Biden Condemns ‘White Man’s Culture’
One of Joe Biden’s quirks is that he thinks nobody notices when he changes. He’s had two hair-plug operations and an eye job, but nobody ever talks about it so he thinks nobody noticed. Now that he’s running for president as the only Democrat in the field who voted for the war in Iraq, he’s trying to convince us he’s undergone a progressiveness transplant.
Last night in New York City, at event honoring young people who helped combat sexual assault on college campuses, he called on Americans to “change the culture” that allows violence against women. “It’s an English jurisprudential culture, a white man’s culture. It’s got to change,” he said. He also said he regrets that “I couldn’t come up with a way to give [Anita Hill] the kind of hearing she deserved.”
The event, held at the Russian Tea Room, was hosted by the Biden Foundation and the not-for-profit group It’s on Us, which Biden founded with Barack Obama in 2014.
You’ll notice that this support of women comes within Biden’s tough-on-crime framework, which also produced the omnibus crime bill that gave the U.S. the highest per-capita prison population in the world. If you look closely, you’ll find that underneath its apparently monochromatic coat even a black leopard has spots.
If he was trying to remind everyone how he blew the Anita Hill hearing, then mission accomplished…I suppose (?)
If only he was in a position of power then he could’ve done something. What a shame.
right? “I wish i could have done someting”…. you could have, ass hole.
The correct phrase was “I wish i WOULD have done something”. Strike 3. Endorse Warren or Sanders and gtfo.
Nothing says ‘White Man’s Culture’ quite so much as going supine for MBNA.
When you put it like that I guess Biden is in perfect position to know, huh. An architect would be quite familiar with the design.
“With authority, punishment will pass away. This will be a great gain – a gain, in fact, of incalculable value. As one reads history, not in the expurgated editions written for school-boys and passmen, but in the original authorities of each time, one is absolutely sickened, not by the crimes that the wicked have committed, but by the punishments that the good have inflicted; and a community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment, than it is by the occurrence of crime.”
-The Soul of Man under Socialism, Oscar Wilde (1891)
The entire history of the 20th century is the reaction against the inevitability of collectivism. The 21st century will demonstrate that. Collectivism is the only way humanity will survive.
I nominate that for comment of the decade.
This is the cornerstone of my political theory. There is no way for 11 billion people to inhabit the earth under our current politico-economic system.
Funny. I just heard that the way to solve the worlds problems is to have more babies. Being a Republican he meant for food, no doubt.
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/03/mike-lee-speech-babies-solution-climate-change-green-new-deal.html
Ironically, or not, he couldn’t be more wrong. The No. 1 thing people can do to minimize their carbon footprint is to not have children.
Fucking Mormon idiots.
A modest proposal, indeed!
And there is no way for 11 billion people to form a single collective. The result will be multiple collectives, shaped by language, geography, culture, and a host of other factors, evolving into tribes, who , as we all know, will immediately prioritize their collective higher than the other collectives, degenerating into competition for resources, power, land, whatever, ultimately leading to tribal warfare, genocide and subjugation of lesser tribes, and of course, the installation of the dominate tribes deity of choice.
But yeah, at least there is the survival thing, but to what purpose?
You don’t know that. It’s your pessimism talking there. Reality is not constricted by what you’re able to imagine.
The ants and bees managed it by eliminating almost all the males.
With such narrow thinking I’m surprised we ever got off the African savannah 200,000 years ago.
Survival is nature’s prime directive. Otherwise none of the things Dave mentioned would even exist. It’s how evolution works.
Oh come on. You know better than that.
http://serious-science.org/ant-wars-6652
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/11/141110-bees-warfare-hives-australia-insects-animals-science/
Even though ants and bees have wars, it pales in comparison to human wars. There is no more violent species on this planet and it’s no stretch to suggest that the entire planet and all its creatures would be better off without humans, not just because of the animals we eat but because of the wanton way we use and destroy animals to make our own entertainment and betterment.
We may have gotten off the African savannah, but the only evolution we’ve managed thus far is much more efficient methods of subjugation and killing. It’s been 200,000 years and we’ve only managed to get to this point?
A collective will work if and when humans learn cooperation versus competition. If you have a bigger hunk of meat than I do, I’m clubbing the crap out you to get it, because I know damn well you aren’t going to share and I’m hungry, which you don’t give a damn about because you’re hungry also.
And it’s not simply survival. It’s also territorial imperative (It’s mine, you can’t have it). We humans generally are violent, selfish, and nasty towards each other and all other creatures.
We are not the higher order species. In fact, I will suggest that dogs are higher than ourselves because they love unconditionally. Still, all creatures compete. It’s just that humans demonstrate the greatest propensity for taking extreme pleasure in their deliberate cruelty.
An advanced species could make a collective work. Such a species does not exist on this planet.
Believe what you want. You and I won’t be around to find out who was right anyway.
“Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will.” Little MLK for the day
At what point should we be after 200,000 years?
(It’s a trick question. Can’t be answered and is wholly irrelevant. The question is where can we go and how quickly. All your thought experiments are cool, but they are unproductive.)
Collectivism might be necessary to solve the problem, but I doubt if it would be very pleasant. I also think a full-on version is probably impossible, as Dave has eloquently pointed out. But I guess we’d have to try it if it really did seem like the only answer.
“We” aren’t going to have anything to do with it. It can’t happen until our selfish generation is gone.
My point is that the entire century was an overreaction — think the Counter-Reformation as the response to the Reformation. Dave’s inability to conceive of it notwithstanding, this pendulum activity is what I’ve gathered from my study of history.
I have no idea how it’s going to happen, and I don’t much care. But it’s clear from the attitudes of the present young generation that it’s reacting against our brutish selfishness.