Pioneer1

And that...among many in the medical industry....is a pretty "clever" way to make money. To profit off of sickness and suffering. However there's a difference between being CLEVER and being WISE. If they leaders of this society were WISE, they'd realize that this society would benefit (including profit) FAR MORE if you have a strong, long lived, healthy population! The healthier and stronger people are, the better workers they make and the less expensive their healthcare would be....which would mean less money for the medical industry but far more money for the OTHER industries like manufacturing, agriculture, law enforcement, the military, and others who stand to benefit tremendously from stronger healthier employees who aren't draining the system. When you feel good and are healthy you WANT to work! You have so much energy you don't always know what to do with it.

frankster Yes....Dr Clarke is Right. Dr. Clarke WAS right about a lot of things but WAS WRONG about this particular one. Okay the following maybe beyond your comprehension.... Let's see....lol. Social Construct are real within the society that can enforce their acceptance on individuals They are real PERIOD, regardless as to whether a society accepts them or not. Like racism...they may not agree with them, but they are real none the less. Dr Clarke categorically dismisses them within society and outside of societies....his stand is civil disobedience and non compliance(non acceptance) to reveal their non-reality He said race DOES NOT EXIST. He was wrong. And it does not in many societies... But it does exist, period. Skyscrapers may not exist in many societies....but they still exist. Subways may not exist in many cities....but they still exist. Social Constructs are basically Agreements to act in accordance....it has no substance or physical(genetic) reality. Racial classifications are often BASED ON genetic differences. Cars are not Social Constructs....they are Physical Constructions. But they are MAN MADE, like race. Your defense of Dr. Clarke's statements was that because race was "man made" somehow that statement was justified. Just because something is artificial and man made, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Show where he accepted it as a reality? He said it was invented in the 15th century. If you invent something, you are absolutely bringing it into Reality. He accepted it as a part of this Reality invented in the 15th century. Cars were invented in the 19th century, they are apart of this Reality. Again an atheist explaining what the concept of God is....does not mean he accepts or believe in God or that God exists. Metaphysically speaking EVERYTHING exists, even if in concept. However, speaking in actuality...... There is a difference between believing something exists only in concept and believing it actually exists and was invented. Dr.Clarke talks about it existing as an invention in this Reality. ....after saying it didn't exist. Racism implies"inter" and Colorism implies "intra" ....unless racial classifications are based ON color. Then colorism would often BE a form of racism as well. Racism implies Institutional and Structural... Not necessarily. Colorism is Socio/Cultural norms Yes. In a society conditioned to believe such.

frankster I will not do for you what you should do for yourself.... To do your work...will result in you bringing forward silly and unnecessary argumentations. I'm talking about "some one who knows". Find THEM for me. Because when it comes to racial issues and classifications, YOU obviously aren't one of them, lol. It took you...I don't know how long...to finally accept the existence of race. This Act was a legislation enacted to eradicate preferential or discriminatory treatment based on Race.. Race in this case is not the source of Liberation....but the cause of Oppression But the REMEDY to that oppression involved RACIAL IDENTIFICATION. Finding out WHO has been oppressed and discriminated against because of their race and helping them. So by ending race as a criteria it was believe that the social oppression of one group by the other would end or be minimized in some way. Correct. Which concedes that they indirectly ACKNOWLEDGE the existence of racism and race itself. I and @Troy have presented several example where you cannot tell some one's race by just looking at them... The "several examples" that you gave are more EXCEPTIONS than RULES. You don't cherry pick racially ambiguous people and use THEM as examples of how ambiguous racial classifications are when there are far people who's appearances clearly established inside a racial category and they are the vast majority. Take your ass to South Sudan, stick you head in somebody's house, and tell me you don't know what "race" they are by looking at them! An obviously BLACK MAN will look you in the face and tell you to get the hell out of his house...lol. "You MUST go....right now!" Your thoughts and actions are your role or the role you are playing ALL roles are actions.....but not all actions are roles. Some actions are just routine, experimental, temporary, fleeting, etc.. Married heterosexual women often kiss, play with, and hug on eachother in a playful way...but they aren't lesbian. If your actions are loving and having sexual relationships with men....then your are a homosexual - no matter how much you thinking of doing it with women LOVING is the key word. It's that thought or preference that makes him homosexual, not necessarily his action. If he was straight but RAPED by another man and didn't love it, his ACTIONS didn't line up with his thoughts/preferences. Being incarcerated is out of their control...they are being forced to stay in place against their Will.. Exactly. But you said "whatever a person is doing is their preference". Do you understand that people often DO things they don't prefer to do because they either have no choice or their motivation for doing it is greater than their desire not to? A person may not prefer getting up early in the morning, but their desire to get that pay check from going to work is stronger than their preference....lol. Preference tends to be an immediate decision or choice Orientation is a long term or overarching desire or frame of reference/state of mind/thoughts You're CLOSE to being correct. Preference can be immediate OR long term. When it IS long term, it's ORIENTATION. Now be careful.... In some cases a person's sexual orientation may NOT be their preference! If they are a Christian...but gay....their orientation is homosexual, but they may WANT and PREFER to be straight! Lol...you weren't ready for that one, were you?

ProfD Well, I'm glad Lil' Nasty X wasn't the hill they decided to plant their flag and die on. Give that devil dancing fool as less attention as possible.

The definition CLEARLY STATES: And where do we get PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS from? Well....huh.....let's go back to the dictionary! 🙄....What more proof do you NEED to understand that race definitely DOES have a genetic component to it????

Yet another beautiful sista has passed away............... Ananda Lewis, former MTV VJ who shared breast cancer journey, has died at 52 https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/11/entertainment/ananda-lewis-death Robert Kennedy Jr. wants to find the cure for Autism. Perhaps he needs to get his priorities straight and work on finding a cure for more heart-breaking diseases like Cancer and ALS first.

With special appearances by Donald Glover............. "Oh Lawdy....here they come.... They done found the matches and kerosene"

Man...... If Black people don't "sanction" it....it simply becomes a flop....don't it....lol. We are the ones who really set the party off! If we don't attend, people spit their cigarettes to the ground, stomp them out, and walk away disappointed.....lol.

frankster Well, as I said earlier, I'm not going to keep opposing you on this issue because it comes too close to opposing my own beliefs about almost EVERY part of the human body containing a degree of consciousness. Science itself and doctors clearly distinguish the actual brain from any other "little brains" and "mini brains" mentioned in some article...lol.

I noticed that. I kept seeing reports that the protests were confined to the downtown area near city hall. Occasionally a few of them would wander out on to the free way and make people angry....lol. They keep trying to compare it to the 1992 Rebellion. But that ain't "it".

Their late...... Actually, I was expecting them to do this when Lil Nas X broke out with "Old Town Road"....lol.

frankster Dr Clarke is correct.... How can he be "correct" when he said there was no such thing as race and YOU YOURSELF admit that race exists as a "social construct"???? How can two opposing things be correct at the same time? -Race DOES NOT exist vs -Race IS a social construct. Two opposing concepts. Which one is correct? Race is a Artificial Invention of Man... Nature created no Races Race is unnatural in that it is a manmade manufactured fabrication He said it didn't exist. How can something NOT exist and BE "man made" at the same time? Cars are man made; do they not exist also? Dr Clarke dismissed the concept of Race as "no such thing".....meaning it is a falsity and a lie No. No such thing means it doesn't exist....period. YOU.....frankster....have said that it DOES exist, as a social construct. Have you now changed your position to align with his, that it DOES NOT exist? The fact that Dr Clarke then went on to explain the concept history purpose and implementation of this manufacture fabrication. He did more than just explain the CONCEPT of it but went on to explain the INVENTION of it. He took it beyond the "conceptual" stage to the INVENTED and ACTUAL stage and accepted it as a Reality that he found criticism in. Gingers (redheads) are different...so are blondes - based on the definition above why are they not races ...and according to the definition they CAN be, if one chooses to define them as such. That is not racism...... That is colorism/shadeism(skin tone) Which is also a FORM of racism....in a society that classifies race by "color". Again, race can be classified by any number of physical differences....color being just one among many. Troy don’t be silly of course you can describe people by their physical characteristics, but that don’t mean they are of different races Well, you said: Again, your need to define a people by the color of their skin completely escapes me. I don’t understand it?! You claimed you didn't understand the need to define people by their skin color and I showed you how it could be useful sometimes. It helps identify people. people who hate your guts solely because of the color of your skin. Are retarded and certainly not the majority. Whether they are in the majority or minority is irrelevant. Many of them HAVE BEEN and ARE in power and use that power to enforce their "retarded" beliefs on others. The slave owners who hated and mistreated their slaves simply because of color had the power to enforce their "retarded" beliefs. Racist cops have the power to enforce their "retard" beliefs on those they hate. the failure of people to recognize that there is one race is the primary reason racism has not gone away. And the fact that there IS more than one race is the primary reason most people...who can see...fail to recognize only ONE race, lol. They know better. Racism will go away when RACES (plural) go away. Chev That is the problem, perhaps. Because the term 'race' was deliberately used in modern times, the issue of White Supremacy in ancient times became hidden. So, the racial classifications today hide history that was on that same wise. Well "race" is merely an English word for an ancient concept. Like the word "leg" or "oven" or "eye" or "tree" They had words for these concepts in ancient times but called them by a different name simply because the language was different.

Israel strikes Iran, but Iran also strikes back: They got Israel looking like Gaza.

frankster Well then you should be humble....and pay attention to some one who knows. Ok, find them for me....lol. So look up the word and post and link here.....the word is "Indistinguishable" I know its a challenged for you but try to be honest by reading the meaning and then the example of use on various different website then come to a consensus Honestly bro, I don't CARE what the meaning is right now because that's not my focus. It is inadequate and worse it is the source of certain types of oppression Race as a social construct presumes and implies certain inaccuracies that results in the oppression of groups of peoples. These false presumptions and implications are used to legitimize and perpetuate oppression. On the other hand, RACE can also be a source of liberation and protection. Look at this piece from the Civil Rights Act of 1964: b) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer, labor organization, or employment agency to print or publish or cause to be printed or published any notice or advertisement relating to employment by such an employer or membership in or any classification or referral for employment by such a labor organization, or relating to any classification or referral for employment by such an employment agency, indicating any preference, limitation, specification, or discrimination, based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, except that such a notice or advertisement may indicate a preference, limitation, specification, or discrimination based on religion, sex, or national origin when religion, sex, or national origin is a bona fide occupational qualification for employment https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/civil-rights-act The concept of race is used in this Act to help protect people classified AS a certain race and prevent them from being discriminated against. Describing some ones appearance is not about race but ethnicity. Ethnicity is defined more by culture. Outside of the clothes one wears, how can you tell a person's ethnicity simply by LOOKING at them? You can usually tell a person's race by appearance, but not their ethnicity unless they're wearing their ethnic garb. The thought is the action and the action is the role....other words whatever the person is doing is the role While a thought is technically an "action" most people don't see it that way. Also, an action isn't necessarily a person's role. ...unless your roll is in a movie and somebody yells: ACTION! ....lol. Incels prefer to be celibate.....they only desire to be sexual - they fear the consequencies or process of being or becoming sexual. Not sure what the psychology behind it is but most Incels DO NOT prefer to be celibate. They WANT to have sex but for a number of reasons can't get anybody to have sex with them. Hence the term IN(voluntary)CEL(ibate). Preference in a sense is liking one thing over the other in the moment.....which ever you are liking is you preference. Orientation is the action of procuring or enjoying your preference Orientation and preference are often interchangeable and in this case when you're talking about sexual preferences...it is. What ever he is doing is his preference So if a person is "doing time"....are you saying they PREFER to be locked up? So while celbate that is his preference... Correct. But not his only one. When he resumes sexual activity that is his preference.... Correct. But again, not his ONLY preference. His orientation depends on who he has sex with .....be it with men or women No. His orientation is who he PREFERS to have sex with, not necessary who he ACTUALLY has sex with. Yes...they then prefer(or pretend) to be celibate - for whatever reason. Yes. That's ONE of their preferences. Another preference is their actual ORIENTATION. They maybe desire young boys or women Correct. And that's another preference. Their actual ORIENTATION. Orientation is an act It's also a PREFERENCE/THOUGHT/DESIRE

I was Divinely Favored to have a wonderful Father. A strong and decent Black man in my life who raised me and put me up on game for this Life. Some of the things that my Father told me when I was a kid I'm STILL bearing witness to it and seeing how true it is. Black boys...especially in this society....NEED a father or atleast a father figure...a DADDY....to put them up on game and teach them what they need to know to not only survive but thrive. Your mother can only teach you so much. I try to tell the boys that I raise, what I was taught in hopes that they would pass it along. Something as simple as...... If you see another man and woman talking to eachother.....you can acknowledge them and greet them but don't get IN the conversation. Just keep walking. You don't know what they're up to or what HE'S up to. Even if they aren't in a relationship....he may be trying to START one and you'll be throwing salt in his game by interrupting him. A lot of younger dudes today don't get that point and that's how a lot of conflict arises.

frankster Not true it specifically mentions ....any social group into which humans can be divided according to perceived similarities in their physical characteristics: Ok.... So how does this make MY statement "not true" in your opinion? Troy how can this happen when you summarily decide to boot Black people from the so-called race because you don’t like their skin color. Who does this? again, here you go confusing the two words, race and racism are too completely different things. Racism obviously exists. Racism exists because OF racial differences. If there were no racial differences, racism itself wouldn't exist because it would have no basis. you said that you do not believe bumping people into different racial buckets does not imply differences in intelligence. Correct. So what difference is are inherent to these groups that you’ve created in your mind? None. I created none of them in my mind. So what is the purpose of the racial buckets that you’ve created? I didn't create any. What are the distinguishing factors that make the people different? Is it just skin color? No. It could be a number of things; like skin color, eye shape, nose shape, hair texture, etc... See the definition. Again, America’s definition of black is different than yours because you don’t like to put light skinned people in the black category. Correct. But I still do from time to time because there are few other viable alternatives. ProfD No confusion. Racism cannot exist without race. Exactly! Chev Yes, whether it is defined as a social construct or not, it is still 'partially' based on science and that is the problem in that it is 'partially' based on science. I agree. According to the definition, it could be based on ANY perceivable (phenotypical) difference in groups of people so science (genetics) plays a huge role in defining a person's racial category.

ProfD I'm just hoping Black folks will continue to stand down and mind their own bizness Me too. Just like the Palestinian/Israeli situation a few months ago; they just keep trying to get Black folks "involved" in the situation. Both sides wanted us on "their" side. They know WE'RE the ones who make a protest "legit". They also know we're the only ones who can make shit JUMP OFF...lol. All of those people protesting in Los Angeles. Hundreds of thousands..... But no matter how hard they try, they just wizzle out like a dud firecracker...lol. They don't have the "fight" in them that Black Americans have so they barely make the news. The police know this, which is why the police in California are constantly scanning the crowds looking for Black participants! All of those White and Latino people protesting and throwing rocks and cussing....but they find the ONE Black person holding an ICE sign and they'll rush to tackle her and lead her away in cuffs. Whites and Latinos have been all over Los Angeles protesting and blocking traffic and spray painting graffiti but when the Marine come in, LOOK who they end up cuffing and detaining: Exclusive: US Marines carry out first known detention of civilian in Los Angeles, video shows | Reuters He was probably the ONLY nigga out there in a crowd of thousands.....but they managed to find and cuff HIM. And look at the Latino officer standing there grinning as his ass Black people need to stay the fuck OUT of these other people's affairs. We have enough problems to deal with.

Troy this is simply historically, inaccurate, white people and Black people and Asian people were trading with each other long before the concept of race was invented. So when I said "A lot of Africans ONLY knew about other Africans," This...to you...is " simply historically inaccurate"??? So all Africans knew about other races of people, I guess??? None of them were isolated to the point that they didn't see Europeans, Asians, or Arabs, I guess??? there are 1 million ways to group people we can do it on religion, geography, family, ethnicity whatever. And it's often done. Why the preoccupation with lumping people into different categories anyway? For the same reason FOOD is lumped into different categories. CARS are lumped into different categories. FLOWERS are lumped into different categories. SEASONS are lumped into different categories. If we we didn't have any categories for the seasons and just called everything "weather"??? What time of the year is this? "Ah nigga you already know what it is! It's WEATHER TIME !!!" ....lol. People have analytical minds and like categorizing things for accuracy and convenience. Do you (anybody) believe that racial differences give rise to differences and characteristics like in intelligence? No. frankster Why leave out the following that further defines the word Race....no mention is made of Biology or Genetics. ....because biology and genetics doesn't HAVE to be mentioned by name. It's IMPLIED when it says people can be grouped by PHYSICAL characteristics. PHYSICAL TRAITS fall under biology and genetics because skin color, hair texture, etc....all a product of the genes.

frankster You are right to say you are not sure....cause you are in error I'm right to say that I'm not sure because I'm NOT. I'm not a walking dictionary. I need go no further....Social Power - proves my assertions How? It cannot do so with any degree of accuracy or certainty.... It doesn't "need" to. As long as it does so adequately enough for common usage. As with the "bank robber" example I used in another thread. A man comes in and robs a bank and the police ask witnesses for a description....they don't need to be "scientific" about it for the cops to get a general idea of what the man looks like based on their descriptions of him. If it is a thought then it is a action But it's not a "role". It's not until that thought is EXPRESSED that it comes close to being a social role. If he is celibate then it means for whatever reason he prefers to be celibate right now Well, you DO have a group of people called "incels" or INVOLUNARILY celibate...but that's another topic, lol. Just because someone chooses to become celibate, that doesn't change or affect their sexual preference. It has everything to do with it.....he is refraining from sexual activity as a result of his preference Yes, but not his sexual orientation preference. He may have a preference to not eat red meat, but that's a DIFFERENT preference than his preference for men instead of women. People are complex and tend to have different preferences for different things. He is expressing his preference by being celibate.... He's expressing his sexual ACTIVITY preference, not his sexual ORIENTATIONAL preference. He may be gay, but prefers not to have sex for a particular reason....like many straight men do. Catholic priests (as fucked up as some of them are) take a VOW CELIBACY. That doesn't change their sexual orientation. Their orientation remains the same despite the fact that they may not be actively expressing it.

frankster Quotations are used to define exactly what is being spokne of... Quotations are used in a myriad of different ways. Calling that group of neurons in the heart a "little brain" could have been seen as falling under either category as being ironic or inappropriate depending on what the author of that article was thinking, but they clearly didn't intend for the term to be taken literally. See below...no quotes See the article itself, where the term IS in quotes: Yes.... You said it doesn't...... so prove it. Or just admit you expressing feces... It's not up to me to "prove" a negative. You're calling the group of coordinated neurons within the heart the heart's "little brain" and want that term to be taken literally. So if that's the case, then YOU must prove that it has a spinal cord and a pineal gland like THE brain. Since you assert the claim, the onus should be on YOU to prove that it does...not on me to prove that it doesn't. Right?

ProfD I don't believe enough Black folks love Latinos by proxy to force a Black and Brown alliance I'm not sure how many either, but it's not totally up to the Black folks who love them. An alliance is a two-way street and all parties must agree to come together and stand up for eachother. I don't believe there's enough Latinos willing to do this with Black people anyway. Attraction and s8x is such a thing to brotha @Pioneer1 that in a thread about ICE raids and a non-existent Black/Brown alliance he went into a diatribe about proxy access to white folks through Latinos. Even our late great brother Neely Fuller Jr. said that next to the survival instinct, the SEX instinct is the strongest motivational force among humans. Most people are thinking about sex. Either the sex that they want to have. The sex that they are having. Or if they are too old or unable...the sex they USED TO have, lol. Pioneer1, here's athought to create a Black/Brown alliance....you can round up a few illegal Latinas and provide them with shelter, food and clothing. They might cooperate too. Been there, done that...when I was living in Arizona....lol. Troy Pioneer you realize not all Latinos and Arabs are light skinned. Man, why are you asking me this? All this talk about black men being in love with white people or light skin women with straight hair is anachronistic. Modern people have moved beyond this type of thinking It's beyond common sense that many of our brothers (and many of our sisters) are obsessed with light skin and straight/wavy hair. If you deny this....I'm not sure what else to say. people are free to love whoever the heck they wanna love Not if they're brainwashed. They aren't free...because their thinking is RESTRICTED and BOUNDED by racist conditioning. If someone controls the RADIUS or CIRCUMFERENCE of your thinking and limits them, then they can control the DIAMETER of your knowledge and keep that limited too.

May our brother rest in peace and power. I still remember him on the Mike Douglas Show with Muhammad Ali and how they were both going at it. Those were the days, lol.

Troy many if not most already do. How do you know? Troy, how do you know what's in somebody's head, unless they straight up TELL you? Many of them are good at MASKING their true feelings in order to "keep it safe" on the job or in business so they don't lose money, customers, or get sued. They can hate your guts but will smile in your face and say: ....mornun' Just to keep things cool. I don’t know we can start by saying “human.” Again, your need to define a people by the color of their skin completely escapes me. I don’t understand it?! You have been so completely brainwashed by the white racist’s doctrine that you can’t see it. So.... A man robs a bank and the police officer asks for a description. Should the witnesses just say that he was "human", and leave it at that? Leave his so-called race or skin tone out of it? Talk about P.C. on steroids...lol. I’m confident racism will go away eventually. Great strides have been made here in this country. That’s obvious to you, isn’t it? Great strides? Lol....like the re-election of Donald Trump? But what we both CAN probably agree on....in theory atleast....is that racism will go away when "RACES" go away and we all live as ONE race. No matter how you or I "explain" it....we can both agree to that, right?

ProfD Many of our people actually LOVE White folks. They love how White folks look, how they act, and love them....period. But it's not "cool" to admit that these past few generations because they'd be exposed as self-hating sell outs and looked at kind of funny. So they often shoot for the next "best" thing, people who are ALMOST White. Like Latinos, Arabs, etc... They get as close to White as they can without actually getting WITH a White person. Kind of like how a Black man claims to love Black women but only dates the lightest almost "whitest" women he can find...lol. If you only date women who look like this, yo ass love White women...lol.....just admit it. A lot of bruthaz don't want to just go ahead with who they REALLY want because of community stigma. My point is, a lot of our people are really in love with White folks and Latinos are closer to White....so they love them by proxy.

Troy I have nothing to add Lol...well you're welcomed to pay attention. frankster What does "distinguishable " means to you @Pioneer1 I'm not sure, but I've given you a definition of race that includes a biological and genetic aspect. Can't say if I have when in a discussion with you.... If I have please repost with link and date... You can find that quote on the 2nd page of this thread. Race cannot be proven to have any genetic base.... It doesn't need to be, it's merely a category often used to distinguish expressed genetic differences. If you are a man and you Prefer to have sex with men....then you are not fulfilling your Social Role A preference is a THOUGHT...not a "role" being fulfilled. If He is Celibate....then he has no sexual preference or orientation while celibate - unless he expresses his preference. Being celibate doesn't affect his preference what so ever. A preference is a THOUGHT...having little to do with behavior. He can still HAVE a preference without expressing it. If it is known however, then he is usually still disliked for it whether he expressed it or not. In many if not most cases, homophobia is more a akin to being an aspect of RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE than sexism.