Okay let's talk abt Psychics.

[Weird]

Take a deep breath and relax. Everything is going to be ok.

Clearly you don't understand, let me explain, again.

The races you speak of do not exist. Popular conceptualizations of race are derived from 19th and early 20th century scientific formulations. These old racial categories were based on externally visible traits, primarily skin color, features of the face, and the shape and size of the head and body, and the underlying skeleton. They were often imbued with nonbiological attributes, based on social constructions of race. These categories of race are rooted in the scientific traditions of the 19th century, and in even earlier philosophical traditions which presumed that immutable visible traits can predict the measure of all other traits in an individual or a population. Such notions have often been used to support racist doctrines. Yet old racial concepts persist as social conventions that foster institutional discrimination. The expression of prejudice may or may not undermine material well-being, but it does involve the mistreatment of people and thus it often is psychologically distressing and socially damaging.

By continuing to classify people by race in your word choice, you are furthering the existence of racism. The idea only exists as long as people use the words. Anybody who classifies people by false ideas of race is a racist. Regardless, if you think the word is just some sort of slander to describe people that wave confederate flags. The idea that race exists as a biological fact, led to the murder of those people in the church. And historically millions more. Until we change our language we will not change our reality.

Sigh your proving my point

We are not genetically identical. If we were every race would get sickle cell anemia in equal rates. There are genetic differences between races, for which it actually benefits the mixing of race for hybrid vigor. This isn't racism it is the reality of genetics. It doesn't mean that they are so different that this means anything in regards to our humanitarian value. We differ in color, size, shape and sex, but that doesn't equate to value but those differences do exist.

The simultaneous existence of our differences and similarities is reality. How we choose to perceive them in regards to humanitarian value is where people make a case to marginalize, exploit or work harmoniously together.

Variety is the spice of life, if you are willing to celebrate humanity diversity for what it is, difference based on, and riding on top of, the same underlying foundation, differences don't have the same negative connotation.

The same programming exists (marginalization of others based on difference) within races and cultures and isn't exclusive to any race, creed, religion or anything like that, it is one of the parts of our human nature we can choose to develop, or not.

In fact in the world today I argue the biggest marginalizing difference is poverty(or wealth) not race color or creed

 

[Madjag]

What Time Is It....

What Time Is It....

Just because the two of you are communicating in the English language doesn't mean you are conceptualizing in the same way.....hahaha.

Major NLP tenet : "The meaning of your communication is the response that you get".

Wikipedia: Benjamin Lee Whorf

Hopi time
Main article: Hopi time controversy

Whorf's study of Hopi time has been the most widely discussed and criticized example of linguistic relativity. In his analysis he argues that there is a relation between how the Hopi people conceptualize time, how they speak of temporal relations, and the grammar of the Hopi language. Whorf's most elaborate argument for the existence of linguistic relativity was based on what he saw as a fundamental difference in the understanding of time as a conceptual category among the Hopi.[w 1] He argued that the Hopi language, in contrast to English and other SAE languages, does not treat the flow of time as a sequence of distinct countable instances, like "three days" or "five years", but rather as a single process. Because of this difference, the language lacks nouns that refer to units of time. He proposed that the Hopi view of time was fundamental in all aspects of their culture and furthermore explained certain patterns of behavior. In his 1939 memorial essay to Sapir he wrote that “... the Hopi language is seen to contain no words, grammatical forms, construction or expressions that refer directly to what we call 'time', or to past, present, or future...”[w 1]

Linguist Ekkehart Malotki challenged Whorf's analyses of Hopi temporal expressions and concepts with numerous examples how the Hopi language refers to time.[32] Malotki argues that in the Hopi language the system of tenses consists of future and non-future and that the single difference between the three-tense system of European languages and the Hopi system, is that the latter combines past and present to form a single category.[n 7]

Malotki's critique was widely cited as the final piece of evidence in refuting Whorf's ideas and his concept of linguistic relativity while other scholars defended the analysis of Hopi, arguing that Whorf's claim was not that Hopi lacked words or categories to describe temporality, but that the Hopi concept of time is altogether different from that of English speakers.[20] Whorf described the Hopi categories of tense, noting that time is not divided into past, present and future, as is common in European languages, but rather a single tense refers to both present and past while another refers to events that have not yet happened and may or may not happen in the future. He also described a large array of stems that he called "tensors" which describes aspects of temporality, but without referring to countable units of time as in English and most European languages.[70]

Sources of influence on Whorf's thinking

Whorf and Sapir both drew explicitly on Albert Einstein's principle of general relativity; hence linguistic relativity refers to the concept of grammatical and semantic categories of a specific language providing a frame of reference as a medium through which observations are made.[2][65] Following an original observation by Boas, Sapir demonstrated that speakers of a given language perceive sounds that are acoustically different as the same, if the sound comes from the underlying phoneme and does not contribute to changes in semantic meaning. Furthermore, speakers of languages are attentive to sounds, particularly if the same two sounds come from different phonemes. Such differentiation is an example of how various observational frames of reference leads to different patterns of attention and perception.[66]

Whorf was also influenced by gestalt psychology, believing that languages require their speakers to describe the same events as different gestalt constructions, which he called "isolates from experience".[67]

Whorf's illustration of the difference between the English and Shawnee gestalt construction of cleaning a gun with a ramrod. From the article "Language and Science", originally published in the MIT technology Review, 1940. Image copyright of MIT Press

An example is how the action of cleaning a gun is different in English and Shawnee: English focuses on the instrumental relation between two objects and the purpose of the action (removing dirt); whereas the Shawnee language focuses on the movement—using an arm to create a dry space in a hole. The event described is the same, but the attention in terms of figure and ground are different.[68]

 

[Genghis Kush]

weird you are way over your head here. Your ideas are based on a meager and pathetic understanding of human genetic evolution.

There is genetic diversity among humans but no group has been isolated long enough to form a biological race. People have been moving and relocating and mixing for millions of years. This is beyond debate. There is nothing you can argue that proves races exist, because there is nothing in modern academia that supports your antiquated and dangerous opinion.

 

[Weird]

yeah genetically there is a big difference between saying we are all different phenotypes of the same genotype versus the races represent different genotypes themselves

the values of the words themselves have so many different potential meanings it blurs lines

but this is where it all ends up being nothing more than smoke and mirrors

see at any time anyone can choose to stop focusing on difference and focus on commonality

the fact that human nature seems driven to focus on one or the other is a commonality, what we focus on individually and in particular can be different, but we are all practicing the same dynamics with in the constraint of choice.

none the less, focusing on one or the other coupled with intent will deliver a desired result. Difference can be good or bad as can commonality depending on how we use them.

The constant being the same array of choices exists in any given scenario

 

[Weird]

weird you are way over your head here. Your ideas are based on a meager and pathetic understanding of human genetic evolution.

There is genetic diversity among humans but no group has been isolated long enough to form a biological race. People have been moving and relocating and mixing for millions of years. This is beyond debate. There is nothing you can argue that proves races exist, because there is nothing in modern academia that supports your antiquated and dangerous opinion.

the difference is what you make of it as is your interpretation of genetic difference

it is much like land race is to cannabis as race is to mankind

population that acclimated to a specific region for millennium have specific populations of expression that differ from other populations elsewhere

that is the difference people refer to as race, just because there was a scientific claim that we had different genes based on more than phenotype variation doesn't nullify the variation in the first place

kinda like pot, you enjoy different strains or are cannabis sativa identical?

 

[DrFever]

Sigh your proving my point

We are not genetically identical. If we were every race would get sickle cell anemia in equal rates. There are genetic differences between races, for which it actually benefits the mixing of race for hybrid vigor. This isn't racism it is the reality of genetics. It doesn't mean that they are so different that this means anything in regards to our humanitarian value.

The simultaneous existence of our differences and similarities is reality. How we choose to perceive them in regards to humanitarian value is where people make a case to marginalize, exploit or work harmoniously together.

Variety is the spice of life, if you are willing to celebrate humanity diversity for what it is, difference based on, and riding on top of, the same underlying foundation, differences don't have the same negative connotation.

The same programming exists (marginalization of others based on difference) within races and cultures and isn't exclusive to any race, creed, religion or anything like that, it is one of the parts of our human nature we can choose to develop, or not.

In fact in the world today I argue the biggest marginalizing difference is poverty(or wealth) not race color or creed

WTF i guess While the genetic difference between individual humans today is minuscule – about 0.1%, on average
i could easily say were almost identical

 

[Weird]

if we were genetically identical our phenotype plasticity would be identical in all populations regardless of point of origin

Our populations evolved into phenotype dominant pools shaped over time by adaptions based on environmental stresses.

Same genes, expressing differently and consistently, based on geographic adaptation and stabilization over the term start to produce different phenotypes more consistently

that is difference

all cannabis sativa is not the same but genetically it is all cannabis sativa

seems that most people here can balance that dichotomy quite well but this one, not so much

 

[Genghis Kush]

the idea of human races is based on the premise that we are different genotypes.
This is how people have and still do, justify there deranged abusive behaviors.

Old racial concepts persist as social conventions that foster institutional discrimination. The expression involves the mistreatment of people and thus it often is psychologically distressing and socially damaging.

As long as we continue to speak of races, we help further these peoples hateful ideologies.

The term "ethnic group", speaks of phenotypes and does not carry the destructive cultural baggage that "race" does.

 

[Genghis Kush]

"Relatively small numbers of humans left Africa 50,000-100,000 years ago. All non-African populations descended from them, and are reasonably similar genetically. That chimpanzees from habitats in the same country, separated only by one mile, are more distinct than humans from different continents is really interesting. "

We are amazingly genetically similar compared to other species.

 

[Weird]

race is not a causal term of choice, it is one used by governments, healthcare and permeates all societies. I did not create the term, I didn't integrate it into society nor can I control its use.

I can only choose what I want it to mean to me and how I let that meaning effect me.

A few of you spent a fair amount of time and effort trying to prove that I posses some nefarious programmed meaning behind it and labeled me as such.

That meaning was manufactured because of a false surety.

A prejudice perhaps based on something different but in essence the same as racism.

And I am the one programmed by the Tavinstocks ....

Its ok, I still love you, I understand the pain of racial bias more than you think I do and I understand how hard it is to shake programming, even if it is a simple reaction to past injustice.

I pretty vocal in regards to people being marginalized based on difference not that this isn't painfully obvious

 

[BruceBanner]

"Relatively small numbers of humans left Africa 50,000-100,000 years ago. All non-African populations descended from them...

Dude you really believe in that?! lol

 

[Genghis Kush]

exactly, its used by governments.

But its not used by physical anthropologists who study human biological evolution.
It's a rejected term when applied to humans, because the original premises it was based on have been proven wrong.

"I can only choose what I want it to mean to me and how I let that meaning effect me."

But you cant choose how it effects society.
If the words we use have a damaging effect on society, we need to change our own behavior, not await on government institutions, that rely on dividing the people to retain power, to make the change for us.

 

[Weird]

Dude you really believe in that?! lol

I don't think there are any branches of life where there was simultaneous evolution of any species that were geographically and genetically isolated.

It is a very safe assumption we all came from one geographic location originally.

If it horrifies you to think you originated from Africa your proving the point of the programmed notion of the genetic differential of race.

 

[Weird]

exactly, its used by governments.

But its not used by physical anthropologists who study human biological evolution.
It's a rejected term when applied to humans, because the original premises it was based on have been proven wrong.

"I can only choose what I want it to mean to me and how I let that meaning effect me."

But you cant choose how it effects society.
If the words we use have a damaging effect on society, we need to change our own behavior, not await on government institutions, that rely on dividing the people to retain power, to make the change for us.

Yeah but we are forced to continue to use the word, which is in itself benign. Your particular race might be used against you but not the word itself.

It is no different than the word or the classification of gender.


Gender has been as potent a reason for marginalization as race should we not use the word gender or classify the genders for what they are because they can be used against someone?

Be easier to teach tolerance and appreciation of diversity as it is a potential phenotype expression as well.

 

[Genghis Kush]

I feel like i'm explaining this to a 5 year old.

We are not forced to use the term race, just because they speak that way one the television
and government forms ask you put yourself in a box. And even then you have the choice of checking "other".
The word is not benign. I have explained why.
Using the word "race", when referring to groups of people creates biological distinctions where non exist. The term, "race", means biological distinct genotype. As long as you insist on using the word you promote its fallacies and the wrongs that ensue. There are no human races. The word is a tool of division. If that is your agenda than so be it.

trying to relate this to social issues regarding gender identification, just shows how truly ignorant you are to what im talking about.

im finished with this ridiculous topic

 

[bombadil.360]

Weird

do you have reading comprehension issues?

go back and read it again, because there is nothing left to say.

Genghis,

You are not the first one to notice Weird's obvious limitations when it comes to understanding the written word.

He is also not capable of learning from others and probably reads his own posts many times over and pats his own back.

Best way to deal with such self-idolatry is to pay no attention to it, don't get sucked in...

Everyone knows there's only the human race biologically speaking, like there's really one cannabis "archetype" "race" that allows for great diversity.

Only people who ate from the ideas of 18th century German "scientists" still think Africans are the missing link lol...

Peace

 

[Genghis Kush]

Genghis,

You are not the first one to notice Weird's obvious limitations when it comes to understanding the written word.

He is also not capable of learning from others and probably reads his own posts many times over and pats his own back.

Best way to deal with such self-idolatry is to pay no attention to it, don't get sucked in...

Everyone knows there's only the human race biologically speaking, like there's really one cannabis "archetype" "race" that allows for great diversity.

Only people who ate from the ideas of 18th century German "scientists" still think Africans are the missing link lol...

Peace

thanks bombadil.

You are absolutely correct.

peace

 

[Weird]

I feel like i'm explaining this to a 5 year old.

We are not forced to use the term race, just because they speak that way one the television
and government forms ask you put yourself in a box. And even then you have the choice of checking "other".
The word is not benign. I have explained why.
Using the word "race", when referring to groups of people creates biological distinctions where non exist. The term, "race", means biological distinct genotype. As long as you insist on using the word you promote its fallacies and the wrongs that ensue. There are no human races. The word is a tool of division. If that is your agenda than so be it.

trying to relate this to social issues regarding gender identification, just shows how truly ignorant you are to what im talking about.

im finished with this ridiculous topic

tell that to the census taker or the DMV

 

[Weird]

Lets look at common definitions

RACE

noun
1. a group of persons related by common descent or heredity.

2. a population so related.

3. Anthropology.
a) (no longer in technical use) any of the traditional divisions of humankind, the commonest being the Caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negro, characterized by supposedly distinctive and universal physical characteristics.

b) an arbitrary classification of modern humans, sometimes, especially formerly, based on any or a combination of various physical characteristics, as skin color, facial form, or eye shape, and now frequently based on such genetic markers as blood groups.

c) a socially constructed category of identification based on physical characteristics, ancestry, historical affiliation, or shared culture: Her parents wanted her to marry within her race.

d) a human population partially isolated reproductively from other populations, whose members share a greater degree of physical and genetic similarity with one another than with other humans.

4. a group of tribes or peoples forming an ethnic lineage: the Slavic race.

5. any people united by common history, language, cultural traits, etc.: the Dutch race.

6. the human race or family; humankind: Nuclear weapons pose a threat to the race.

7. Zoology. a variety; subspecies.


racism


noun
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.

2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.

3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.


Ignorance

noun
1.
the state or fact of being ignorant; lack of knowledge, learning, information, etc.

TROLLS

don't let the door hit you guys in the ass on the way out. might cause brain damage

 

[Weird]

I might have comprehension problems but I am not ignorant enough to argue race means racism