uncle Joe wrote: »
    What would be 'a "real" discussion on race'?

    As I said, people are tired of pretending it doesn't exist; they want a "real" discussion, not a "pretend" discussion. Since you asked, the quotes were added for sarcasm.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yeah only the other day I turned a street corner and I bumped into a 500,000 people-strong demonstration demanding a real debate on race.
Sign In or Register to comment.