Y'all are gonna love this one.
(media.scored.co)
"If it wasn't true, why was it on TV? Checkmate, chud."
New here?
Create an account to submit posts, participate in discussions and chat with people.
You must log in or sign up to comment
52 comments:
31
18 hours ago
31 points
(+0
/
-0
/
+31Score on mirror
)
1 child
Permalink
Reply
Mirrored from scored.co
15
18 hours ago
15 points
(+0
/
-0
/
+15Score on mirror
)
3 children
Ive actually had arguments that went like that, a guy unironically claimed that Half-Life was evidence that following the constitution to the letter instead of making garbage up could never work
Permalink
Reply
Mirrored from scored.co
3
18 hours ago
3 points
(+0
/
-0
/
+3Score on mirror
)
1 child
WAT
Permalink
Reply
Mirrored from scored.co
10
17 hours ago
10 points
(+0
/
-0
/
+10Score on mirror
)
1 child
Like I said, normies dont deserve even the illusion thinking their opinions matter
Permalink
Reply
Mirrored from scored.co
2
15 hours ago
2 points
(+0
/
-0
/
+2Score on mirror
)
Oh ok. I got it now.
Permalink
Reply
Mirrored from scored.co
2
17 hours ago
2 points
(+0
/
-0
/
+2Score on mirror
)
Like the videogame? How?
Permalink
Reply
Mirrored from scored.co
2
16 hours ago
2 points
(+0
/
-0
/
+2Score on mirror
)
I have SEVERAL questions.
Permalink
Reply
Mirrored from scored.co
Normies literally cant distinguish fiction from reality. I used to question why Exorcists hated Harry Potter, but honestly, at this point I can believe the average normie is dumb enough to get possessed by demons because of le funny wizard book. This is why democracy (outside of the Greek form, which excludes midwits and lowwits by its very nature), can never work.
And women in general
He already mentioned midwits.
Kek, its statistically true, though I think women actually have a slightly lower average IQ, so theyre clumping slightly below midwit.
[4-5 points](https://human-intelligence.org/sex-differences/) according to this random source I came across.
I've always heard men & women have similar average IQs, with men having a more platykurtic (shorter and flatter, with fatter tails) distribution and women having a more leptokurtic (taller and skinnier, with smaller tails).
In other words, more men are found in the extremes of their intelligence curve (super dumb and super smart) than women in the extremes of their curve. Women tend to cluster around the center (average) more.
You could also describe it as men and women having about the same average, with men having notably higher variance/standard deviation than women.
I've never researched it thoroughly, but general experience of how men & women operate makes it seem correct. Women being more socially-influenced would regress to the mean, while men being more individualistic and competitive would find more of them in the extremes.
I've always heard men & women have similar average IQs, with men having a more platykurtic (shorter and flatter, with fatter tails) distribution and women having a more leptokurtic (taller and skinnier, with smaller tails).
In other words, more men are found in the extremes of their intelligence curve (super dumb and super smart) than women in the extremes of their curve. Women tend to cluster around the center (average) more.
You could also describe it as men and women having about the same average, with men having notably higher variance/standard deviation than women.
I've never researched it thoroughly, but general experience of how men & women operate makes it seem correct. Women being more socially-influenced would regress to the mean, while men being more individualistic and competitive would find more of them in the extremes.
>This capeshit proves my worldview is correct!
baizuo.txt
baizuo.txt
Fun-fact: Shindler's List (1994) film was based on the Schindler's Ark (1982) novel by Thomas Keneally **WHICH IS OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED AS FICTION.**
https://archive.is/x2chx#selection-249.9-249.28
https://archive.is/x2chx#selection-249.9-249.28
LMAO even modern wikipedia admits it, though they call Schindler's Ark a "Historical Novel" in their Schindler's List page, but outright admit its a historical fiction on its own page.
Even worse, in that film, the bloodthirsty treasonous zionist criminals who attempted a failed communist coup upon the Germany in 1933, in an attempt to recreate the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution where their brother and sisters looted the Soviet treasury and murdered 20 million Christians...
... were represented as a darling innocent little six year old girl in a red dress.
Filthy. Fucking. Kikes.
TJD
... were represented as a darling innocent little six year old girl in a red dress.
Filthy. Fucking. Kikes.
TJD
Jews are truly masters of creating and maintaining the narrative.
They used too but these current crop of kikes just suck at it and no one believes their bullshit pilpul anymore
All they had to do was not open the borders and keep making higher quality goyslop movies and video games, and most people would still be asleep.
Whether or not someone is "bad" is entirely subjective. It's equally retarded to either ask for a "source" that someone is bad or claim that such sources exist. All three of these posters are retards. But at least the second retard is funny.
>Whether or not someone is "bad" is entirely subjective
No, its completely objective, the issue is that (((they))) have muddled and inverted morality to the point that normies cannot distinguish good from evil, because the jews have changed the reference point for good and evil from objective acts to however something makes you "feel". Judaized morality is based entirely on feelings, because jews are effeminates.
No, its completely objective, the issue is that (((they))) have muddled and inverted morality to the point that normies cannot distinguish good from evil, because the jews have changed the reference point for good and evil from objective acts to however something makes you "feel". Judaized morality is based entirely on feelings, because jews are effeminates.
Goodness and badness are literally objective.
Good and evil are objective. "Bad" doesn't mean the same thing as evil. Tobacco is bad. Satan is evil.
You're being weird.
There is no moral realm separate from reality. Something is good or evil because it either helps you live strong and gain power or makes you sick or weak and dead.
Smoking cigarettes is evil because it makes you sick and weak. Satan is bad because he wants you to suffer and die. Jesus casts out devils (mental illness) and raises the dead, so he's good.
There is no moral realm separate from reality. Something is good or evil because it either helps you live strong and gain power or makes you sick or weak and dead.
Smoking cigarettes is evil because it makes you sick and weak. Satan is bad because he wants you to suffer and die. Jesus casts out devils (mental illness) and raises the dead, so he's good.
In the ancient world, good and evil was defined by whether you survived or not. Being rich and fat was good. Starvation was evil. It was very objective.
Somewhere along the line someone subverted Christian morality and made being poor and weak and sick a virtue, when it it clear Jesus's mission was to eliminate those things.
Nietzsche has a lot more to say on this.
Somewhere along the line someone subverted Christian morality and made being poor and weak and sick a virtue, when it it clear Jesus's mission was to eliminate those things.
Nietzsche has a lot more to say on this.
>Somewhere along the line someone subverted Christian morality and made being poor and weak and sick a virtue
Seems to have happened right along the time the (((Scofield Bible))) went mainstream, because the Church actually burned some monks at the stake for claiming poverty was inherently virtuous, which of course it clearly isnt. Actually, the official teaching of the Church is that any voluntary spiritual weakness is an evil, so poverty is only good if its being utilized to become more detached from physical things, as opposed to someone becoming poor because they dont want to work (which is evil, because its the result of sloth).
Seems to have happened right along the time the (((Scofield Bible))) went mainstream, because the Church actually burned some monks at the stake for claiming poverty was inherently virtuous, which of course it clearly isnt. Actually, the official teaching of the Church is that any voluntary spiritual weakness is an evil, so poverty is only good if its being utilized to become more detached from physical things, as opposed to someone becoming poor because they dont want to work (which is evil, because its the result of sloth).
So... look up the plethora of jewish fiction for proof?
Funny, that's essentially how it started anyway...
Funny, that's essentially how it started anyway...
It's perfect, it's the actual truth of why people hate Hitler so much. Most normies are smart enough to know they can't actually use that as justification, so instead they pretend to have a well studied intellectual reason.
Who's going to tell Sarah?
Toast message