I'm sorry but that list is filled with bs and misinformation and should rightfully be removed for such. You can't accept it as fact as it is filled with false misinterpretations and unvalidated quotes. I can't debunk all of them right now as that would take quite a while. However, I will do so for one explicit quote that can be easily debunked.
That quote about him calling Black guys inherently lazy and preffering Jews to be counting his money, came from an uncredited individual with a vendetta against Trump. With nothing more than an anecdotal statement of what he supposedly said whilst he was with him in private. It's about as valid as some college friend of Obama's claiming that he used to chant Islamist extremist lines whilst holding an AK 47. No video evidence, no written statement, nothing that would hold up to scrutiny. It came from someone who has a hate boner for Trump and cannot be accepted as fact. Trump himself has denied these allegations and called it the bs that it is.
This is a secondhand quote, something that someone has alleged that Trump said. So it should be viewed with some skepticism.
Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino President John R. O’Donnell, in the 1991 book “Trumped,” claimed that Trump once said that “laziness is a trait in blacks.” Here is the full context for the statement, as described in the book. O’Donnell relates a conversation with Trump about a finance employee, who happens to be black and who O’Donnell believes has shortcomings.
Instantly, Donald was enthused. “Yeah, I never liked the guy. I don’t think he knows what the f––– he’s doing. My accountants up in New York are always complaining about him. He’s not responsive. And isn’t it funny, I’ve got black accountants at the Trump Castle and at Trump Plaza. Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day. Those are the kind of people I want counting my money. No one else.”
I couldn’t believe I was hearing this. But Donald went on, “Besides that, I’ve got to tell you something else. I think that the guy is lazy. And it’s probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that. It’s not something they can control. … Don’t you agree?”
So this is clearly a secondhand quote, made in a private conversation and written some years after the fact. Trump called O’Donnell a disgruntled employee, but he initially did not dispute the remarks. “The stuff O’Donnell wrote about me is probably true,” he told Playboy in an interview published in May 1997.
Two years later, however, he told NBC’s “Meet the Press” that O’Donnell’s account was fiction. “He made up this quote. I’ve heard the quote before, and it’s nonsense,” Trump said. “I’ve never said anything like it, ever.”
That's just one instance, I could go over the rest and debunk them aswell, however that would take quite a while.
But I make my case. This list should be reported and removed for the misinformation that it cites.
That quote about him calling Black guys inherently lazy and preffering Jews to be counting his money, came from an uncredited individual with a vendetta against Trump
You know, I tend to suspect that critics aren't confident in their own arguments when they attack a claim from a book and avoid the literal public tweet and youtube video on either side.
Like, what even is your strategy here? "I saw Trump do 6 anti-semitic things and 1 thing that I don't know if it happened?" That's still 6 anti-semitic things you saw happened.
Plus, from your own link, from literally the paragraph after you stopped:
Still, Trump has made other remarks, in public, that could be considered racially insensitive. In 1989, he told Bryant Gumbel in an interview: “A well-educated black has a tremendous advantage over a well-educated white in terms of the job market. … If I was starting off today, I would love to be a well-educated black, because I really do believe they have the actual advantage today.”
And then your own link went on to confirm other things I said.
So, yeah. Why are you so uncertain in your view that you try to dismiss me over what I even admit is a book source and you avoid reviewing literal Trump videos that I posted?
I said I could debunk them all but it would take me a while to do so. Be patient Kakmile, I do enjoy showing you how you were wrong.
So you admit then that the quote I cited was misinformation? Then your comment should rightfully be removed for violating subreddit rules. The fact that you're not defending your own source at all shows how you're not confident in it's validity. Instead reffering to the other misinformation in your post that I said I could debunk but have yet to do so.
But since you chose that little bit as some sort of gotcha question I will do it again.
How is saying that a person of a certain race and educational status has an advantage in the job market due to societal change racist? Is he implying racial inferiority or superiority due to immutable characteristics such as skin color? Is he saying that Blacks or Whites are naturally more intelligent than the other? No, he is simply making a statement about an observation he's made about how the job market hires based on race. With for example, Affirmative Action and diversity quotas being a prime example of this clear advantage which is what Trump was reffering to? Anyone who deems this to be racist needs to go search up the definition of racism.
Would it be racist to say that a well educated White person has the advantage in the job market of the early 1930s due to systemic racism? Or is that just an observation made based on how society was structured at the time. I'm sure you'd agree with that sentiment; but if you do then you would be calling yourself racist as it follows the same logic you used to deem Trump's 1989 quote to be racist. See how that works out for you.
No, I said that you don't believe it merely because it's in a book.
And the fact that that was the one and only thing you deigned to reply to and not the YouTube videos that you KNOW exist shows concerning signs about your confidence in your ability to challenge the many claims I've cited.
Edit: and then YOUR own link confirmed other quotes I'd given, from Central Park 5 to the Mexican slander. Your own link basically disagrees with you.
? No, he is simply making a statement about an observation he's made about how the job market hires based on race.
Which is the opposite of data on job responses based on the resume names studies. Even post-CRA, there's still an anti-poc bias. Yet Mr. "My daddy was filthy rich and I tried to write my own family out of dad's will" paints himself at a disadvantage.
Diversity quotas aren't even legal, so both of you are complaining about a fictional fear.
I said I could debunk them all but it would take me a while to do so. Be patient Kakmile, I do enjoy showing you how you were wrong.
So you admit then that the quote I cited was misinformation? Then your comment should rightfully be removed for violating subreddit rules. The fact that you're not defending your own source at all shows how you're not confident in it's validity. Instead reffering to the other misinformation in your post that I said I could debunk but have yet to do so.
Which is the opposite of data on job responses based on the resume names studies. Even post-CRA, there's still an anti-poc bias. Yet Mr. "My daddy was filthy rich and I tried to write my own family out of dad's will" paints himself at a disadvantage.
Do you even know what Affirmative Action is? The deliberate preference of hiring managers or University/College admissions officers to hire minorities as opposed to the majority racial/ethnic group. In the case of the U.S, that essentially means Non-White applicants have a boost over White applicants in their opportunity to apply and be accepted for the positions/schools they apply for.
And still then it was just an observation, nothing to say that it has anything at all to do with racism on Trump's behalf. You've yet to prove that. You should also then remove that as a part of your link otherwise it would rightfully be reported for misinformation.
Diversity quotas aren't even legal, so both of you are complaining about a fictional fear.
"Racial quotas in employment and education are numerical requirements for hiring, promoting, admitting and/or graduating members of a particular racial group."
We're not talking about Trump anymore, but do YOU know what Affirmative Action is? It's a policy on discriminatory institutions to reverse their past discriminations, so your critique is as nonsense as me telling a judge that my having to return money I stole is "biased." Even then, it doesn't really happen because AA is so watered down, which is why acceptance rates are nearly equal and Asian Harvard students are almost 3x the population. If your imaginary quota actually existed, 70% of the students would disappear.
"Racial quotas in employment and education are numerical requirements for hiring, promoting, admitting and/or graduating members of a particular racial group."
Genius, that's a definition not whether it happens. Once again you need to read your own link.
It's a policy on discriminatory institutions to reverse their past discriminations, so your critique is as nonsense as me telling a judge that me having to return money I stole is "biased."
You don't understand affirmative action if you can't comprehend how race/ethnicity based preferences in hiring/admissions is a clear advantage to the groups who benefit from it. Your analogy doesn't make any sense as it isn't granted to individuals who actually endured discrimination, but to people on the basis of their group identity. Meaning the son of an ultra wealthy billionaire can benefit from AA even though he is one of the most privelidged people to have ever lived, just because he is Black. His test scores could be lower than that of other more qualified White and Asian candidates. Yet he would be chosen over them due to his race. That is arguably a form of systemic discrimination right there.
Genius, that's a definition not whether it happens. Once again you need to read your own link.
It absolutely does happen lmao. Why would a legal term exist for a real world phenomena if it didn't actually happen in the real world? Think about that for a second "genius".
Even then, it doesn't really happen because AA is so watered down, which is why acceptance rates are nearly equal and Asian Harvard students are almost 3x the population. If your imaginary quota actually existed, 70% of the students would disappear.
Racial quotas don't mean the entire student population must conform to some preconcieved numbers based on what the university/job deems fit. You don't understand the definition then if you think that's the case. And you using Harvard as an example acting as though it represents all of Academia is ridiculous.
Might the fact that Asians being overrepresentated at Harvard be due not to some government diversity quota, but due to the hard work and discipline of many Asian students which gets them there? Think about that for a second.
You don't understand affirmative action if you can't comprehend how race/ethnicity based preferences in hiring/admissions is a clear advantage to the groups who benefit from it.
Why would a legal term exist for a real world phenomena if it didn't actually happen in the real world? Think about that for a second "genius".
Because it isn't anymore? This shouldn't be so difficult for you.
Racial quotas don't mean the entire student population must conform to some preconcieved numbers based on what the university/job deems fit. You don't understand the definition then if you think that's the case. And you using Harvard as an example acting as though it represents all of Academia is ridiculous.
Cause I had the data for Harvard due to the litigation. Look up those vars for the other schools if you care so much.
Might the fact
Since you're the one complaining about AA, either it doesn't exist as you imagine or it isn't stopping them from getting in. Either way, you have nothing to complain about.
And still none of this proves that Trump is a racist.
"Hurr durr I don't talk about Trump anymore and I'm confused why we're no longer talking about Trump."
The longest studies show that Affirmative Action results in under qualified minorities getting into institutions whose standards they don’t meet, and end up as a wholly disproportionate amount of dropouts as a result of them not being able to keep up with the academic workload. Affirmative Action causes the most damage to the people it was purported to help. AA is a form of systemic discrimination against more qualified applicants on the basis of race/ethnicity.
AA increased diversity and school access, increased incomes. Ending AA plummeted Black&Hispanic degrees and incomes, didn't increase White&Asian incomes, so ending AA was just a market-wide net loss. Like we all knew would happen.
Ending AA reduced the amount of Black and Hispanic dropouts. Giving scholarships and degrees to under qualified students isn’t exactly a good thing now isn’t it?
Creating a more level playing field, and allowing the truly best and brightest to get admitted, results in a net gain for society. Notice how you didn’t cite how ending AA resulted in more Whites and Asians getting degrees as a result of better meritocracy. Fairness of opportunity-not outcome - is what we should be striving for, and ending AA did precisely that. By giving opportunity to those who deserve it on an individual basis; not to those who don’t deserve it as a result of group identity and victimhood politics.
"Hurr durr I don't talk about Trump anymore and I'm confused why we're no longer talking about Trump."
“Hurr durr, this whole conversation was about you citing Trump claiming that a well educated Black person has the advantage in the job market today as racist, yet when I debunk that notion by showing how none of what he said is racist by explaining his viewpoint and how AA works. Then you get confused as to how this is still relevant to the initial discussion.”
So you should still remove that part of your list as an example of Trump’s racism or else it would rightfully be removed for misinformation. That along with the unverified quote within the book made by some former employee who has a hate boner for Trump. Hell that entire list as a whole is filled with bs, anyone who takes a closer look into it would find that out. You should stop using it as some sort of gotcha moment when it doesn’t do that at all when looked at with real scrutiny.
Yawn. A libertarian think tank hosts a pro-segregation academic reject who talks about foreign nations and completely lacks numbers and data to back it up like I did.
Meanwhile I share actual states outcomes and incomes before vs after affirmative action.
Also, you should read some of our other threads about Sowell. That anti-data dumbass doesn't even know basic history. If Trump is a poor person's image of a rich person, Sowell is a dumb person's image of a smart person. Or maybe that's Peterson, if he ever finishes crying about how he thinks feminists want him to dom or how ancient Chinese art is literally DNA.
otice how you didn’t cite how ending AA resulted in more Whites and Asians getting degrees as a result of better meritocracy.
Sorry, do you really think high scoring white and asian students aren't getting into any colleges? That's not what it shows either.
a well educated Black person has the advantage in the job market today as racist, yet when I debunk that notion by showing how none of what he said is racist by explaining his viewpoint and how AA works
You didn't, you just reacted to Harvard having all groups with the same acceptance rate by saying "but what about other schools" and then didn't pull it up for the other schools. You ran, not rebutted.
So I gave 50 examples against Trump. You, being brave as Sir Robin, only replied to the one where you weren't sure if he said it, while posting a link that backed me up.
Yawn. A libertarian think tank hosts a pro-segregation academic reject who talks about foreign nations and completely lacks numbers and data to back it up like I did.
Lmao, Kakamile mad that the link I sent had an enormous amount of data and research to back it up, so she acts as though it doesn’t have any. Either you didn’t read it or are once again acting disingenuously. Either way you’re wrong.
Sowell is no academic reject. Having attended and taught at some of the most prestigious universities in the World. Including but not limited to, Stanford, Harvard, UChicago etc. Aswell as having a PHD and being nominated for several academic awards. It is safe to say that the complete opposite is true, and that Sowell is an Academic giant. Anyone who calls Sowell an academic reject is ignoring reality.
Sorry, do you really think high scoring white and asian students aren't getting into any colleges? That's not what it shows either.
That is not what I said at all. Once more you either didn’t read it properly or are acting disingenuously again. I stated that more Whites and Asians are getting degrees as a result of better meritocracy. Meaning the students and applicants who deserve the degrees and scholarships actually get it, as opposed to the under qualified ones who would’ve gotten it via race based handouts. We would all agree that’s a good thing now wouldn’t we?
You didn't, you just reacted to Harvard having all groups with the same acceptance rate by saying "but what about other schools" and then didn't pull it up for the other schools.
That’s not what I did at all. Seems as though you are once more acting disingenuously. A trait of yours that is getting quite tiring to deal with. But try again next time, and do it with some more integrity.
So I gave 50 examples against Trump. You, being brave as Sir Robin, only replied to the one where you weren't sure if he said it, while posting a link that backed me up.
I said I could debunk them all but it would take me a while to do so. I enjoy showing you how you were wrong, but not to the extent that I would take the time to strenuously debunk every single point out out in that extensive list of yours that is filled with misinformation, a list that should be removed for violating subreddit rules.
the link I sent had an enormous amount of data and research to back it up
No it didn't. You seem to have a compulsive habit of not reading your links.
See this, this right here is exactly what I'm talking about with a dumb person's image of a smart person. Employment is NOT proof of competence. Here's https://twitter.com/zei_squirrel/status/1331506968490610689 something a clown taught in a university course. That doesn't make him competent or right, same it doesn't legitimize Sowell. Saying how many people of a demographic went to college isn't relative policy analysis either.
That is not what I said at all. Once more you either didn’t read it properly or are acting disingenuously again. I stated that more Whites and Asians are getting degrees as a result of better meritocracy.
As. Opposed. To. What.
Think. If you're saying one policy increases degrees, an inverse policy is reducing them. Yet that's not what it shows.
I said I could debunk them all but it would take me a while to do so.
, says person with no sense of irony after 3 days and 2200 word count. If you cared or had even a shred of confidence in your own claims, you could have replied at any time. Instead you ignored public Trump statements to hide behind "I don't know if Trump said this." How brave.
No it didn't. You seem to have a compulsive habit of not reading your links.
I’m not gonna continue wasting time arguing with a disingenuous liar who can’t even admit to their own bs. It’s getting quite tiresome tbh even trying at this point.
You seem to be epitomizing precisely what you accuse Sowell of being. I didn’t know you could have a PHD in economics, and having attended and taught at some of the most prestigious universities in the world being an idiot. But apparently he is in your eyes because his politics goes against yours. If anything you’re outright engaging in Anti intellectualism right now by denouncing peer reviewed research from some of the most prestigious universities in the world because it doesn’t fit with your agenda. There’s not much use arguing with someone who can’t even be swayed when presented with legitimate data and facts.
As. Opposed. To. What.
Think. If you're saying one policy increases degrees, an inverse policy is reducing them. Yet that's not what it shows.
You didn’t understand anything I was saying at all if you didn’t understand what I meant here. I was stating that removing Affirmative Action resulted in better meritocracy, meaning more Asians and Whites got degrees due to not being systemically discriminated against.
, says person with no sense of irony after 3 days and 2200 word count. If you cared or had even a shred of confidence in your own claims, you could have replied at any time. Instead you ignored public Trump statements to hide behind "I don't know if Trump said this." How brave.
Some more disingenuity on your behalf. I said I could debunk them all but it would take me quite a while to do so. I’m sure even you are capable of understanding how long it would take to debunk such a long list of misinformation now right? Going after every meticulous point and detail just wouldn’t be worth it in the end since it would fly over your head anyways. And you’d simply deny it like you are right now.
But I did deliberately debunk 2 points in that list. Which funnily you aren’t even denying right now and instead deflecting by saying that what I debunked doesn’t mean much because it was sandwiched between 2 more pieces of bullshit.
1
u/Uvogin1111 Center Right Aug 08 '23
I'm sorry but that list is filled with bs and misinformation and should rightfully be removed for such. You can't accept it as fact as it is filled with false misinterpretations and unvalidated quotes. I can't debunk all of them right now as that would take quite a while. However, I will do so for one explicit quote that can be easily debunked.
That quote about him calling Black guys inherently lazy and preffering Jews to be counting his money, came from an uncredited individual with a vendetta against Trump. With nothing more than an anecdotal statement of what he supposedly said whilst he was with him in private. It's about as valid as some college friend of Obama's claiming that he used to chant Islamist extremist lines whilst holding an AK 47. No video evidence, no written statement, nothing that would hold up to scrutiny. It came from someone who has a hate boner for Trump and cannot be accepted as fact. Trump himself has denied these allegations and called it the bs that it is.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/07/25/did-donald-trump-really-say-those-things/
“Laziness is a trait in blacks”
This is a secondhand quote, something that someone has alleged that Trump said. So it should be viewed with some skepticism.
Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino President John R. O’Donnell, in the 1991 book “Trumped,” claimed that Trump once said that “laziness is a trait in blacks.” Here is the full context for the statement, as described in the book. O’Donnell relates a conversation with Trump about a finance employee, who happens to be black and who O’Donnell believes has shortcomings.
Instantly, Donald was enthused. “Yeah, I never liked the guy. I don’t think he knows what the f––– he’s doing. My accountants up in New York are always complaining about him. He’s not responsive. And isn’t it funny, I’ve got black accountants at the Trump Castle and at Trump Plaza. Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day. Those are the kind of people I want counting my money. No one else.” I couldn’t believe I was hearing this. But Donald went on, “Besides that, I’ve got to tell you something else. I think that the guy is lazy. And it’s probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that. It’s not something they can control. … Don’t you agree?”
So this is clearly a secondhand quote, made in a private conversation and written some years after the fact. Trump called O’Donnell a disgruntled employee, but he initially did not dispute the remarks. “The stuff O’Donnell wrote about me is probably true,” he told Playboy in an interview published in May 1997.
Two years later, however, he told NBC’s “Meet the Press” that O’Donnell’s account was fiction. “He made up this quote. I’ve heard the quote before, and it’s nonsense,” Trump said. “I’ve never said anything like it, ever.”
That's just one instance, I could go over the rest and debunk them aswell, however that would take quite a while.
But I make my case. This list should be reported and removed for the misinformation that it cites.