The Joe Biden 2020 tracker thread (6 Viewers)

V Chip said:

C'mon man, quit hiding behind links and videos and other posters and give me concrete examples of when she did something moronic. Something so out of the ordinary moronic that you feel fine labeling her so mentally challenged she couldn't cross a street.

Click to expand...

I regretted that label after some thought.
I have posted examples, as have others and could post much much more but it wouldn’t matter. We simply don’t agree and that’s fine.

I don’t hide behind anyone, in the real world or online. I simply find it funny that people don’t see the fact that AOC has said some incredibly dumb things. More than a few, while constantly harping on the Orange man.

V Chip said:

"Lean right of center?" Surely you jest. And this board is fairly evenly represented between left and right. Don't bring that old canard of being outnumbered and the board being biased over here, too. It's a false narrative.

Click to expand...

I wish I could agree.
While I think it’s way more even in real life I only see one side here. Perhaps I’m wrong.
Or missing some from the right?

I’d say it seems that Beach, Farb, Dad, Intense, (perhaps Jim E) kln, Bob E, Joe, Surviving and myself would comprise the right. I may be missing some tho, and as I type that out it seems as if it may be more even than I thought originally.

From what I’ve read I do not count Richard as being at all right of center. I’ll have to think on the left posters.

I really do see the left of center displaying the most bigoted nastiness tho. Just my opinion obviously.

In the end it is what it is, none of us are forced to be here and or forced to participate.

As an aside thanks for using canard. I’d not known of that word and enjoyed learning something, especially from one with whom I am very much opposite of in my beliefs.

Humperdoo said:

I regretted that label after some thought.
I have posted examples, as have others and could post much much more but it wouldn’t matter. We simply don’t agree and that’s fine.

I don’t hide behind anyone, in the real world or online. I simply find it funny that people don’t see the fact that AOC has said some incredibly dumb things. More than a few, while constantly harping on the Orange man.

Click to expand...

And again, I addressed all of those links and videos you posted. You didn't even say what it was she did in them that was so moronic -- just the naked links. One video only mentioned her in passing -- a small mention, and then nothing that she said that was "moronic." So again, I'd sure like to hear of something you know of that she said or did that was so moronic that you posted your (admittedly regrettable) original post?

Humperdoo said:

I really do see the left of center displaying the most bigoted nastiness tho. Just my opinion obviously.

Click to expand...

I think you have some serious red-colored glasses on then.

Humperdoo said:

I’d say it seems that Beach, Farb, Dad, Intense, (perhaps Jim E) kln, Bob E, Joe, Surviving and myself would comprise the right. I may be missing some tho, and as I type that out it seems as if it may be more even than I thought originally.

Click to expand...

Of the top 20 members with the most posts, 9 are from the right, 10 from the left, and 1 moderate/unaffiliated.

Of the number of posts from those posters, 54% are from the right, 43% from the left.

I'm sure the moderators/admins can provide more statistics if they feel so inclined.

stevo3 said:

A pale white guy wearing a suns uniform talking like charles barkley isn't historically accurate. Maybe if I could wear stilts and become 6'6", it might hold some sway. But I'm trying to win.

I'm not endorsing or promoting blackface. You're asking for examples and I am providing some. But I'm very against the practice of banning things/acts just because they could be used for offensive purposes by bad actors.

Are we to ban the N-word? It can be used by some to offend, but is routinely used by those in the black community in common conversation. How about the word birch, gay, Homo, Queen?

All of these words have origins rooted in common, non-offensive meanings. But over the years they have been given very negative and offensive connotations. Are we to now ban those? Or make the blanket statement that anyone who uses them is a bigot? Intent and motive are important. It separates those acting purely in the mob mentality from the independent thinkers who use context to help form judgement.

I don't know who Buckley is. Sounds like a meanie.

Click to expand...

Perhaps I missed it, but did anyone on here actually call for banning anything in this regard?

cuddlemonkey said:

Perhaps I missed it, but did anyone on here actually call for banning anything in this regard?

Click to expand...

I think more amusing is that this whole saga of defending blackface and using the n-word is born out of realizing his rationale for defending the racist framing of Covid as the Chinese virus because “people did it in the past” wouldn’t stand up under scrutiny unless he defended literally every awful historical example thrown at him.

Which did have its benefits seeing as I got to hear him ironically own himself some more:

Since in that logically pretzeled state SteveO claimed there are in fact classy imitations of black people done in blackface and I asked him to provide concrete examples. His only example so far is, ironically, the one where the concept was used to ridicule the entitlement and white privilege that certain people have that allows them to rationalize the exploitation of blackface, dismiss it’s dark history, and use it for their selfish motives.....Which came in the same breath defending using blackface because he wants to imitate Charles Barkley at a Halloween party.

stevo3 said:

A pale white guy wearing a suns uniform talking like charles barkley isn't historically accurate. Maybe if I could wear stilts and become 6'6", it might hold some sway. But I'm trying to win.

Click to expand...

Barkley was actually only 6' 4.5"....carry on....

SFIDC3 said:

Barkley was actually only 6' 4.5"....carry on....

Click to expand...

I can't get this out of my head. I thought Kimmel portrayed Barkley (WDE) but it was Malone.

V Chip said:

Of the top 20 members with the most posts, 9 are from the right, 10 from the left, and 1 moderate/unaffiliated.

Of the number of posts from those posters, 54% are from the right, 43% from the left.

I'm sure the moderators/admins can provide more statistics if they feel so inclined.

Click to expand...

Yes that’s why I said I may be wrong in my assumption. I have no problem admitting that I may be wrong in something.

V Chip said:

And again, I addressed all of those links and videos you posted. You didn't even say what it was she did in them that was so moronic -- just the naked links. One video only mentioned her in passing -- a small mention, and then nothing that she said that was "moronic." So again, I'd sure like to hear of something you know of that she said or did that was so moronic that you posted your (admittedly regrettable) original post?

Click to expand...

I never admitted that I regretted the post. Because I don’t. I regretted the title as I don’t want to be like so many others I see name calling constantly.


I’ll post more, after enjoying some time out with my brother and father at a brewery. If I get too inebriated it may be tomorrow. It’s not that important to me tho as no one is changing any minds and a couple folks have answered my question to the best of their ability.

V Chip said:

I think you have some serious red-colored glasses on then.

Click to expand...

I’ve always been independent but you may be correct. I do think the left has pushed me right. So maybe you’re correct.

Beach Friends said:

It sounds like you are in a very rational, typical UTJ mood.

Let's see if we can continue on that rational path. I think it is fair to note that AOC was hand selected, kind of like an actor, to play the role of politician. It happens, but the point is she wasn't exactly preparing herself for the position when her brother sent her info in to apply for the role. Most people don't study the kind of issues she would soon be speaking publicly about and think it was obvious she did not either.

That doesn't make her stupid, it means she was ignorant. But it can certainly make one look stupid.

Once in office she did not - as Whoopi even suggested - sit back and learn the ropes.

She jumped into the deep end and not only started speaking about things she did not really understand, she was quick to admonish others. Now we are getting into the area where people might reasonably believe one is not just ignorant, but that the person doesn't have enough sense to know they lack enough knowledge to speak with such authority.

And she has, no doubt, had some goofy moments.

I could go on - but I really think there is plenty of reason to give someone the benefit of the doubt that their views on AOC are not driven by race.

Click to expand...

So, I'll address the last point first. When I'm able to take a step back and approach a post rationally, I try not to ascribe motive or intent behind any of them. I don't really know any of you, your experiences or whatever else might make up your internal cognitive biases. You have to keep in mind that I don't think someone who has an internal cognitive bias against a certain race to be necessarily a bad person. Ie, I don't think someone who has an unconscious or implicit bias to believe women or minorities to be of below average intelligence to be any worse than someone who thinks the same of Republicans, or Democrats, or Falcons fans (well, ok that one might be true). There are lots of cues from society that none of us choose that give us an initial bias that gets reinforced based on our surroundings.

I have little reason to doubt that Humperdoo is able to overcome those inherent biases when interacting with a minority or a liberal, and getting to know them as a person and then treat them as such. Because I don't have any reason to believe that he's an butt crevasse.

So, I don't know the motivation behind calling AOC very stupid (or whatever the exact quote was - it was more than just calling her a little slow). I do think it was driven by an inherent bias (he talks often about hating socialism and AOC is being held up as a sort of socialist boogeyman), which again doesn't make him or anyone else a bad person. Liberals do it often with conservatives.

I'm going to start to ramble, but I think if you're interested in combating internal biases, it's important to pre-define your criteria for evaluation first, and then rigorously apply that criteria to everyone. I think it's pretty objectively certain that AOC is well within 1 standard deviation of mean "intelligence", so the term stupid is probably not accurate.

Humperdoo said:

Yes that’s why I said I may be wrong in my assumption. I have no problem admitting that I may be wrong in something.

Click to expand...

This goes to the way our minds work. We feel a bigger emotional impact from negative feedback than positive feedback. People disagreeing with you will stick with you in a more visceral way than people agreeing with you.

UncleTrvlingJim said:

So, I'll address the last point first. When I'm able to take a step back and approach a post rationally, I try not to ascribe motive or intent behind any of them. I don't really know any of you, your experiences or whatever else might make up your internal cognitive biases. You have to keep in mind that I don't think someone who has an internal cognitive bias against a certain race to be necessarily a bad person. Ie, I don't think someone who has an unconscious or implicit bias to believe women or minorities to be of below average intelligence to be any worse than someone who thinks the same of Republicans, or Democrats, or Falcons fans (well, ok that one might be true). There are lots of cues from society that none of us choose that give us an initial bias that gets reinforced based on our surroundings.

I have little reason to doubt that Humperdoo is able to overcome those inherent biases when interacting with a minority or a liberal, and getting to know them as a person and then treat them as such. Because I don't have any reason to believe that he's an butt crevasse.

So, I don't know the motivation behind calling AOC very stupid (or whatever the exact quote was - it was more than just calling her a little slow). I do think it was driven by an inherent bias (he talks often about hating socialism and AOC is being held up as a sort of socialist boogeyman), which again doesn't make him or anyone else a bad person. Liberals do it often with conservatives.

I'm going to start to ramble, but I think if you're interested in combating internal biases, it's important to pre-define your criteria for evaluation first, and then rigorously apply that criteria to everyone. I think it's pretty objectively certain that AOC is well within 1 standard deviation of mean "intelligence", so the term stupid is probably not accurate.

Click to expand...

I regret that title Jim and changed it. Should be better than that.
It has nothing to do with her gender or race.
I just don’t work that way, wasn’t raised that way and I didn’t raise my little ones that way.

I have many family members and lifelong friends that are minorities and or liberals. We get along great even when we vehemently disagree on something.
I still don’t get how it’s ok to thro around nasty terms at Trump, on here or in the real world. All the time. I see it so much here that I got down in the mud with my title. That’s why I changed it realizing it was wrong and made me as bad as those that throw insults at our President.

UncleTrvlingJim said:

This goes to the way our minds work. We feel a bigger emotional impact from negative feedback than positive feedback. People disagreeing with you will stick with you in a more visceral way than people agreeing with you.

Click to expand...

Absolutely. That applies to business as well. From running large shops I learned that negative news travels much faster and more freely than positive news.

I’ll tell you a bias I do have, from teaching, I learned that I very much enjoy teaching the little ones in the Special Ed dept, rather than the ‘regular’ kids. The ‘regular’ kids ate me for lunch. Mean little things.

UncleTrvlingJim said:

So, I'll address the last point first. When I'm able to take a step back and approach a post rationally, I try not to ascribe motive or intent behind any of them. I don't really know any of you, your experiences or whatever else might make up your internal cognitive biases. You have to keep in mind that I don't think someone who has an internal cognitive bias against a certain race to be necessarily a bad person. Ie, I don't think someone who has an unconscious or implicit bias to believe women or minorities to be of below average intelligence to be any worse than someone who thinks the same of Republicans, or Democrats, or Falcons fans (well, ok that one might be true). There are lots of cues from society that none of us choose that give us an initial bias that gets reinforced based on our surroundings.

Click to expand...

Can you give me an example of an internal bias that a person harbors about a perceived inferiority of another race/gender that allows them to retain the same moral footing as a person who has all the same traits but doesn’t hold that racial bias? Because this one I’m struggling with a bit.

By all accounts there are and were a lot of segregationists that are and were good family men. Loved their wives, took their kids to school and worked hard to put food on the table. They just also happened to reinforce a system of white supremacy that oppressed, marginalizes, and killed their fellow citizens. That’s legacy is with us today. That’s legacy torch bearers are still with us today.

And I struggle to see how their intent or motive are ultimately all that relevant when their actions are what ultimately matter? Spreading or promoting misogyny and bigotry(actively or passively) because you are ignorant or because you are being malicious doesn’t change the fact you are promoting and spreading bigotry. It seems to be only relevant if your intent is to understand the racist, which there are certainly reasons you might want to, but it doesn’t easily appear to me to materially change the effect their activities and actions produce for society or those that are the victims to these biases.

If a person is delivering the same misogynist patterns of behavior maliciously or just because of ignorance, what is the difference, functionally, to the outside world?

I've had to check the thread title several times to make sure where I was. In the last two pages, there was a single reference to Biden in passing. Everything else was totally unrelated to the thread topic. If you want to discuss these tangents, please start a new thread and leave this one to a discussion of Biden.