Troy

Yes, multiple races exist in your reality @Pioneer1, so it is real to you and many others.  However that reality is not shared by more knowledgeable people.

@Pioneer1 because you are confusing my reality with your reality. You also believe that YOUR reality is the ONLY reality. Reality is relative.

I was on a website this morning whose stated mission is quoted in the subject of this post;

"Our goal is to empower all Black communities to invest in one [an]other."

I have added it to my site list  Black-owned websites, but I could not help but think this site has prominent links to Facebook, Twitter, Google, and Pinterest social media platforms!  Surely there are Black owned social media platforms we can promote.instead?

@NubianFellow can you list a few Black owned social media platforms that provide a social sharing icon that can be used by web sites that purportedly invest and empower Black communities?

At some point we HAVE to stop feeding the beast and recognize the fact that every time we prominently display the logos of Facebook and Twitter on our sites we providing FREE promotion for these sites (as if they need it) and telling the world we think these sites are important -- indeed more important than our own!  We are also are hurting our own indie websites in the process.

Now if I wanted to promote AALBC on that site that supposedly invests in Black folks, I better have some money!  Does anyone see how messed up this is? 

Sure, I understand why folks do it.  I have social haring buttons on AALBC. Markers say you have to be where audience is. However if your goal is to invest in one another we have to actually do that.

2 hours ago, Cynique said:

Perception is an individual's subjective view of reality. 

Full stop. 

12 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Then will you finally agree with me that RACE is real

No! 

Gravity, tumors and now race, where will it end?  Pioneer race is also a story we tell ourselves.  In my reality (one shared with most informed, thinking people) there is only one race.  In your version of the world, there are multiple races -- despite the fact that view is not supported by the current science, it is one you've adopted -- it is YOUR reality.

The following are quotes from an article written by an employee of IPS Inc., the company who developed the discussion forum software I'm use here. The article was written to help explain why privacy is an important aspect to building and online community and growing a discussion forum.

This article struck me because I did observe an great migration away from indie forums like this one to the large social media platform and I'm interested in growing this forum. Participation way down from a peak about a decade ago. 

Competing against the large social media sites is very hard, for the simple fact is that sites like Facebook utilize everything they know about you and the latest science to keep you engaged on they platforms. 

While an increasing number of people are abandoning social media (I'm one) I don't sense a great exodus of people leaving social media and returning to indie forums like this AALBC.

However, I can see where privacy it is a strong selling point. I also work hard to prevent trolls from posting on these forums.  Plus your privacy is protected here, anonymity is OK, and selling your data never crossed my mind.

Interestingly it never occurred to me to maintain my privacy.  I have never posted anonymously. One of the most prolific posters here, in the past @Thumper, never revealed his identity.  For years many people thought I was Thumper :-).   

Recently @Cynique asked @NubianFellow how old he was, and he declined to answer the question.  Was Cnyique trying to make sense of him by learning his age?  Was Nubian preventing her from doing it by denying her the information -- forcing her to judge him in his words (assuming Nubian is in fact a man).

There have been several posters here whose gender, age, and even celebrity was kept secret.  

One the "suits" walk in they mess everything up. This is the case with Amazon, Google, and Facebook.  Of course I'm biased, but that does not mean what I've said is invalid.  

Below are some quotes from the article:

“People may strategically express identities when they think they will not be punished, and/or connect them to an audience that is valued.”

“For an individual with a stigmatized condition, a forum may be a real life-line in coping with the condition as face-to-face support is often limited.”

“Forums allow a way to create a new identity that is either gender-neutral thus allowing the male users to assume a gender, or overtly male to ensure their contributions are evaluated on merit, and not with any gender bias.”

“With a forum community, you can truly be who you want to be. This is not so with social media where others can create bias based on your gender, looks or topical preferences.”

3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Well, let's go to the Oxford Dictionary.....

See there you go again running to the white man book LOL for validation!

3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

The state of things as they actually exist

As Cynque says you are mixing apples with oranges and resorting to you old tactic of moving change your argument.  You started with gravity and when I explain that gravity is not reality but a story well tell ourselves until we learn more. Now you are on to a tumors -- what else is next?

Dude what do you know about what actually exists or real  -- other than what someone else has told you? You decide what is real and was is false.  We all do it.  I tell you the dress is blue and you swear it is gold.  Some believe the end of the world is upon us and others think that is utter nonsense.  One Dr. says it is a malignant tumor and another Dr. say it is a benign mass.  What is the reality?  Flip a coin.

Yes.

That's right @Pioneer1. If one can't perceive something, and has not learned of it in any other way, that is the very definition of what makes it part of one's reality.

It is really quite a simple concept; I'm not sure why you are struggling with it. 

4 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

Why introduce factors that support what I'm saying while disproving your assertions?

If that is the case what is stopping you from saying any old crazy thing just to make a point... ah nevermind in your case their nothing stopping you LOL!

6 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

No no no....it's their relativity but NOT "their" reality.

What? Are you confusing reality with relative LOL!  We agree that perceptions are different. I'm saying perceptions are reality. Therefore reality is relative to the perceive.  What you believe is a objective relativity is just your perception.  You are just egotistical enough to believe it THE only reality and that everyone else is delusional (or mentally ill).

10 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:

Unless or until you can PROVE that whatever that 95% consists of actually CHANGES the reality and function of gravity.

That is just the point no one can "prove" it. They just know our understanding of gravity does not explain it.  This is true for the quantum world too. 

Man if it were not for books you'd be running looking for a virgin to sacrifice to placate the Gods who have brought cold weather to your area.  What do you know really know about reality?

2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Are you suggesting that a person who doesn't perceive that they are sick can not have a disease simply because they haven't acknowledged it?

Lets not convolute things any further with mental illness.

I don't think the multiverse theory can ever be proven.

2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

I never said it wasn't relative; but relative is just an individuals position with or perception of an established reality.

Well that is basically my point man. an individuals perception is "their" relativity.  The perception IS their reality.  In addition there is no objective reality.  You speak about gravity, but like the multiverse it too is a theory and it is very likely to change.

People used to believe Newton's laws which implied and invisible force between objects, that was later rejected in favor of a warping of space, but our current understand of gravity fails at the quantum level and does not explain the accelerating expansion of the universe.

So you are using gravity to prove an objective reality, when we really don't have a clue what 95% of the observable universe if made of.  

Gravity as you understand it Pioneer may not be "reality," but a story we tell ourselves to make sense of the universe.  Future generation will wonder how we believed such a thing in much the same way some believed the world was flat. 

2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

I think for most younger people it actually IS worse off today than it was 30 or 40 or 50 years ago

Maybe you are right Pioneer; In some ways I do think I was better off than kids, of the same social class and environment, are today.  I think playing outside is much more fun than anything a kid could do on a cell phone.

In @Cynique's day I heard a couple could buy a home, raise a family, own two cars, send their kids to college, take a vacation and retire -- all on one salary.  Today at least in NYC you need a roommate, you can't afford a car, and both you and you parents are buried in student loan debt --  forget about owning a home. Best one can hope for is a parent to die and leave you their house.

Maybe social media and all the trivial "news" it spews is huge virtual pacifier placating what would otherwise be rampant human misery.

2 hours ago, Cynique said:

Maybe this generation wouldn't be so eager to escape into the cyber universe of social media if the real world was a better place. 

Is the world really so bad off today compared to the past?  While you may not have suffered under the weight of Jim Crow, you are old enough to know large scale wars and the death and rationing that came with it.  You remember the fear of pending nuclear annihilation that drove many to build bomb shelters.  You are old enough to remember how diseases like whopping cough and polio ravaged the country...

What did people do for kicks back then? Is being locked to a cell phone 24/7 a better diversion than what people did 25 years ago and earlier.

I spent my time playing out doors -- all sorts of games like tag and basketball.  I watched TV for a couple for hours on Saturday morning (cartoons) and after that I was in the streets playing.

Keep in mind I'm not a Luddite or a technophobe.  I'm sure I understand and have used social media more than most and I'm absolutely better versed on web based technologies. I also get out and travel the country extensively. Perhaps this is why I see things differently than you and the people you encounter on a daily basis. I, objectively, have a much broader perspective on this issue than most people.

...I guess we will have to continue to disagree about the adverse impact of  social media and the like.

Why would you not read the entire article @Delano? 

When ever someone posts something from another source, if it is a subjects that interests me I always go to the original article.  If that article referees a source (if it i an article about another article which makes up so much of the stuff on the web nowadays) I'll check out the original source

More often than not, I'll discover that the person (and I'm not just talking about you) is sharing something that is actually not supported by the original source.  

When 45 asserts that "the news is fake," he is wrong the news generated by journalists is pretty good.  The problem is that we have so much less of this and much  more of what you find circulating around the web and social media: uninformed opinions on opinions or events masquerading as "news." 

@Cynique I'll agree that the current weather event in Chicagoland is newsworthy.  I actually never did not think it was, which is why I started the thread.  The larger point I was making subsequently is that much of what is reported as "News" is not news worthy. 

More importantly, the non-stop barrage of exaggerated, sensationalized, even fake information of little consequence that we call "news," is detrimental to our society.  

Cynique, you grew up in a world before TVs were in every home. For most of your adult life social media did not exist. You discount this difference as inconsequential, but i assure you it is not for the people who grew up in an time when they know nothing else but constant access to marketers who understand their motivations better they themselves do.

@Cynique I asked you previously if you thought that the fact that many people are tied to their phones 24/7 is bad or good  Did you  ever answer that question?  What do you think? Please forget the fact that you and I are not tied to our phones; I'm sure you must know people who are.

2 hours ago, Delano said:

What part of the quote ,implies or makes that statement? 

It is in the article you shared, which I assume you read in its entirety. If you did, you would not have needed to ask that question

@Pioneer1 again I say it is relative.  If you put the building on the moon the result would be different -- even though the "law" has not changed. 

We can define narrow conditions in which possible outcomes are limited to the point that one simply cannot imagine a different outcome.  You call this reality. 

To the other extreme others have posited an infinite number of universes with different physical constants were the incomprehensible can take place this too is reality, albeit one may may never experience.

What is real is what we can perceive -- the example of the mentally disturbed man you  provided aside.

OK @Cynique what are the dire consequences of avoiding social media and the news on TV?

@Delano that article is the reasin why the internet is like the wild west. People can say and do anything.

Quantum physists do not say the the marco world, the one we can see with our eyes, behaves like the quantum world, nor do the say any of it has anything to do with consciousness. 

People like ones who wrote that article are making things up and misleading people.

I don't consume social media or watch broadcast TV. I do listen to the radio. Short of dropping off the grid I'm not sure how i could have avoided the "news" telling me the number of days in the government shutdown.

So it is cold in Chicago? why should the folks down here, many of whom have never been north of the mason dixon, care? Why is this news? How do we benefit from the info?

I have the radio on because some of the information i get is useful (like my local weather report) so i don't tune it out and I just put up with the unless info, like the closing value of the s&p 500.

Lol! Man you were a homophobe at 7 years old! I wonder why he grabbed YOUR hand. 

Pioneer to the people who perceieve the world to be flat how does that effect their objective reality? I dont think it does.

Eveything is realtive. Including what we call reality. Even the very passing of time is relative.

1 hour ago, Cynique said:

What is to be gained by the media misleading people about the weather?? 

I attracts listeners and keeps the audience engaged. Which means more ad dollars.

Here I am in Florida and I know Australia is drying up and Chicago is freezing.  

The government shut down was the worst. Everyday I had to hear how many days the giverment was shut down. Who cares if it was 23, 14 or 37 days? It is like hearing the Dow Jones Industrial Average everyday. The daily number is useless information but we gotta here it. 

@Pioneer1 the end times draw nigh. Repent before it is too late.

Minus 60 windchill! Forget millennials, few people on Earth have seen temperatures that low.

My position has evolved. Everyone's reality is different. For me 2+2=4 is objectively and subjectively true. 

For you, this may not be the case. If you believed the answer was 3 that is your reality, both objective and subjective

From my perspective, the answer of 3 is your subjective reality.

It depends upon your relgion.

6 hours ago, Delano said:

what about object vs subjective reality

That is the same as asking, "what about objective perception vs subjective perception." Again, there's no difference; is is the same thing.