Alpha Trump moment
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
Comments (42)
sorted by:
The mainstream media will lap this up but I don’t believe it for a second. Anyone who has something negative to say about Trump has the red carpet rolled out for them. Plus Trump was quite popular with Jackson, Sharpton, and NAACP
I think there is a chance he said it as a joke to her, but you're right the MSM will make it about white supremacy.
They have searched for 5+ years for something racist he has done or said, at this point I don't think they will find anything that is actually racist so they take something out of context that might sound that way... Same as the grab em by the pussy.
BUT... BUT... LAWSUIT IN THE 1970s!
By the way, the regime claims that Trump persisting in claiming that the Central Park 5 were guilty is "racism". OK, so what does that make Elizabeth Warren and others who call Darren Wilson a murderer even though there were no grounds for even an indictment?
The 5 definitely did it
Even if they did, it would not matter one bit to his supporters.
In fact, the more the Teflon Don says outrageous shit to bollix up the assholes running things, the better.
DeSantis/Trump 2024!
Am I wrong?
I mean, it's not wrong either kek
Without context it does not even mean anything, I do not know who this women is. As far as we know her dad can be a very smart individual like an engineer or doctor and it was a compliment rather then a race thing. I doubt he actually said the white side of your family.
Not so long ago being compared to your dad was a nice thing to do. If he was a racist as the media claim why in the world would he date mix-raced women, is not like he had trouble finding hot women to date.
White people are smarter than black people.
And blacks remain stupid even when taken and raised in white countries: US SAT scores: "Of those scoring above 700, 43% are Asian and 45% are white, compared to 6% Hispanic or Latino and 1% Black."
I read some study, I can't pull it up on google from memory with the effort I'm willing to make for this comment, that basically said that even though you took blacks from sub saharan africa and raised them in the US, even if adopted by white parents, they still showed a substantially lower IQ.
IQ isn't entirely genetic, but a lot of it is genetic. Genetics defines the potential. You can fail to reach your potential for other reasons as well. North Koreans are probably dumber than South Koreans for the same reason they're short: poor nutrition.
The "civil rights act" was the final nail in the coffin of the American experiment.
I’m aware of those studies but I don’t believe he said that.
A smart person would know what averages are
He is an interesting fellow. Sometimes he says really smart things, but at other times he accuses me of being an FSB agent, or has some Eyepatch McCain-tier takes like claiming that Havana Syndrome is actually real.
Nope. On average, white people are smarter than black people.
There's also the children of black American soldiers in Germany, who were no smarter or dumber than the children of white soldiers. However, this evidence is contested because the army has IQ tests for its recruits.
Nearly all of it is, and the rest of it is unshared environment - mostly the product of development. Environment makes close to 0 difference, at least unless you starve your kid.
Yes that's what I wrote. I just didn't include the pathetic little disclaimer language because I do not insult the intelligence of my reader by assuming they are so stupid as to assume I would be making the statement that "the dumbest white person on earth is still smarter than the smartest black person". That is not what I wrote. You would have to change what I wrote.
Are you going to object to a statement like "Men are taller than women"? Because they are. The fact that you feel the need to inject qualifications that are really not necessary to dance and tiptoe comes across as cucked. It's not my responsibility if someone wants to attribute an absurd interpretation of my words.
Black Americans themselves are often mixed race.
The kids of blacks in germany would necessarily be at least 50% white, and possibly as much as 75% white. So their characteristics tell you nothing about the genetics of blacks. The fact that german women fucked them and lighter skin is seen as more attractive, might mean that the fathers were more mixed than usual.
This isn't a randomized group. The "blacks" involved had to be smart enough to convince german women to fuck them.
sample size was super low, with only 98 mixed race kids.
The mixed race kids did actually have lower IQ: 96.5. The white boys had 101, and the white girls, strangely, had 93. Considering how tiny the sample was, it would have only taken a few outlier white girls to throw off the results.
There are lots and lots of superior studies with much bigger samples in the US. Discussed in detail here: https://web.archive.org/web/20151103215722/http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf
The only reason anyone talks about that shitty low quality German study is that it suits their biases and tells them what they want to hear. Liberals lose their fucking minds at the suggestion that blacks are genetically inferior to whites. They CANNOT accept that, no matter how clear the evidence. So they attack anyone who dares to speak the truth, and drive them out of academia and destroy their careers and screech that they are racists and white supremacists. No. Just because a true fact lends itself to use by racists and white supremacists, does not make that fact itself racist. Facts are just facts. Denying the truth because it is inconvenient to your ideology, to me, is heinous, and is one of the reasons I hate leftism so much.
It's just a false statement.
It is what you wrote. Yours was a categorical statement. If X are more A than Y, then all members of X are more A than Y. If stars are bigger than planets, then no one in his right mind is going to conclude that the average star is bigger than the average planet.
You now try to change it.
No, men are on average taller than women.
And those mixed race ones are often the ones who were set free earlier, leaving them more free early on to have access to the dominant culture (which back then was actually good), as TS points out.
Actually, it does - because you'd be able to see the effect of the 25% that you assert. If someone with 100% black genes is on average N IQ points less smart, then someone with 50% should have N/2, and 25% N/4, on average.
And in fact, James Flynn argues that the part-blacks in Germany flourished because there was no ruined black subculture there
'Lighter skin' is not seen as more attractive in Europe. Nor in the US. People work hard to get my skin tone.
And also because basically any study of race and IQ is confounded by other variables, even before it was completely put a stop to due to political correctness.
People who have a somewhat lower IQ are not 'inferior'. Only liberals define their self-worth by self-congratulating themselves about their supposed intelligence.
Agreed. I think that it is highly likely that there are IQ differences resulting from race. But I do think you exaggerate. It may not account for the entire current difference that is measured.
No, you're wrong. Qualifications are not needed. I get that english is not your first language, so don't argue semantics with me.
And therein lies your mental defect: you presume to dictate how a statement ought to be interpreted, and you are, of course, wrong. "Stars are bigger than planets" is a generally true statement. The fact that a person can find 1 example of the biggest planet being bigger than the smallest star does not invalidate that statement. You would need to say "ALL stars are bigger than ALL planets" for the statement to be absolute as you presume.
No, that is completely wrong. Genetics does not work in a linear fashion like that.
It is with blacks. When you look at blacks seen as attractive in both the US and Europe, they are always mixed race, not the dark black sub saharan africans. Halle Berry looks nothing like a sub saharan african, for example. The fact that white people might tan does not invalidate this. Apples and oranges.
Of course they are, by definition.
No, you are a socialist, and liberals/leftists are also socialists. You and they agree on this point. It's a communist point, that everyone is equal, even though they are very clearly not.
I didn't suggest that it accounted for everything. There is, however, SOME clear difference that is not allowed to be spoken about.
"Me is right" isn't an argument. Neither is pulling the first language card, since my English is way better than that of the most Americans, despite it being my third language. If you hadn't gotten it in your head that I'm Hungarian or an FSB agent or whatever the hell of a delusion you have, you wouldn't even make this argument.
I could just as easily say that for your claim to hold true, you'd have to say that stars are generally bigger than planets. Or is the statement "men are mortal" also "men are generally mortal". It just makes no sense. Why do you always choose the dumbest hills to die on, asks my FSB colleague sitting next to me.
On average, it will absolutely work like that. How come the black kids had only several IQ points fewer than the white ones, comparable to what is found of ethnic groups?
I think it's true for women, but not for men. I have seen black men who are regarded as attractive (but not by me) who are rather dark. This case is about men.
Are white inferior to Jews and Asians? Or are you going to BS yourself out of it by saying: actually, we're not less smart.
It's a Christian point. All men are equal in the eyes of God. Socialism is an economic idea, it's got nothing to do with human equality. This is just your crazy talk. You've gotten rather crazy in the past few days. But you are regularly bragging about your supposed intelligence, which is probably why you sound like a liberal when dismissing people who are supposedly less intelligent as inferior.
Yes, I agree with that.
No, because as the speaker, they are my words, and I am able to make a less-precise statement without adding qualifiers and caveats. Then, if challenged with an unreasonable interpretation, all I have to do is say "you are wrong, your interpretation is foolish" instead of taking some sort of blame for your absurd misconstruction.
You have fallen prey to the fallacy the endless qualifiers and caveats are necessary in the English language. This is false, and unworkable. I do not need to be excessively precise in my language in order to idiot-proof my words against unreasonable and idiotic interpretations. The interpreter is wrong in such cases, not me. I have already supplied this information in an implicit fashion through context. You might not like it, but this is how English functions 99% of the time. It would be too tiresome and tedious to constantly be on guard against stupid and absurd readings, even if those readings could be argued as a possible interpretation divorced from context.
The REASON you are wrong here is that you are forcing a particular interpretation on my words, when, at best, you can argue that my words are open to possibly multiple interpretations, some absurd. I am not required to be on guard against absurd interpretations. You know I'm a lawyer and i don't even have to do that as part of my legal work outside of narrow situations in contracts.
You're here on the same hill, and the difference is that you're wrong. No, I am not required to put dumb shit like "ON AVERAGE" in a statement that men are taller than women. The fact that I am talking about averages is implied by the context. People make that statement in the context of averages quite commonly. People do NOT make that statement in the context of absolutes, THEREFORE if your intention was to do the counter-intuitive thing and mean absolutes as on "even the shortest man is taller than the tallest woman", THEN the burden would be on you to add the extra words to clarify that unusual position.
And yes, this is 100% an issue with english not being your 1st language and you not having been immersed in native english speaking society. Perhaps in your 1st and 2nd languages, the rules are different and context has no place. Your perspective is marred by the rules of other languages and your arrogant proclamation that you know english better than some americans is irrelevant, because you sure as fuck don't know english better than I do.
False. Genetics is not linear. You don't even understand the concept of recessive traits. Intelligence is extremely complex and there is absolutely no reason to believe that if you take an IQ 110 person and an IQ 100 person, you'd get an IQ 105 child. It could very well be that black DNA is stupid because of genes that are deactivated even with only 1/8th white DNA intermixed. You have no idea, nobody does, which is why your whole line of reasoning is just a non-starter.
It's still true of men, it is just that all things based on looks are exaggerated for women, because women are judged more on their looks. The #1 black male model, Tyson Beckford, is mixed race. All the top black celebrity men like Cuba Gooding Jr., Denzel Washington, Will Smith, Samuel Jackson, James Earl Jones, Laurence Fishburne, Jamie Foxx, Dwayne Johnson etc are on the lighter skinned side. When you look at darker skinned men you see mainly comedians & "thugs" which aren't successful for their looks.
No, because AMERICAN Jews and Asians are not a representative sample, they are self-selected elites. Most whites came to the US as poor refugees, most Jews and Asians who made it to the US were the elites of their respective groups. A perfect example of this is Indians. Are Indians superior to whites? HAH. Fucking street shitters, are you KIDDING me? But what about Indians, IN AMERICA, who are largely doctors and programmers? Absolutely, they run circles around the median whites.
Now, are AMERICAN Jews and Asians on average superior to whites? Absolutely. You can say that about any immigrant group in a system where the US is "brain draining" the other country.
Men might be equal in the eyes of God in the sense of going to Heaven or Hell, but that means nothing about every other sense. Nothing in Christianity suggests some communistic principle that men cannot be smarter, or stronger, or more noble, or virtuous, than others. In fact, the Bible is full of stories about how great men who were not equal to their peers did great things: Samson, Job, David, etc.
Jesus didn't pretend that everyone was equal, he just suggested that those at the bottom of society be treated a little better.
Socialism is enforced "equality" by stealing from the winners to subsidize the losers. The whole principle of socialism is that the government is going to pay the poor to keep them as an army to use to eat the rich if the rich do not agree to be eaten slowly. No wonder socialist countries all crash their economies.
The Nordic "big welfare" states are not literal socialism, but at soft socialism that can only be maintained through having a homogenous high quality population, so just wait until they muddy up their countries with poor refugees and ruin their little paradises.
Res ipsa loquitur. How'bout you parse that, Mr. Lawyer?
See, you're banging the table, because neither the law nor the facts are on your side. It's not going to impress me though.
Oh please. If you mean "on average", you should say it.
Lawyers are stupid, corrupt and immoral.
Does this mean that they are "on average" stupid, corrupt and immoral? Does it mean that they are more so than others groups? Does it mean any number of other interpretations that you can make up? No, it means all lawyers are. Adding 'all' just makes it more emphatic.
Even if it were true, I care not for what "people" do. "People" use the supposed word "irregardless". "People" are stupid and irrational.
Some? Nearly all, you mean. And I'm pretty sure I do know it better than you do. See, all you do is pound the table and talk about 'hills'. There was no context that you could appeal to. There was none in your statement. There was just "blacks are dumber than whites". Well, that's just plain wrong, because you are not smarter than Thomas Sowell.
See? That's why people say "on average". For any given product of 110 and 100, you cannot assume that the result is 105, but for large numbers it most certanly will be. This has nothing at all to do with 'recessive' traits, you're just throwing that out there in the hope that I don't know what it is. Bad luck.
You play expert at all sorts of things that you know very little to nothing about.
What wild speculation (also not what 'recessive' genes are). My ideas did not rely on wild speculation, so we're going to go with them, thank you very much.
You just leave out all the darker blacks. However many of them there are in America anyway. Morgan Freeman is dark, and while he's not exactly my type, he's pretty good-looking.
Dude, pogrom-fleers are not the "elites" of their respective society. They started in menial occupations and scored so low on IQ tests that one IQ test advocate proclaimed that the results proved the falsity of the widely held belief that the Jew is intelligent.
I can just as easily take one moment in time when whites were not highly civilized and make a judgment based on that. In fact, many did. One Arabic traveler to Europe wrote that the more you travel north, the paler people get, and the dumber they get.
Nor do I believe that, nor anyone probably. Even communists butchered their opponents because they believed - or at least used as an excuse - that those were not as noble as the communists.
You wouldn't need to enforce it if it were true to begin with.
It's interesting that someone would have to go all the way to Germany to prove blacks are not less smart, on average, than whites. Why not look at Africa, or America, or Brazil, or any of the places where the actual blacks we are interested in exist? Instead we have to look at >66% white kids (1/2 white from mother + avg 1/3/2 white from father)
They had to go to 1 tiny German study of mixed race kids because all the other studies show a huge disparity that can't be explained in any other way than genetics.
I don't see what harm it does to smart blacks anyways. The average white IQ is like 103 or something. Maybe 100 if you use us as the baseline. I dont' get butthurt that East Asians have on average higher IQ because that has nothing to do with my individual intelligence. I don't even begrudge Ashkenazi if in fact their real IQ is 115 or something. I think there are reasons to doubt that, but I don't care if it's true.
It's because liberals try to use ethnic tribal identity groups to exploit for votes. So they need to use white supremacists as a boogieman that doesn't really exist in order to rally their minority tribes to vote Democrat. Meanwhile white people are just trying to live their lives.
This is one of those where even if it is true, nobody actually cares. People who support the man won't give a shit, actual racists won't give a shit, and liberals already chose the wrong side.
There is literally no point in publishing this unless they believe that adding to the noise will help them defeat him somehow. They think the media is a magic password to alter reality.
100% made up. It's just what leftists imagine comic book villains and their Blumpf talk like.
Maybe he even said that her intelligence comes from her dad. If Thomas Sowell marries a janitor, then their children will have their smarts from him. He definitely did not say "the white side".
Same thing as "the Gorilla Channel" and "Trump grabbed the secret service agent's neck and lunged for the wheel on 1/6"
“Trump’s SO RACIST he dated a biracial girl!”
It's fetishism and cultural appropriation!
Nice use of quotes! So, he didn't actually say that, the book "says" that. But using the quotation marks in that way gives the appearance that these were his words. Mwah. Always nice to see the old tricks.
Based