Joe Biden calls game developers “little creeps” who “teach you how to kill”(techspot.com)
techspot.com
Joe Biden calls game developers “little creeps” who “teach you how to kill”
https://www.techspot.com/news/83623-joe-biden-calls-game-developers-little-creeps-who.html
12 comments
Games that “teach you how to kill”: bad. Institutions that literally teach you how to kill and then send you off to actually kill people: great!
Thanks Joe, very cool!
I'm sure video games are much worse than the actual wars you voted for.
I'm sure video games are much worse than the actual wars you voted for.
The jokes practically write themselves, so I'll leave that to others.
> When asked about Silicon Valley’s expansion of power during his time in the Obama administration, Biden said: “And you may recall, the criticism I got for meeting with the leaders in Silicon Valley, when I was trying to work out an agreement dealing with them protecting intellectual property for artists in the United States of America. And at one point, one of the little creeps sitting around that table, who was a multi- — close to a billionaire — who told me he was an artist because he was able to come up with games to teach you how to kill people.”
> "And then one of these righteous people said to me that, you know, 'We are the economic engine of America. We are the ones.' And fortunately I had done a little homework before I went and I said, you know, I find it fascinating,” Biden continued. “As I added up the seven outfits, everyone’s there but Microsoft. I said, you have fewer people on your payroll than all the losses that General Motors just faced in the last quarter, of employees. So don’t lecture me about how you’ve created all this employment.. The point is, there’s an arrogance about it, an overwhelming arrogance that we are, we are the ones. We can do what we want to do. I disagree.”
Given Joe Biden's fuzzy memory, I would take his recollection with a grain of salt. Even if this anecdote is true, I'm puzzled about what segment of the electorate Biden is trying to appeal to. If anything, he would gain sympathy by livestreaming himself playing some popular AAA title.
> When asked about Silicon Valley’s expansion of power during his time in the Obama administration, Biden said: “And you may recall, the criticism I got for meeting with the leaders in Silicon Valley, when I was trying to work out an agreement dealing with them protecting intellectual property for artists in the United States of America. And at one point, one of the little creeps sitting around that table, who was a multi- — close to a billionaire — who told me he was an artist because he was able to come up with games to teach you how to kill people.”
> "And then one of these righteous people said to me that, you know, 'We are the economic engine of America. We are the ones.' And fortunately I had done a little homework before I went and I said, you know, I find it fascinating,” Biden continued. “As I added up the seven outfits, everyone’s there but Microsoft. I said, you have fewer people on your payroll than all the losses that General Motors just faced in the last quarter, of employees. So don’t lecture me about how you’ve created all this employment.. The point is, there’s an arrogance about it, an overwhelming arrogance that we are, we are the ones. We can do what we want to do. I disagree.”
Given Joe Biden's fuzzy memory, I would take his recollection with a grain of salt. Even if this anecdote is true, I'm puzzled about what segment of the electorate Biden is trying to appeal to. If anything, he would gain sympathy by livestreaming himself playing some popular AAA title.
I don't really care for politics on the front page HN; but yeah, the willful (and hostile) ignorance of our leadership in this nation shouldn't be tolerated.
We should be voting for the dude that doesn't have strange angry nonsensical outbursts. You know, the dude that's not Trump, Biden, Warren, or Bloomberg.
We should be voting for the dude that doesn't have strange angry nonsensical outbursts. You know, the dude that's not Trump, Biden, Warren, or Bloomberg.
I think we shouldn't badmouth all of politics because of these kinds of subject matter. The front page has lots of politics in the form of issues with major societal implications and it's good that there's lively public discourse about them.
Spreading the politics = bad meme just makes the public disengage from the good part of politics (active civic discourse), whereas the ultimate thinking behind the meme usually is that professional party-politicians in high standing shouldn't be listened to too much. So it's kind of self-defeating.
Spreading the politics = bad meme just makes the public disengage from the good part of politics (active civic discourse), whereas the ultimate thinking behind the meme usually is that professional party-politicians in high standing shouldn't be listened to too much. So it's kind of self-defeating.
I kinda like Andrew Yang. He seems to be proposing actual solutions to our economy rather than just papering over everything. Then again I haven't heard much from his detractors yet.
https://www.yang2020.com/
https://www.yang2020.com/
IMHO (after all this HN), Yang is great but not president material, he would be great if future president would include him as VP or some other leading role.
Who is prepared to be a great president and have we ever had a great president? I honestly don't know. I'm only 30, and I haven't seen one in my lifetime.
You have no idea how much you nerd-sniped me with that question. (I spend far too much of my free time playing at historian, and am far too fond of Ken Burns to not give my thoughts, but take this as a caveat that I am no true expert.)
Unfortunately, I think, no one who would be able to be elected president nowadays. Consider some of the "Greatest" presidents of our history, Jefferson, Lincoln, FDR, all were very human/flawed individuals with powerful detractors, (Lincoln less in his personal life and more in the role he had to play, and I omit Washington because he's effectively immortalized beyond personhood as our 'Cincinnatus') and I have my doubts as to whether any could receive sufficient support in an era where any possible slight or discontinuity (or attachment to principle over pragmatism) is a critical weakness.
I realize I may have slightly dodged your real question, I'll admit I don't have a great answer to that even in the absence of the pathology I describe above. There's been no one in politics (perhaps due to the above) who even seems to have the cult-of-personality of e.g. Obama, let alone with the principles and power to carry out something positive with it. Not too many years ago I would have said McCain, but we all know how that went. (That said I've been _rather impressed_ with how Pelosi has wrangled the herd of cats that is the democratic party , but that's only one small piece of the picture and may show how far my bar has dropped.)
To be precise since I answered the second half of your question implicitly, I certainly think we've had great presidents, see my list above for an incomplete summary. There have certainly been individuals who managed immense feats of good in the presidency despite such adversity that we have not seen in our lifetimes. However, as I was lamenting to my wife the other day, I've seen far less of this as time has gone on, (in local government _as much as_ in federal govt.) and as I suggest above, I'm not sure how we come back from that without systemic change.
Unfortunately, I think, no one who would be able to be elected president nowadays. Consider some of the "Greatest" presidents of our history, Jefferson, Lincoln, FDR, all were very human/flawed individuals with powerful detractors, (Lincoln less in his personal life and more in the role he had to play, and I omit Washington because he's effectively immortalized beyond personhood as our 'Cincinnatus') and I have my doubts as to whether any could receive sufficient support in an era where any possible slight or discontinuity (or attachment to principle over pragmatism) is a critical weakness.
I realize I may have slightly dodged your real question, I'll admit I don't have a great answer to that even in the absence of the pathology I describe above. There's been no one in politics (perhaps due to the above) who even seems to have the cult-of-personality of e.g. Obama, let alone with the principles and power to carry out something positive with it. Not too many years ago I would have said McCain, but we all know how that went. (That said I've been _rather impressed_ with how Pelosi has wrangled the herd of cats that is the democratic party , but that's only one small piece of the picture and may show how far my bar has dropped.)
To be precise since I answered the second half of your question implicitly, I certainly think we've had great presidents, see my list above for an incomplete summary. There have certainly been individuals who managed immense feats of good in the presidency despite such adversity that we have not seen in our lifetimes. However, as I was lamenting to my wife the other day, I've seen far less of this as time has gone on, (in local government _as much as_ in federal govt.) and as I suggest above, I'm not sure how we come back from that without systemic change.
Do people consider FDR to be a great president? He ranks pretty high on my list of the worst given the internment of Japanese-Americans among other things.
It's a fascinating question.
Lincoln suspended habeas corpus. Teddy Roosevelt's use of the monument act expanded executive power in ways that would be used as precedent for future abuses. As you say FDR did Japanese internment, but in that same vein you'd be remiss to not point out Jefferson's forced native american relocation program.
This is kinda my point of "these were unquestionably flawed individuals" above. At the risk of justifying evils, (I don't intend to but one could interpret it this way) if your standard for great is "did no wrong" then no president (individual?) will ever be great. At the same time I don't think greatness should shield someone from criticism for the evils that came alongside. This may be an artifact of my personal philosophies regarding innate and unavoidable fallability of human incentives, but I still find enough merit in the positive outcomes and challenges overcome to call them "Great" (Thus the quotes in my initial post). If you really want to lose faith in the consistency of my mental models, ask me the list of most damaging presidents, and note that the lists are not mutually exclusive.
In conclusion, I find the manner in which FDR handled international relations, helped ready the country and mobilize against the European war even with interventionism publicly abhorred, balanced the interests of the various VERY TENUOUSLY allied parties (Stalin, primarily), while simultaneously making good on public works and improvements post-depression (although efficacy can be debated) coupled with his civil rights works (e.g. FEPC) gives enough justification to call him "Great," although I'll echo, this in no way detracts from the observation you made, and I see the two as parts of the same picture.
Post-factum edit for color: I've actually contemplated similar questions as yours but along a different vein for some time now, since FDR was rather sneaky in how he readied the US for war, and pushed out the various cash/carry lend/lease plans, as well as effectively participating in war without congressional approval (another storied tradition of "great" presidents with very questionable implications) but in the long run _it worked_ so to some extent, I don't have a good answer for when the ends justify the means, as it were; Lincoln is even in a similar boat.
Lincoln suspended habeas corpus. Teddy Roosevelt's use of the monument act expanded executive power in ways that would be used as precedent for future abuses. As you say FDR did Japanese internment, but in that same vein you'd be remiss to not point out Jefferson's forced native american relocation program.
This is kinda my point of "these were unquestionably flawed individuals" above. At the risk of justifying evils, (I don't intend to but one could interpret it this way) if your standard for great is "did no wrong" then no president (individual?) will ever be great. At the same time I don't think greatness should shield someone from criticism for the evils that came alongside. This may be an artifact of my personal philosophies regarding innate and unavoidable fallability of human incentives, but I still find enough merit in the positive outcomes and challenges overcome to call them "Great" (Thus the quotes in my initial post). If you really want to lose faith in the consistency of my mental models, ask me the list of most damaging presidents, and note that the lists are not mutually exclusive.
In conclusion, I find the manner in which FDR handled international relations, helped ready the country and mobilize against the European war even with interventionism publicly abhorred, balanced the interests of the various VERY TENUOUSLY allied parties (Stalin, primarily), while simultaneously making good on public works and improvements post-depression (although efficacy can be debated) coupled with his civil rights works (e.g. FEPC) gives enough justification to call him "Great," although I'll echo, this in no way detracts from the observation you made, and I see the two as parts of the same picture.
Post-factum edit for color: I've actually contemplated similar questions as yours but along a different vein for some time now, since FDR was rather sneaky in how he readied the US for war, and pushed out the various cash/carry lend/lease plans, as well as effectively participating in war without congressional approval (another storied tradition of "great" presidents with very questionable implications) but in the long run _it worked_ so to some extent, I don't have a good answer for when the ends justify the means, as it were; Lincoln is even in a similar boat.
By most accounts, and historians generally agree, George Washington really was a great President.
wdn(3)
I normally try to refrain from too-direct political discussion here too, but I feel I need to comment on this:
Stuff like this is why we have Trump as President: because the Democrats somehow just can't keep from shooting themselves in the foot, over and over and over again.
Seriously, how out of touch do you have to be to make a comment like Biden's?
And don't forget, this is a guy who voted for the Iraq War in 2003, so somehow he has a problem with game developers "teaching how to kill", but he has no problem with actually sending young people overseas to kill real people because of some obviously made-up BS about WMD. What a hypocrite.
My prediction: this year, the Democrats will nominate yet another lousy candidate, who will go on to lose the general election to Trump. Then we'll have a huge recession. China will eventually take over as the sole superpower.
Stuff like this is why we have Trump as President: because the Democrats somehow just can't keep from shooting themselves in the foot, over and over and over again.
Seriously, how out of touch do you have to be to make a comment like Biden's?
And don't forget, this is a guy who voted for the Iraq War in 2003, so somehow he has a problem with game developers "teaching how to kill", but he has no problem with actually sending young people overseas to kill real people because of some obviously made-up BS about WMD. What a hypocrite.
My prediction: this year, the Democrats will nominate yet another lousy candidate, who will go on to lose the general election to Trump. Then we'll have a huge recession. China will eventually take over as the sole superpower.
I'd be careful making blanket statements like that. If you think Biden is unique because the article might give that impression... You'd better look again. In my estimate, nearly every politician in the House and Senate publicly blame video games for murderers.
Here are a few Republicans saying the same thing a few months ago.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2...
Here are a few Republicans saying the same thing a few months ago.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2...
It's not surprising that Republicans would say similar things. Republicans don't have that much appeal to young voters anyway (at least not ones into video games), nor are they looking for that vote. The Dems are the ones trying to court the younger voters.
[deleted]
Perhaps this is just Joe Biden trying to refocus the term "creep" this election cycle, since he has trouble keeping his hands and nose to himself.
This is precisely the same trick Boris Johnson used to seed google with fake results for "boris johnson bus" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21122806 "Boris Johnson uses search terms in interviews to hide negative articles"
Google: "creepy joe biden" and look at the pictures :o :/
Google: "creepy joe biden" and look at the pictures :o :/
So predictable...
With each of these out of touch comments creepy uncle Joe Biden's hands grow.