💬 Off-Topic Louis Theroux's Forbidden America

I didn't say either of those things but whatever. What is your cutoff for White American? Do naturalized Europeans count? First gen Euro immigrants? First gen immigrants that came before 1930? Because there's a lot of first gen immigrants with non American culture that have been at the forefront of the US' success as a nation, but I don't understand where your line is.
Pink nipples. Don't @ me.
 
Because they have a lot of problems, don't know the culture and they normally have fucked up values because they only have one way for survival, it isn't based around an autism mind game, even more when you cannot measure it perfectly, even more when the IQ was taken by a shitty study of 100 people (aka. Lynn, there isn't any new studies around IQ in africa and the ones which didn't picked retarded children or kids who didn't speak english with english tests are very scarce) and they have all of the problems of malnourishment and many other things, a good example in africa is a place like gambia, there's white people, but there are more blacks by a long mile and they help eachother, which makes a good economy.
My problem isn't differences, but trying to explain them on a retarded way and trying to do a lot of retarded assumptions or studies with specific values you can have.

Even then, that study was made in the US, where i explained the cultural aspect and why everyone there uses their race, when you have no culture you will pick the next best thing, even if it's retarded.
That's the reason you shouldn't see everything with an US perspective, it will fuck you up on the long run
I believe things like the Flynn effect, Wilson effect, and twin studies show that environment has a factor on intelligence, but ultimately inherentence and genetics have a much larger impact.

I think societies that are truly multicultural and multiracial are doomed to fracture and ultimately fail for the reasons discussed. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
 
Considering we're in the thread of a documentary about someone who has their travel restricted, assets frozen and social media censored, these things are not freely discussed.

They're in a documentary.

I've never been to North Korea, but I doubt they'd have someone on their TV network that is openly criticizing the great one, especially if many North Koreans actually believed what he was saying.

There's a massive difference... And something not being able to be freely discussed applies much more there than it does here.
 
I respect the honesty behind admitting that critical thinking isn't beneficial to your beliefs. That's why you people are always the losers. Critically thinking about your positon is more than PR you brainless retard.
Technically "critical thinking" is just a phrase that means "thinking".

In practise, like people that use the word "problematic" is an indication for feminist education, "critical thinking" is an indication of someone adhering to "critical theory", which is in practise designed to subvert the western power structures. It's anti-european in every sense.

What you're demanding is that people that disagree with you treat you nicely and don't speak too harsh or loud, even while you align yourself with thought and ideology that seeks to eradicate them and their goals. Only exceptionals play that game; or when it's for pr, because pr is to appeal to the exceptional.
 
They're in a documentary.

I've never been to North Korea, but I doubt they'd have someone on their TV network that is openly criticizing the great one, especially if many North Koreans actually believed what he was saying.

There's a massive difference... And something not being able to be freely discussed applies much more there than it does here.
Okay, so it's okay for me to inflict a non mortal stab wound on you, because if we lived in london it would have been a fatal one?

How is this an argument that someone that is fucked with to that degree, is operating in a space where people are free to discuss their opinions?
 
I believe things like the Flynn effect, Wilson effect, and twin studies show that environment has a factor on intelligence, but ultimately inherentence and genetics have a much larger impact.

I think societies that are truly multicultural and multiracial are doomed to fracture and ultimately fail for the reasons discussed. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
the problem of those studies is that they fuck eachother and generate a lot of problems, genetics matter, but it isn't a specific race thing, is more like people have different genes and areas which develop and need to generate on the first place, enviroment and the use of tools like money and years of education correlate with IQ, even more when these studies put jews higher, when they are exactly the same as everyone else (and doesn't make sense, i won't explain why, i don't want to get fucked by the feds).

And for the other point, extremely closed societies break as easily, a lot of old empires died and they suffered 10x more suffering with a greater amount of time and they were homogeneous, that's a problem of big empires rather than a type of people.
 
Technically "critical thinking" is just a phrase that means "thinking".

In practise, like people that use the word "problematic" is an indication for feminist education, "critical thinking" is an indication of someone adhering to "critical theory", which is in practise designed to subvert the western power structures. It's anti-european in every sense.

What you're demanding is that people that disagree with you treat you nicely and don't speak too harsh or loud, even while you align yourself with thought and ideology that seeks to eradicate them and their goals. Only exceptionals play that game; or when it's for pr, because pr is to appeal to the exceptional.
If I gave a shit about people speaking nicely I wouldn't be here. What I'm demanding is that people (retards) who think they understand the world should at least be able to coherently express why they believe the things they do. I'm not talking about sources, debating, etc, just something that shows you've actually thought about your ideas other than "black people bad because they bad and anything you have to say won't change my mind"

"Critical thinking is the analysis of available facts, evidence, observations, and arguments to form a judgment. The subject is complex; several different definitions exist, which generally include the rational, skeptical, and unbiased analysis or evaluation of factual evidence." None of which is present in "niggers do crime I hate niggers I don't want to live near them"

Cyclically repeating to yourself the same thing, and never challenging or accepting your ideas being challenged, means you might as well not be thinking at all
 
Yep. Ethan Ralph's great great retard nigger grandfather shot Lincoln and now we're fucked. Sucks.

Are you making the goalpost "admit huWite people ever did anything wrong"?
No. What am I saying is that you credit the success of America by being ruled by white men.
But importing and freeing black slaves also happened while being ruled by white men.

So did the decline of the British Empire. So did the humble existence of other countries.

Why is the success of some white men because they're white and the failure of other white men because of other reasons?
 
If I gave a shit about people speaking nicely I wouldn't be here. What I'm demanding is that people (retards) who think they understand the world should at least be able to coherently express why they believe the things they do. I'm not talking about sources, debating, etc, just something that shows you've actually thought about your ideas other than "black people bad because they bad and anything you have to say won't change my mind"

Cyclically repeating to yourself the same thing, and never challenging or accepting your ideas being challenged, means you might as well not be thinking at all
This is a dishonest post. You don't show an inch of trying to challenge your ideas. But you expect it from people that disagree with you.

You don't even understand what people like I or Null are saying, because you're unable to characterize it accurately.
 
Do you see 18th century Americans as a distinct race from Britsh and other European people?
IMG_20210629_234416.jpg

The founding fathers saw enough of a similarity to create the country for free White men of good moral character.


And b4 "Irish werent White"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...hite-and-so-were-the-italians-jews-and-so-on/
 
Okay, so it's okay for me to inflict a non mortal stab wound on you, because if we lived in london it would have been a fatal one?

How is this an argument that someone that is fucked with to that degree, is operating in a space where people are free to discuss their opinions?
Wtf? All I'm saying is there's different levels to free speech and thought. Yes, he was punished for his thoughts, but he is a scapegoat for a much larger crowd that share similar views.

In a country like North Korea, he probably wouldn't have been able to share those views. North Koreans are exposed to and therefore believe in (in general) a much narrower set of beliefs.

This is true for every country, however the internet (and politics) creates a greater divide because those views can be broadcast.

If you want to prove me wrong, go get a North Korean to give us their opinion on this thread.
 
This is a dishonest post. You don't show an inch of trying to challenge your ideas. But you expect it from people that disagree with you.

You don't even understand what people like I or Null are saying, because you're unable to characterize it accurately.
How am I not challenging my ideas? I'm asking questions of a group of people that almost uniformly disagree with me.

You're right I don't understand what you people are saying though. It's incoherent retard speak. I ask null what makes a white american "pink nipples" You people either refuse to genuinely answer questions (hurr durr everyone asking is asking in bad faith) or straight up don't have an answer because you don't think you need one
 
Wtf? All I'm saying is there's different levels to free speech and thought. Yes, he was punished for his thoughts, but he is a scapegoat for a much larger crowd that share similar views.

In a country like North Korea, he probably wouldn't have been able to share those views. North Koreans are exposed to and therefore believe in (in general) a much narrower set of beliefs.

This is true for every country, however the internet (and politics) creates a greater divide because those views can be broadcast.
Okay so you agree that things aren't freely and openly discussed. Why didn't you just hit agree? I struggle to see the value and relevance of what you pointed out.
 
Atrás
Top Abajo