Talk:Joe Biden

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon sociology.svg This article contains information about one or more living persons.

Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats.
Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed.
If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

Archives for this talk page: <1>, (new)



Misrepresenting what 'Believe All Women' means[edit]

I'm aware there's already been a lot of debate over the section on Tara Reade, and that's fair. However, I think the current wording is misrepresenting what this argument actually means. It brings up the idea of two women contradicting each other, but it doesn't literally mean 'believe every assertion a woman makes'. During the original MeToo movement, many proponents of the movement argued that *any* rape or harassment accusation by a woman should instantly be believed, no questions asked, we take her at her word. Even if not everyone who uses the term 'believe women' meant that, some did, and the right wing (and indeed, some left wing) people calling hypocrisy are making the point that they abandoned that belief in this case. It isn't purely an argument from the right, so I'd recommend that part be changed, and it's referring specifically to people who argued all rape accusations should be believed then went back on their opinion. — Unsigned, by: SpaceYote / talk / contribs

Biden’s racism.[edit]

While it is definitely true that Trump is a racist bigot, Biden is not unknown to have said some pretty racist quotes in the past. Often the same 4-5 quotes are quote-mined again and again, and some are simply made up. How should they be included in the article? (I got this from your cool kids philosopher Ben Shapiro)

  • You got the first mainstream African American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man.
  • Well, I tell you what, if you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black.
  • I don’t want my kids to grow up in a racial jungle (half true)
  • In Delaware, the largest growth in population is Indian-Americans moving from India. You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent.

The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 talk stalk 04:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Now I know why he's laughed at/hated by both liberals and conservatives. The 2020 election was a vote he only won because his opponent Trump was a monster. --Goatspeed. Stalk meCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee my experiments 04:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
While the new way of interpreting language would suggest a bit of racism in the above statements attributed to Biden, one could as well make the case that they suggest classism more than racism. e.g., "You got the first mainstream African American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy." That is pure classism: lower class person rises on merit to become one of the ruling class. Most Americans would not even recognize that as racism, although it is popular in media these days to do so.UncleKrampus (talk) 21:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Anti-Biden-Presidentism[edit]

As there are a number of websites taking this stance [1], [2] and others - so should there be a subsection on this page, and an article of its own when there is enough material? Anna Livia (talk) 17:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I would think so, if it persists. I would wait a few weeks or so to see if it becomes something like a movement. Ariel31459 (talk) 17:36, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
The first link is definitely within RW's remit 'somewhere.' Anna Livia (talk) 12:17, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Commas[edit]

Any reason there are no commas before the vocative "Joe"? GeeJayK (talk) 22:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

It's a play on his nicknames like Amtrak Joe. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 22:06, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Oh, ok, I got it. GeeJayK (talk) 22:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids|[edit]

It is well known that "white" denotes a privileged class. The claim, "Poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids" is a true statement. Reasons for criticism: some white kids are poor? Response: yes, but they are also privileged. There is nothing really wrong with Biden's statement. It is awkward, for certain. No sociologist would put it like that. There is certainly no reason to feature it at the head of the article. Put it somewhere else. Wait, it already is somewhere else. Ariel31459 (talk) 23:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

It has racist undertones I can't help but note your complete ignorance of. This is well worth documenting outside of some relatively obscure funspace article, just like all of the other cringeworthy quotes by him in this article. We will cover him warts and all whether you can handle that or not. Why are you so keen on whitewashing our Biden article by removing well cited facts that add to it? Are you going to try and remove all other quotes in the article that make your idol look bad?-Flandres (talk) 00:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
It's a gaffe. Is it a gaffe that defines Biden? Well, unless we want to paint him as a white supremacist, probably not (which would probably be slanderous). It bears documentation, along with some of his other more notable gaffes in the mainspace however. For now it's inoffensive enough to keep it in the lede, but once we have a paragraph about his gaffes we can move it out of there. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 15:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks gentlefolk. Ariel31459 (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Rahm Emanuel[edit]

I know some folks have a hardon for Emanuel, but he hasn't been nominated for a cabinet position. Why is he listed under cabinet nominations? I'm a whinger myself, but I like to have a real thing to whinge about. He might get the Japan ambassador post, but that is speculation about a non cabinet post. Why the premature evisceration? In any event he is under the wrong heading. UncleKrampus (talk) 22:53, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

It specifically says later on in the section Biden WANTS him in a cabinet role, he just has not found a specific role. It speaks poorly of Biden that a man with that resume is being seriously considered at all. Haven't you read the news? Emanuel has pretty much always been on the Biden teams own shortlist. Besides, the section is about more questionable cabinet picks. They don't have to make it(just look at Tanden) -Flandres (talk) 23:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, though I would think they must have been picked (nominated), before they are picks. The news suggests he is in line for a possible ambassadorship, not a cabinet position. UncleKrampus (talk) 01:45, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, now. I meant "news from before now," when progressives pressured Biden into not including him in a more grand role. Biden wanted him to be in the cabinet, and technically we have not even determined if he backed down on that yet. He was a questionable choice, and rather than being a utter pedant whole create a whole new subsection just for "people who did not make it off the drawing board" I say we list him here for the sake of simplicity. There is no need to add a comment about "Oh, well if he does pick him than we'll say" because the problem cited is that he was even considering him, not that he was officially picked.-Flandres (talk) 01:52, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
You are making a fairly common mistake. Lists are created by staff. Staff also does the vetting, after lists are made. You seem to be suggesting that it is a mark against Biden that his old boss's chief of staff would be put on lists and seriously considered. To be undramatic, I would call that an odd expectation.UncleKrampus (talk) 02:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
With a Record like Rahm has...it still is a mark against him. Also, Biden has to know at this point. He is pushing for a man with that record.-Flandres (talk) 02:06, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
That's fine. It's like an Oh well, we are all human" sort of mark, when it regards unpublished lists. UncleKrampus (talk) 02:12, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Yet he was on that list, and Biden still wants him involved in the administration. You are being ridiculously generous.-Flandres (talk) 02:16, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't know that Biden still wants him on that list (hypothetical list), how do you know? I could say you are being ridiculously sententious, but I am still accustoming myself to the temper for exaggeration here.UncleKrampus (talk) 22:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Fighting the press?[edit]

This is a questionable topic, at least so far. Asking for questions in advance, it has been claimed, has been done to allow the WH Press Secretary a chance to research questions, not avoid them. Ethically, there is no reason to object to the practice unless a reporter is ignored because of the question she had submitted. So far, that has not happened. Also, asking reporters to pay for testing is a red herring because, the organization a reporter works for will pay for the tests as a cost of doing business. I think the Times can afford it. I sure as hell don't want to subsidize private press operations. Let freaking Breitbart pay for their own damn test. UncleKrampus (talk) 21:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@Serocco Evidently you have not read the above criticism of the subsection. Who do you think they let into the press room at the WH? They are all reporters for big news services, who pay whatever fees are necessary to do business. Do you think pennyless bloggers have ever been allowed in the WH pressroom? Really?UncleKrampus (talk) 03:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Here is a recent(2017) snapshot of the WH pressroom (2017) with names and affiliations. UncleKrampus (talk) 03:36, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Neanderthals[edit]

Surely calling people 'Neanderthals' as a negativism is a form of racism/speciesism? Anna Livia (talk) 10:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

...it's a divergence of human evolution that died out 500k years ago that to my understanding died out because it wasn't able to adapt to the progression of human technology and unable to adapt to their habitat changing. I don't quite get the racism angle here, it was said to the governors of Texas and Mississippi; both of whom fall squarely in the "white dudes" category. The comparison seems apt; a decision made by people who don't want to adapt to a new situation and just want to cling to the old one that causes them to die out. However, please do elaborate, because there could be an angle here that I am missing. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 11:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
It's an insult. It's not supposed to be nice. One could take a "more highbrow-ish" road and say that Abbott's reckless COVID reopening is truly a great "Major Kong" moment in Texas history. Or one can take a lower brow approach and exclaim, Abbot, what a fucking dumb ignorant rat-licking gobshite. Neither are Joe's style. :) PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 13:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Substitute (any named group of humans) for 'Neanderthal' and describe them as ignorant - and eg see [3]. Besides Neanderthals had their own culture and persisted as 'a distinct and divergent branch' with a certain culture of their own for several hundred thousand years (and persist in some genetic material in some modern humans). For all we know had they been physically separated from 'modern humans' (islands or continents) they might have persisted and developed to the present day.
This (being a reputable source) suggest Neanderthals died out 40k years ago.
'Having advanced degrees in stupidity' would be more appropriate. Anna Livia (talk) 15:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)