Whites - Hitler. Possibly Shakespeare idk? Napoleon, Einstein, Newton?

Blacks - Michael Jordan, Shaka Zulu, Nelson Mandela

Asians - Ghengis Kahn, Mao Zedong

Latinos - Montezuma, Diego Maradona, Simon Bolivar

Indians - Ghandi

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5767519&forum_id=2)#49222013)

Latinos: Fidel Castro/Che Guevara, Bad Bunny

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5767519&forum_id=2)#49222036)

Bad Bunny is arguably the single most popular current pop star on the planet, and due to population growth it's far easier to be "the most popular [X] ever" if you're widely famous in 2025 than if you were super famous in an earlier era and are now only residually famous among a subset of the current population.

The retarded "Che Guevara" shirt/sticker/whatever merch line is one of the most enduringly popular and iconic images in the world and has been for decades. What % of humans currently alive today would recognize Che's face even if they don't know his name? I'll bet it's a huge percentage.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5767519&forum_id=2)#49222063)

Good fgt

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5767519&forum_id=2)#49222082)

How many "Whiz Khalifa" tracks have you ever knowingly listened to in your life? How many of your close friends or family members do you think would give a number higher than "idk maybe one or two if that" in response to this question?

Because right now, at this very minute, his official music video for "See You Again" (btw I had literally never ever heard of this song until I just Googled this) apparently has ~7 *billion* views on YouTube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgKAFK5djSk&list=RDRgKAFK5djSk&start_radio=1

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5767519&forum_id=2)#49222118)

I mean I'm sure this isn't a "one person one view" type situation, but I truly have no idea.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5767519&forum_id=2)#49222171)

CR

I could not tell you a single name of a single Bad Bunny song, but in less than 10 years on the scene he has already sold the modern-day equivalent of 100+ *million* records.

There are entire parallel social spheres out there that we are completely insulated from that are absolutely enormous on a global scale.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5767519&forum_id=2)#49222219)

*Nudges shotgun barrel into my drooling mouth as my quivering toe begins to tighten perceptibly on the trigger*

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5767519&forum_id=2)#49222241)

For Hispanics I'd include Castro and especially Guevara

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5767519&forum_id=2)#49222043)

Black: Pope Leo

Indian: Alexander the Great

AZN: Douglas MacArthur

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5767519&forum_id=2)#49222047)

Also

Whites: Michael Jackson

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5767519&forum_id=2)#49222069)

Blacks: Ta Coates

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5767519&forum_id=2)#49222064)

Between the Racist World and Ta Coates

By Alfonso Dupont on July 24, 2015

Format: Kindle Edition

Ta Coates is one of the great thinkers of the 21st century. Don't agree? Then you're on the wrong side of history.

Ta has written a book for the ages, chronicling such fascinating episodes as dating, doing poorly in academics because of racism, reading comic books, the racism of attractive white women he has asked out, what it was like to be in a down low relationship with Matt Yglesias for five months, cartoons, and the phenomenon known as "muhdik". Between the World and Me (a brilliant title that counterbalances the entire world with Ta Coates' genius) ranks with the Confessions of St. Augustine, if St. Augustine had done poorly in school and mostly just watched television and read comic books during his formative years. In fact St. Augustine is a rather trivial figure in Western history that you don't need to have heard of, he never even influenced society through highly praised magazine columns, and his books are very boring compared to reading about the adventures of men in colorful skin tight costumes.

During a long and rambling eighth chapter, Ta discusses his brave decision to disable comments on his blog. He shows how talking back to a highly paid media personality is an example of "punching down", employing a series of stories which usually involve noting that people who have promoted him are actually racist and did so only because they expected him to fail. There's also a moving account of how he literally wept on discovering how to turn on Microsoft Word's spelling and grammar checker.

As A.O.Scott has observed, Between Ta World and Me is "essential, like water or air", a truism you'd have to be a real hate-in-your-soul racist to deny. As a matter of fact, people who are too racist to read and enjoy this brilliantly spelled and grammar-checked volume are expected to die very soon because this book is literally essential, like water or air. An edition in which all of the book's passages are placed as dialogue between comic book heroes Black Lightning and Luke Cage is said to be in the works.

Like Ta's 14-year-old son, you may not be interested in reading through the many spelling and grammar corrected pages of this book, but even just having it on your bookshelf is important until the forthcoming graphic novel version arrives. How will they know you're not a racist otherwise? I personally enjoy reading it while enjoying water and air, two things that like this book are essential. Thus I give it the first star rating of excellence.

http://www.amazon.com/Between-World-Me-Ta-Nehisi-Coates-ebook/dp/B00SEFAIRI/ref=cm_rdp_product

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5767519&forum_id=2)#49222066)

Combined.

And yes, easily.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5767519&forum_id=2)#49222109)

Brother there is a zero percent chance that "Ptolemy" is even in the Top 10 Most Famous Whites.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5767519&forum_id=2)#49222107)

Genghis Khan

George Washington Carver

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5767519&forum_id=2)#49222108)

Blacks - George Floyd

Jews - Adolph Hitler

Chinks - Mao

Spics - Castro

Desert - Jesus

Turd - Gandhi

Injun - Pocahontas

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5767519&forum_id=2)#49222131)

That's a fair distinction.

We should really clarify that this is asking about most famous *historically notable* figures of each race. Unless you can make a compelling case that a figure is genuinely historically notable and will be remembered as such 100+ years after they rose to fame, their current level of fame should be treated as inherently fleeting and thus disregarded for purposes of this thread because otherwise simple population growth will always just dictate that whoever is the most famous figure of each race in Current Year will by definition be "the most famous of all time."

IMO there's no doubt that Che / Fidel Castro were historically notable figures who will still be discussed in history books covering the Cold War in 100+ years. Will Bad Bunny still be a widely-known historical figure in 2125? Lol I have serious doubts. But I would bet that BB is currently the most widely known of all three of them, so that needs to be accounted for if this thread is really trying to sus out who the truly memorable figures have been across the full span of recorded human history.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5767519&forum_id=2)#49222185)

CR, and it's not because it's impossible for a "pop musician" to achieve true lasting cultural fame.

Contrast Taylor/Madonna with The Beatles, who easily rank as one of the biggest multi-generational music acts in the world today (more than 50 years after they broke up) and whose music will almost certainly still be widely remembered and enjoyed by people born long after they were all dead in 2125.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5767519&forum_id=2)#49222201)

there is a huge swath of women who listen to exclusively or near-exclusively taylor swift. eras was one of the biggest tours of time (the biggest depending on the metric) and tickets were *still* impossible to get a hold of despite the number of shows.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5767519&forum_id=2)#49222245)

Do you think that Taylor's music will continue to resonate widely with generations of listeners who are born decades after she dies? Because I'm not a TS scholar, but I have serious doubts about that.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5767519&forum_id=2)#49222250)

to be clear i'm by agreeing to "resonate" i don't mean elevate or anything profound. just that "GUY BROKE UP WITH ME >:(" with a catchy tune you can sing along to is very appealing to women and there aren't a lot of people making that music with the fanbase taylor has. here music is also timeless (again, not a compliment per se, but that her music is likely to appealing to changing tastes in ways madonna (very 80s-90s sounding) isn't).

she has a gigantic fanbase of women who listen exclusively to her. they are going to be playing that their whole lives. their dotters will remember those tunes fondly too.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5767519&forum_id=2)#49222260)

no one is disputing that madonna is a very famous and successful popstar. i'm disputing what you asserted.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5767519&forum_id=2)#49222308)

"x is y!"

"no. here's proof."

"you're wrong. (citation missing)."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5767519&forum_id=2)#49222322)

Ok according to Billboard, Like a Virgin is Madonna's most famous song. Now stop asking me for citations because I'm not answering stupid questions like why is water wet anymore. Jfc.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5767519&forum_id=2)#49222331)

still, Madonna had three other songs on the Billboard Top 100 for 1984...

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5767519&forum_id=2)#49222329)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5767519&forum_id=2)#49222342)

we just wound up in the weeds over examples of madonna's success because, as usual, you just assert things and then when challenged just say "i disagree". the level of engagement is extremely low and when frustrated you move onto strawmen like this.

peeface is probably right here, i just googled "like a virgin" and saw she wasn't in the billboard charts. everyone knows "like a virgin" is an extremely popular song. but that wasn't ever in dispute -- it was whether it was *THE BIGGEST OF THE TIME.* if i was arguing with him i'd say "ok you're right about that i didn't know the song came out in december, however madonna is still way less popular than taylor is in their respective times because of x, y, and z." it's impossible to ever get there with you because you don't engage at all, you just say "wrong" and then reframe the argument into something else and eventually i realize "why tf am i splitting hairs about madonna, this is gay and stupid."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5767519&forum_id=2)#49222459)

The reason I don't argue with you is because you make up your mind ahead of time, refuse to acknowledge the relevance of the facts, and then accuse me of doing the same. It's extremely tiresome. So much effort presenting hard evidence to have you turn around and say, "akshually, despite what the metrics say and the chart performances, Taylor Swift is WAY, WAY bigger than Madonna and I have the facts and your facts are "reframing the question." Do you see how this is tiresome for me? I literally don't care about swaying you. In my mind Madonna was comparable in her level of fame, Michael Jackson was probably bigger. But don't ask me to "provide facts" on how big Michael Jackson was either because no matter what I say you've made up your mind. It's pointless debating you. Nobody reads our subthreads, and that has been proven by Science!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5767519&forum_id=2)#49222526)

the discussion was "will taylor swift be an enduring artist." it's unknowable right now. it can't be "won". it's just a silly discussion about what might happen tomorrow.

taylor swift being a near-exclusive pop sensation is one part of my argument. you essentially said "but there have been other pop sensations that aren't enduring, like madonna, who was the biggest of her time." then you asserted something to prove that, i disagreed with the evidence, and now we're here.

there's certainly some things you could cite to prove madonna is was more popular in her time that's indisputable, like her video plays on mtv. and i could cite something else like taylor's streaming plays. these comparisons are absurd since neither existing in the others time, what it would take is a good faith discussion about various metrics. but we never get there, because anytime any metric is contested, you just say "you're wrong."

and again, this is a single example to support a premise supporting an argument with multiple premises. even if i conceded madonna was bigger than taylor swift that is only conceding one example against one premise. but it doesn't destroy the premise overall, because there are countless examples of very popular artists who fade. my argument isn't "taylor is very popular so she'll probably remain popular forever." but since every subthread winds up with you not engaging (you're wrong, no rationale) or strawmanning (lol gunner thinks madonna isn't popular what planet is he on), it never goes anywhere.

a more productive way to engage would be to argue why you think taylor *won't* be endure. your point that "other famous artists that haven't endured also exist" isn't a very good one, as that's true for artists that have endured as well.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5767519&forum_id=2)#49222584)

jesus wasn't very popular when he died, but his fans were very devoted.

Date: August 29th, 2025 2:46 PM

Author: See Ex. C at Bates No. 000001 (gunneratttt)

taylor swift is bigger than madonna and will have a far greater legacy

there is a huge swath of women who listen to exclusively or near-exclusively taylor swift. eras was one of the biggest tours of time (the biggest depending on the metric) and tickets were *still* impossible to get a hold of despite the number of shows.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5767519&forum_id=2#49222245)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5767519&forum_id=2)#49222616)

Now look at Madonna's numbers relative to her time she broke all kinds of records many of which she still holds and you can extrapolate from there. Arguing that TS has more devoted fans than Madonna did is unmeasurable. What is measurable is how famous Madonna was at her peak vs Taylors. You could make longevity arguments about Taylor. There's probably something to that. But Madonna was generationally famous. So was Farmer. I think you'd be hard pressed to find any hard data on 'I only listen to TS and nothing else' and then apply that to Madonna or any other big pop star. We compare TS to Madonna because they were both fucking huge end of story. It only makes sense to compare their relative fame to the time period. There is no metric on fanaticism, only amount of fans. The larger the amount the more fanatic.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5767519&forum_id=2)#49222635)

i think taylor swift will have an enduring legacy because:

(a) she has an extremely large fanbase (arguably the largest ever)

(b) her fans pretty much only listen to her, so they're devoted, and likely will continue to be

(c) her music is universally appealing to the young female experience

(d) her music is more timeless (singer songwriter playing pop rock on a guitar) than most pop artists (e.g. arianna grande and other pop sensations that have a sound tied more to a certain timeperiod).

i'm not saying she is *THE TOP* in any of these or that any of them are sufficient. pointing out that other artists have more devoted fanbases (of course there are niche musicians was rabid cult followings) is the "necessary but not sufficient" logical flaw that people get tripped up on on the LSAT.

my point is that the sum of these means she's likely to be an enduring artist that still gets plays in fifty years. and i'm not saying that's certain, i concede we could get nuked by china in 10 years and you never hear her again.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5767519&forum_id=2)#49222648)

the once exception is d) in arguing that it's 'timeless' because we don't know. that's what this entire argument is about. Nothing is timeless unless it has persisted for centuries like Beethoven and Bach and shit. And probably The Beatles. We literally don't know what will be considered timeless by future generations.

Arguing that, for example, "Shake It Off" is more classic than "Like A Prayer" is a subjective argument. When projecting about the future we can only guess. The hard metrics show that Madonna was enormous in the 80s. "Bigger than" would take a lot of hard research into the numbers. It's possible TS is bigger now but it's not proven, or certainly you haven't proven it.

At one point Franz Liszt was the richest most successful musician of all time and most people don't know who he is now. Arguing "TS is bigger than Liszt" is moot because we don't have the data but he was a billionaire inflation adjusted for his time period.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5767519&forum_id=2)#49222657)

this is like me pointing to all the reasons i think x team would win the superbowl and you said "yeah but the same was true of the 2008 pats." no shit!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5767519&forum_id=2)#49222674)

And wtf is the relevance of the 2008 Pats? This is the most egregious Matt Cassel trolling I've ever heard. Are you pissed off you went 11-5 and didn't make the playoffs because Brett Favre beat you in overtime when he was a Jet on a coin toss and you never touched the ball? First team since the '85 Broncos to win 11 games and miss the playoffs

Nffi Matt. Brady did it better, get over yourself.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5767519&forum_id=2)#49222680)

TS may fade into obscurity as most do. i laid out my reasoning on why she might not.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5767519&forum_id=2)#49222882)

I think I generally agree with the thrust of your arguments, but you lost me a little bit at the assertion that "people don't know who Liszt is now."

I mean, it's true that your average 18 year old "hehe pop music" retard might not know who he is, and it's also true that he's a step below Beethoven/Mozart/Bach in terms of his enduring fame... but for anyone who even casually enjoys classical piano music, Liszt is pretty right up there at the top of piano composers / legends of the instrument. And factoring in how popular classical piano is across East Asia and in many parts of Europe, that means that there are probably billions of people alive today who know his name.

The mere fact that you're still able to casually cite "Liszt" in this fashion ~150 years after he died -- something I'll bet you probably couldn't do with Moscheles, Thalberg, Herz, Kalkbrenner, Hiller, Heller, Pixis, or a bunch of other HUGE piano superstars of the mid-19th Century who were extremely famous in their day (and are now almost entirely forgotten unless you're a HUGE music nerd) -- literally proves that point. When you consider all humans who have lived thus far in recorded history, Liszt in 2025 probably falls within the Top .000001% of them on a "universal enduring cultural fame" metric.

How many musicians alive today will be as widely remembered in 2175 as Liszt is right now in 2025? If I had had to place bets, I would bet on Paul McCartney (and also Ringo but only by default)... MAYBE Bob Dylan (god I hope not)... MAYBE Kanye (albeit probably in large part due to various extra-musical reasons that will be discussed as part of a broader cultural shift)... and that's about it. And those last two would be pretty small fucking wagers, because I have a very low confidence interval in both of them.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5767519&forum_id=2)#49222957)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_concert_tours

just incorrect. why don't you google shit before you assert it?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5767519&forum_id=2)#49222268)

East Asia - Confucius, Bruce Lee

South Asia - Siddhartha Gautama (Buddha)

Russia - Lenin

Europe - Leonardo da Vinci, Julius Caesar

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5767519&forum_id=2)#49222143)

I would bet a lot of money that Stalin > Lenin by a wide margin.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5767519&forum_id=2)#49222194)

Here's what google AI has to say about this:

Yes, Cleopatra VII was of Macedonian Greek origin and a member of the Ptolemaic dynasty, which ruled Egypt for nearly 300 years after Alexander the Great's conquest. While not ethnically Egyptian, she embraced Egyptian customs, was the first Ptolemy to learn the Egyptian language, and ruled as a Hellenistic queen, connecting the ancient Greek world with the later Roman Empire.

Her Family and Heritage

Macedonian Greek Dynasty:

Cleopatra belonged to the Ptolemaic dynasty, founded by Ptolemy I Soter, one of Alexander the Great's generals.

Long-Standing Rule:

The Ptolemaic dynasty ruled Egypt for centuries after Alexander's death in 323 BC.

Cultural Preservation:

Despite being ethnically Greek, the Ptolemies maintained a distinct Greek culture, and Cleopatra was the first ruler in her lineage to learn the Egyptian language and embrace the local customs.

Her Role and Significance

Last Hellenistic Monarch:

Cleopatra's reign marked the end of the Hellenistic Age and the flourishing of ancient Egyptian culture, as she navigated the growing power of the Roman Empire.

Political Acumen:

She used her intellect and charisma to preserve Egypt's independence through shrewd diplomacy and by strategically aligning herself with Egyptian traditions.

A Bridge Between Eras:

Her reign serves as a historical connection between the Hellenistic world of Alexander's successors and the subsequent Roman Empire.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5767519&forum_id=2)#49222676)

White: Elon Musk

Blacks: tied for Mike Tyson and Michael Jackson

Asians: Ghengis Khan

Latin American: Cortez (fuck... Just realized dude was 100% Spanish. I guess some shitty soccer player is probably the real answer)

Arab: Muhammad

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5767519&forum_id=2)#49222207)

By the time all is said and done, depending on how things play out over the next 20-30 years, I think there's a decent chance that Elon could secure a spot in the Permanent Top 10 for Whites.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5767519&forum_id=2)#49222212)

Based on his current trajectory and the way the Overton Window is shifting on a global scale, NJF has an outside shot at going down as a gay brown twinky modern day Napoleon/Hitler, and anyone who actually denies that there's a chance that could happen is Jewish, retarded, or both.

I put the current odds of that happening significantly below the current odds of Elon securing a Permanent Top 10 spot, though.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5767519&forum_id=2)#49222228)

Trump is absolutely a historical figure and will go down as such, but I think he'll ultimately be judged as a pivotal but nevertheless ultimately transitional figure within the evolution of world politics. In the grand arc of history he's not an Adolf Hitler, he's more of a Kaiser Wilhelm.

Meanwhile, if Elon manages to realize even 1/10th of the wild technological vision he is currently pursuing, he will easily go down as the single most consequential entrepreneur/inventor in recorded history in addition to becoming by far the richest man to ever live in the process (even after adjusting for inflation).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5767519&forum_id=2)#49222247)

I agree with you in theory, but I think the difference is that I take Elon very seriously in both his vision and his potential to execute on that vision, and he's clearly envisioning a world in the not-too-distant fugure where most major "political problems" are entirely downstream of technological innovation because the innovation in question is so exponential in scale and so rapid in pace.

Ex: How many of today's pressing "political problems" would be either rendered moot entirely or would have to be fundamentally rethought in their most basic contours in a world where 90%+ of human labor no longer has any meaningful value because computer does the same shit better, cheaper, and quicker? I think it's impossible to predict how that would really play out and whether that would lead us to a far better world or into a permanent hellish nightmarescape, but it would certainly make all of our current "very important" debates about rising economic inequality and skyrocketing housing costs and minimimum wage issues etc etc etc completely pointless.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5767519&forum_id=2)#49222264)

But back to the present I have a healthy distrust of tech companies in general. Not to say they haven't collectively made some positive impacts in terms of convenience and quality of life, but they've also destroyed quality of life and destroyed perfectly functioning businesses in the name of shareholder value. En gros, they are self serving entities that do what's best for the bottom line and not always what's good for the customer. So while it's cool Elon made self driving cars it didn't really impact me or anyone I know. And the Next Thing is just as likely to make life worse as it is to make life better.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5767519&forum_id=2)#49222294)

Black - Precious

Latinx - Daddy Yankee

Indian (dot) - Aziz Ansari

Indian (feather) - Elizabeth Warren

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5767519&forum_id=2)#49222320)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5767519&forum_id=2)#49222688)

"European" White - Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Hitler, Pope John Paul II, Queen Elizabeth II

"New World" White - Pick a relatively recent US present - Probably Reagan or Clinton. Madonna/Taylor Swift are OK picks but may not be relevant in 100 years

Jew - Einstein or Anne Frank

"Latino" - Che, Castro, Messi (all white)

Actual African - Mandela, Haile Salaisse, or King Tut

Black American - Michael Jackson, MLK, Obama

Asian - Mao or Ghandi

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5767519&forum_id=2)#49222692)

In 100 years, will Reagan or Clinton be any more relevant than Taylor Swift or Madonna?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5767519&forum_id=2)#49222744)

Popes today get massive crowds wherever they go. John Paul II actually had massive impact on history that people seem to remember. I don’t think Francis outranks him (LJL at that German pope).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5767519&forum_id=2)#49222910)

Trump is easily more famous than Reagan or Clinton. Zoomers are already only vaguely aware of who Reagan was.

Anne Frank is obscure as heck.

King Tut is no more "African" than Elon Musk, why is he lumped with Mandela? How are Mao and Ghandi in the same grouping?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5767519&forum_id=2)#49222963)

Obama might beat MJ for nigs

mud/jew obviously is Jesus

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5767519&forum_id=2)#49223099)