Cynique

Virtually all of the talking heads, especially Chris Cuomo of CNN and TV-One's Roland Martin who's black, did challenge the wire-tapping statement by Trump. And all of the anchors of the Sunday morning news programs have made Kellyanne Conway look like a fool with her "alternate facts" rebuttals. Reporters do frustrate press secretary Sean Spicer during his briefings that beg the question. There are millions of people out there who believe whatever makes them comfortable, and most of these voted for Trump. Hillary Clinton did win the popular vote, so more people rejected the media-fueled half truths and rumors about her past, than ones who fell for Trump's fresh lies.and promises. So not everybody is as guilible as you imply And, there are growing numbers who have been alerted to the fake news phenomenon. and are becoming more discerning. Yes, the media could be more aggressive and responsible when diggin' for and reporting the truth. But the public also has an obligation to smarten up so as to not be so easily duped.

@DelanoI'm curious and amused how you and Troy were always so impatient with me for not ignoring Sara's attacks instead of retaliating with my own insults . Now both of you aren't the least bit reluctant to exchange personal slurs with Pioneer during your differences of opinion. Why do you think this is?

"What's in a name? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet". Giving a label to the distinction that enables whites to discriminate against blacks, is just a way of formalizing what was already there because what has been referred to as a "social construct" has its origin in a primitive instinct known as "xenophobia". And the notion that everybody looks the same on the inside and that pretending we don't see the external differences will result into one big happy human family, is an idealistic goal that reeks with improbability. Debating the authenticity of race and its relevance is a waste of time. IMO

Come on, Troy, if you had your way, the media would go out of business. When a sitting president goes on social media and accuses a former president of tapping his phones, this is not something that should be ignored. Whether it's true, it's news; if it's not true, it's news. It's not like Trump was rumored to have said this, it's a fact that he did. Exposing his narcissism and paranoia to public scrutiny renders a service because this man holds the most powerful position in the world and he should be monitored and held accountable. If you would watch TV and check out social media instead of boycotting them, you'd know that journalists have challenged Trump's claim, and the FBI director has debunked it, leaving Trump and his support base the burden of proving it true. How this whole episode plays out is not only newsworthy but historically significant.

Ben Carson has a history of making ambiguous statements that he later has to try and clarify, - things like saying people who engage in same sex liaisons in prison but revert to being straight once they are released, are proof that homosexuality is learned behavior. He said that the Pyramids were used by King Solomon to store salt and that Obamacare was the worst thing since slavery. He, in effect, bragged about stabbing his brother as a boy. He even claimed that he retired from his profession because he wanted to quit while he was ahead, giving credibility to the the proven claims that he had been involved in 8 malpractice suits.Although he ran for president, he remarked that he didn't know anything about running the government, repeating this admission after being appointed to the position of Secretary of Housing. Now he compares slaves to immigrants who came to America in search of a better life. Carson's inability to foresee the absurdity of the things he says are, to me, examples of a person who doesn't use common sense. Common sense and school sense don't necessarily go hand in hand if you have a personality disconnect. I don't have to watch SNL or Fox news to reach a conclusion about Carson. All I have to do is to observe him at press conferences and interviews to discern that he is a vague stamerring person who can't answer a question without closing his eyes and going into a "mini-trance". Admittedly, I have no admiration for Carson and because I don't like his politics or his religious persuasion, I agree with Harry's remarks.. ,

@Troy It's the most natural thing in the world for black people to say they are discriminated against because of the visible physical characteristics that set them apart from Caucasians who happen to be in control. Why? Because this is their reality. Yes, it is demoralizing but it is borne out by the racism they encounter in their day-to-day lives. What is accomplished by attributing this discrimination to a "social construct" except to make those who claim this feel like they're more in the know than others. Black folks don't need to be told that their oppressors are full of BS they just need to figure out how to deal with this and it's more positive to celebrate what makes them different from others instead of what makes them the same as everybody else. I meant that because sociology and biology deal with people they are not as consistent as the science of mathematics or physics. (And I get my information about being able to tell a person's race from things like hair strands and bone fragments from all of those true crime forensic programs I watch. ) No, DNA does not tell the complexion color but it detects other racial markers. And superficial traits like big chests are genetic rather than racial so there is no danger of them being used to reinforce racism, especially since big boobs are considered an asset. And, no, I don't know any dark-skinned people from the continent of Africa who have straight hair. (Caucasian South Africans don't count.) Just like I don't know any Asians with blue eyes. And the obvious answer to your question about what I call myself would be "mixed" . I have light skin but my hair is not straight or my features keen. Why is it that you can't wrap your brain around people being bi-racial". The whole debate about race is really an exercise in futility because it deals with too many contradictions.

@TroySo tell us, what you think about Ben Carson, the subject of this post.

@Troy I'm not so slavishly devoted to sociology or biology as you because they are not exact sciences. And sometimes what they claim to be true is based on interpretations that ignore the impact of what the eyes see. Negroid, Caucasoid and Mongoloid are separate stocks made up of sub-divisions, which is the case in Africa and Europe. And no member of the Negroid stock has white skin or straight hair. Traits that vary from stock to stock are superficial but if a skeleton is found, its DNA can be extracted from its bare bones and the stock it belongs to can be determined. This is "fact". And what consolation or satisfaction is to be gained from declaring that those with white skin have made their color a premium based on a false construct? Does this change the situation that has become so inured in society as to be correct, based on an existing condition that has prevailed for centuries wherein those with white skin have exhibited their capacity to enforce their claims. Let's get real. Statistics and genetics are beside the point. Human nature is the bottom line and people are influenced by what they observe. Once, again I revert to my old complaint about language. It's made up of words that form sentences and when it comes to definitions of race what lies in the spaces between the words is where actuality dwells. BTW, Troy why did you bother to get a DNA profile? Why weren't you content with just knowing that you are a member of the human race?

I agree that truth can have many facets.

Ben Carson has no common sense. The things he says are absolutely ridiculous. His becoming a prominent neurosurgeon probably had something to do with these "butchers" having the safety net of burying their mistakes. He seems totally incapable of functioning in an environment that requires critical thinking, and he is an embodiment of the "Peter Principle" wherein people get promoted to their level of incompetency.

Again I say you can tell what race a pure African or pure Caucasian or pure Asian is. It's when someone is racially mixed that the uncertainty arises. Saying that sickle cell makes race real and that racism is a social construct just blurs the picture. How can you pick and choose when race is real? If it's real in some instances, it's real in all cases. If race is a social construct then, objectively speaking, accusations of racism have no foundation. As they say, you should never debate with a person who defines their own terms.

@Pioneer1 We are engaged in a discourse that is simply a difference of opinion, beliefs that are drawn from personal experiences or generalities stemming from popular misconceptions. In retrospect, I tend to agree with you about Brittany who, although very articulate really did little more than recycle what had already been said, or did she offer any academic credentials to qualify her as being an authority on the subject. But, the fact that you didn't challenge her says more about you being intimidated than about her being presumptuous. @Troy I don't think using people whose race can't be identified by how they look is relevant to your argument because these "hybrids" are a mixture of different races. Let's talk about a pure African or a pure Caucasian or a pure Asian, specimens who all exhibit stark differences in skin color, hair texture, body type, and predisposition to certain conditions, and who can be distinguished from one another through their DNA. And a lot of this controversy has to do with terminology. Maybe the definition of race should be changed to align it more accurately with actuality. What eyes perceive should not have to defer to what words say. And maybe the attempt to discredit racial classification is also a social construct.

Like Pioneer, I still am not totally converted when it comes to the claim of race being an artificial construct. Is there something comparable in the animal kingdom that will reinforce the idea of race just being a man-made term that Society has come up with in order to enable discrimination? For instance, is saying that a snake and an elephant are different, just a superficial scientific construct? And, could the question as to whether race is, or is not a legitimate distinction, fall into the "unknowable" realm?

I remember reading about an experiment conducted by an investigator of paranormal activity wherein he placed a very distinctive looking object on the top of a tall cabinet in a hospital operating room, the height of said cabinet making the object on top of it out of view to anyone was wasn't over 7 feet tall. Then, anytime patients who had undergone surgery claimed they'd left their body, the investigator would ask them to describe their surroundings and what they remembered seeing. He said the people claiming these OBEs were all eager to describe everything the saw "while looking down from the ceiling". Most patients when into great detail when doing this, but not one ever mentioned seeing the colorful object on top of the cabinet...

@Pioneer1 Many Latina women do resent being labeled as "hot-blooded spitfires", just as blondes hate to be characterized as "dumb airheads", and big-chested women prefer men to look past their bosom. Why? Because such perceptions make a caricature of them. And i repeat black women don't like being arbitrarily viewed as loose and lusty. A common complaint of black men is how unaccompanied white women are instinctively uneasy around them. It reduces them to a subhuman level. Also, I think intelligent black men would rather be judged first by their intellect rather than their overrated sexuality. Further more, being assertive doesn't have anything to do with a large penis and an accelerated sex drive. And most self-respecting black women don't stick with a black man if he doesn't have anything else going for him but horniness. All such males are good for is stud service via a booty call. Also i don't agree that an authentic black man can be feminized. Those that come across as effeminate are probably in the closet.

@Mel In keeping with the idea of multi-verses, perhaps you did die in another world where your death was mourned. You are alive and well in this one, and maybe disabled in yet another one where you are describing how you became crippled. There are infinite possibilities in this school of thought. As for there being a oneness to humanity, this idea plays into another school of thought about there being a "god head" from which everyone came and to where everyone returns. The late Carl Sagan described humans as star children because they are all made up of the same elements as the stars. Implicit in the big bang theory is that it spawned everything, making us all parts of a whole.

As I spout about all the time, words are just sounds and syllables used to describe reality. But one person's reality may not be another one's; what one person sees as green may be what another one sees as red but this doesn't matter because words are superficial. And the word "reality" itself is an attempt to assign sounds or symbols to the totality of what "is". Mathematics are a more accurate vehicle for conveying and exchanging information. Geometry, in particular, has been deemed the universal language. To me, there is the existing world, and then there is language which attempts to condense what exists into words - and a lot may be "lost in the translation". Even now I am struggling to put my theory" into words. And speaking of schools of thought, spirituality has been referred to as the "third eye". People who have or acquire one, see the world from a broader more perceptive perspective.

@Mel Your definition of spirituality is very profound and provocative. As for how I define spirituality, I agree with the idea that the spirit is the intangible essence of the tangible individual, and I am in sync with the cliche that spirituality is about getting in touch with yourself. To me, this includes listening to your inner voice which is your guide through the external world and a channel for the instincts that remind if it does not feel right to you, it is not right for you. (Which is why I appreciate Shakespeare advising: " this above all, to thine own self be true".) I also think that spirituality is about acknowledging your own divinity and realizing that "god" is comparable to your higher self divested of the ego that reduces you to being human. This is my belief and something I contemplate on my current spiritual journey to seek the truth, keeping in mind what The Prophet Khalil Gibran warns: "say not that I have found the truth, say rather I have a found a truth while walking along my path." Again I can only resort to cliches when I concur with the idea that "the truth will set you free".( Even if it hurts, it is a spiritual wound that heals itself as you meander through a world of deception.) BTW, I do appreciate the necessity and the beauty of language, but on a spiritual level I think words are some times inadequate, and the closest they come to adequacy is when they defer to "reality" and say that "it is, what it is".

@Mel Hopkins I'm flattered to have inspired a blog post about me. Del keeps implying that I don't realize what I am. He says I'm a "magnus". You say I'm a "hustler". i don't have a problem with either one of these labels. Because this hustling magnus respects the opinions of both of you. (This thread is so long and goes off on so many tangents that I didn't even see your post until just now. ) @Pioneer1 Yes, I do resent the idea of white people harboring the impression that black women are loose, oversexed 'hos and that this behavior comes natural to them. And I'm sure white opinions about black men being over sexed brutes played a part in them being lynched in the past, and is a misconception that persists today among white women leery about being in the proximity of black male strangers. BTW, Did you see the post by Britanny on the Part 1 segment of this long thread wherein she challenged all of your contentions about race and black sexuality. I'm surprised you didn't respond to it.

I go on YouTube all the time and have no problem downloading my favorite songs into my computer, including ones by Prince. Some of my old favorites have even been posted by just ordinary people who apparently haven't been prevented from doing this. I think it's a win-win situation for everybody. For me, for the artists(most of whom, in my case, are dead - but kept alive in people's memories through their music), and for YouTube whose traffic I contribute to. (I previously posted these comments on the wrong thread)

i totally agree with Troy and Delano. Stick around, Brittany!

Interesting discussion. Delano, you remarked I was becoming a "magnus". All I can say, is that I would not read something about spirituality or metaphysics or extra sensory perception and come away thinking I had been informed. My reaction would instead be that reading about such things didn't enlighten me, but rather confirmed what I always believed. And, actually, I haven't done a lot of reading about all of this paranormal stuff, especially lately but I am stimulated by discussions about these subjects, and I say things off the top of my head which I think may be a conduit for my brain/mind.This kind of plays into the idea that humans already know the answers to life's mysteries which are just waiting to be discerned and people should go with their instincts and gut feelings. This is not to declare that what I contend is factual or true. But it is to say that there are no definitive answers to these deep spiritual subjects, so who is to say what's true or real? .

@Troy I don't think spirituality and quantum physics are related but i do think inexplicable magick may have something to do with quantum physics. I do think meta-physics are involved in spirituality because generating energy and visualizing images involves the participation of a focused human entity @Pioneer1 Positive and negative thinking are probably more applicable "after the fact" than "before it". Before-the-fact is more akin to wishing. After-the-fact is about trying to influence an existing condition, something that often calls for the kind of extraordinary powers which everyone doesn't possess. Luck is a random dynamic, and it is something that figures in both good and bad occurrences.

@Pioneer1 You claim black people have enhanced sexuality, then you flip and say that African culture "frowns'"on promiscuity and multiple partners, 2 indulgences that are compatible with a strong sex drive. Why, then, would Africans adopt customs that stifle their "true" nature. Why would they maintain strict family traditions that put restrains on sex if they are a race of "horny toads"? And I beg to differ that Western culture is more forgiving of promiscuity and out-of-wedlock-births, 2 indulgences that go strongly against the white middle class values and ethics that are still in tact today, and have been embraced by the black middle class ( not middle income). As for the breakdown of the black family, the welfare system has something to do with this because it turned ghettos into latter-day plantations where lax slavery habits re-surfaced. And, the reason i have a problem with you touting the sexuality of black people is because this stigmatizes black men as being more prone to rape, and objectifies black women as being hot, readily-available sex partners. African Americans are too racially mixed, and the black experience too varied to categorize these people by using "alternate facts" and generalizations to make your case.

What it sounds like you are saying is that an active promiscuous sex life is a manifestations of the in-bred nature of black people, and that the European norm which advocates monogamy within a marriage, (and discourages out of wedlock children), cramps the style of black people. You ignore how defying white customs results in broods of out of wedlock children sired by different fathers. Meanwhile, no mention is made of the alternate possibility which would blame the breakdown of the black family on the habits left over from slavery when blacks were not allowed to maintain stable families in the manner of their European masters - standards that were not drastically different from African ones. And I don't known why you continue to make generalities that play into the stereotyping of black people as being oversexed. Is there any scientific evidence, or are there any sociological studies that support your ongoing insinuation that the reason European culture rejects polygamy is because white men are not as horny as black men?? Moreover, there are just as many black people who don't conform to all of your "theories" as there are who do. Unless you are advocating that blacks return to the "motherland'" which will nurture their true nature, the advice given to blacks in this jive-ass country should simply be to emulate whatever it takes to "get over". .