Let's just destroy civilization

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ty-professor-rochelle-gutierrez-a8018521.html

"Ms Gutierrez said knowledge is "relational" and must be treated as such, saying: "Things cannot be known objectively; they must be known subjectively."

We're done.

"Objective" and "subjective" knowledge depend upon your frame of reference. If you jump off of a tall building on Earth, you will fall down and go boom. That's fairly objective. If you jump off a tall building floating in free space, you will drift with whatever momentum you managed to impart to yourself. Different frame of reference, different result.

Sounds like thingamajig and all his guff about epistemology (fuck it, I'm not bothering to remember the name of someone who claims we're all inhabiting our own perceptual universes - he's Bob in mine. Bob Fuckwit Mcfuckwittington)

2 + 2 equalling 4 isn't subjective at all. Once we start denying that some truths are subjective is when we enter a post modern hellhole, but by the looks of this article we're already there.

Which number system are you assuming? Base 10, our most common one? Base 3, under which 2+2=11? Ya gotta define your frame of reference.

"All of this has happened before..."

He is probably assuming base 60, but that is just his Babylonian privilege shining through.

If it helps we all agree you are a twat. That has to count for something.

Damn, Lanzman beat me to the punch!

Your opinion means nothing to me. You don’t think black people can help themselves.

Evidently it means something to you seeing how you are obsessed with me.

While I love math smackdowns, warning for math in the Red Room. Comments to MA... talk to @gul, he's in MA.

funny brown people built pyramids and shit back in the day - I'm sure that took a bit of math.

If you think math supports white privilege, go ahead and abolish the teaching of it.

But I advise you not to fly on an airplane designed without it. You will most assuredly make contact with the ground in a non-subjective way.

Yabut, the art of flying consists of throwing one's self at the ground and missing.

Interestingly enough, missing the ground is the hard part.

Yes, but that's about the expression of the number, not the number itself. You wouldn't say that 2+2=4 is relative because 4 can be expressed as four, vier, quatro, quatre, or IV...

If math is so white, why are Asians so good at it, hey?

But the waiting is the hardest part...

A person who says everything is subjective is, by definition, self-contradictory, because claims about the ultimate nature of truth are objective in intent.

Subjectivity is a superficial cover on irrationality. I won't even get into the political nature of such views...

If you're gonna hit the ground, you'll be happy to wait.

Remember the scene in History of the World Part One, where a peasant (Mel Brooks) who looks like the King of France is about to be executed by guillotine? One of the executioners asks if he has any last request. "No," he says, "no last request." They then drop the blade on a watermelon to test it, and, seeing the melon chopped cleanly in half, Brooks says "I have one last request! Novacaine!" The ministers confer for a moment and say "Monsieur, it has not been invented yet." "I'll wait," he says.

good call!

Believe it or not there are several of these fucking retards here who have a history of claiming math is some how racist because certain groups don't do as well as other groups. @Ancalagon is one of these fools.

I don't think @Ancalagon thinks math is a plot by Whitey, but things like this show that the argument "Group X doesn't do as well as Group Y in Field ABC, therefore ABC is a plot against X to benefit Y" is very specious reasoning.

He sure supported doing away with math and spoke a whole lot about hpw it was racist, hurt minoroties, and really wasn't needed.

He is a fucking idiot.

https://wordforge.net/index.php?thr...lowering-standards-to-help-minorities.113723/

That is the thread if people want to walk down memory lane and see exactly who supports this idiotic nonsense.

sounds like sensationalism. This:
"Who gets credit for doing and developing mathematics, who is capable in mathematics, and who is seen as part of the mathematical community is generally viewed as White," she wrote, according to Campus Reform."

Is not an assertion that mathematical formulas and solutions are subjective. She may or may not be right, she may or may not be a loony, but at least represent her claims accurately.

basketball is racist because white men can't jump - fact!

however, oldfella can't do math - I better send away for an ancestry DNA test kit!
Oh wait, I might get tagged as being the real OJ Simpson case killer!
Seriously though not to discredit the bible but mankind started out in Africa and spread, and white skin is a recessive gene. So I guess nobody can accuse science as being racist! If it is, then all my doctor needs to learn is the song "Dry Bones" - "the knee bone connected to the......hip bone! The hip bone connected to the.....neck bone!"

No, that is wrong in several different ways.

First of all, anything that is objective in intent has to be subjective, because only individual subjects have intentions. What is real as such has no intentions, it just is.

Secondly, your statement assumes that everything subjective is individual, which is a (albeit common) misuse of the word that completely misses the epistemological point. As the empiricists knew no later than Hume, even concepts such as the law of causality are subjective. This means that there is no empirical event that can ever prove it true, or indeed in many cases, including the law of causality, prove it false.

Thirdly, Subjective also doesn't mean untrue or of limited truth. Many truths can only be real subjectively; if you take the distinction between truth and reality seriously, such that a statement is true if it corresponds to reality, then all truth is necessarily subjective, because see point 1.

Fourthly, the original form of this argument is Aristotle's attack on relativism (to para ti), and it misses the point of the scope of each relativism. Einstein' "Everything is relative", for instance, can very well be true absolutely, without contradicting itself, cause it never meant that claims about physics are relative, only that speed is.