I don't know if you've seen this clip going around the internet, but it's a jaw-dropper. It features MSNBC "journalist" Paola Ramos debating Malcolm and Simone Collins, a Trump-supporting couple, about genetics.
Ramos asserts that there is no scientific evidence that there are genetic differences between races, to which the Collinses assure her there is. This goes back and forth for a while, with Malcolm, in particular, trying not to lose his mind as he pushes back against Ramos' assertion that black women are no different from any other race on a genetic level. Eventually, Ramos says these claims aren't hers, but the NIH's.
This must be the dumbest journalist of all time. @paoramos tries to convince two Trump supporters that there is no scientific evidence that proves different ethnicities have different genetics, even citing the NIH as source.
— Don Keith (@RealDonKeith) December 23, 2025
This is a patently false statement that only the… pic.twitter.com/lYgN1XEchZ
This is demonstrably false, as a simple search of the NIH will confirm that the Collinses were correct. While the genetic differences between races tend to be small, these small differences make for a wide amount of variability between people, including melanin levels, facial structures, and even disease susceptibility and reactions to medications.
Ramos is dead wrong, and I have the distinct feeling that "journalists" like Ramos know they're wrong.
But the point for Ramos isn't scientific or factual accuracy. What she was doing was trying to enforce what she sees as a moral point, not anything based in reality. This is, in the eyes of ideologically-driven hacks like Ramos, the hill that needs dying on, and it's one she shares with her fellow ideologues.
A while back, Democrat congresswoman and socialist radical, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY-14), said the quiet part out loud when she said, "I think that there’s a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right.”
This was effectively AOC admitting that embracing a lack of factual evidence is okay because sometimes putting the truth away and embracing a lie is the "good" thing to do.
In this case, the lie being embraced is that there is no genetic diversity because if there is, then that means there's a path to people viewing race as scientifically different, which could lead to racism, eugenics, etc., against people who aren't white. This is an assumption being made by leftists who see everything as an identity issue, while simultaneously missing the part where understanding these differences is actually necessary for a range of things, be it tracing one's ancestry through DNA or understanding these differences for medical reasons.
The latter point is the most important if you want to keep people healthy and thriving, which isn't as important to the Left as keeping even the threat of racism at bay.
This is an insane thing to do. A complete denial of reality is, ultimately, the path to insanity, and leftists are willing to embrace that to keep the narrative that they're the good guys in the room alive.
However, what's even more remarkable is that this isn't necessarily done to sell their ideas to others, at least not anymore. Ever since Elon Musk purchased Twitter, selling absolute lies to the public has become significantly harder. Nowadays, selling these lies is much easier and better to do to each other. Ramos is signaling she's one of the "good ones" to her peers because it keeps her employed, accepted, and one of the brave ones fighting the fascism and hatred of their enemies.
In much the same way, AOC says these things because it keeps her in office. For leftists, a principle is whatever the body politic says it is. The Borg mentality is what defines reality, not facts and truth. If you're willing to embrace the lie, then you're accepted and rewarded. Professing the lie in a setting like the one Ramos was in, where it's both being televised and said to the faces of Trump supporters, is less of a truth-telling event and more of a declaration of association.
Off-screen, it no doubt won her back pats, invitations, and acknowledgements of her bravery and superiority from her peers. She'll win awards, get job offers, and become a "trusted source" from elitist and legacy organizations.
Hilariously, this alone is an immoral reason to embrace anything. The truth doesn't lose or gain moral standing based on how much it's accepted by your peer group, but the Left has made group consensus the ultimate good. No matter how false, how damaging, or how evil, if the group says it's good, then it's good.
So ultimately, real morality doesn't matter. What matters is that the shared insanity is upheld and displayed.
