I think that’s a little too advanced for Biden, but it wouldn’t surprise me that hear a staffer suggested exactly that… Don’t think much of Biden, but the current white house is doing damned well IMHO.

I do sincerely hope trump opts out. None of his fan base is going to be affected in the slightest either way, because cult, but trump will think he’s god gift for participating, and his head is already way too fucking big.

Didn’t Biden call the dude and enemy of the state on a few occasions?

Impeachment… Colluding with enemies of the state…

I’m being facetious of course, I’d rather they break the tradition of trying to impeach every president on their way out the door, but still, how you gonna have a meeting with someone you yourself called an enemy of the state?

The word genocide itself is banned? Or you can’t use it in reference to isreal? What if you’re talking about WWII? Or you’re one of the people protesting that call Biden “genocide Joe” (which is not specifically referencing Israel, but implies it pretty hard)…

I only ask because banning words is a pretty fuckin Republican thing these days and this don’t seem like that kinda place.

There were others who changed sports as well… Fosbury didn’t cause the Olympic committee to implement any bans, which is to say that others arguably attempted much larger changes…

He simply tried something way the hell off the beaten path and it caused people to think differently about how to go about doing their thing.

Jimi wasn’t even the only revolutionary influence in his time, you could argue chuck berry had more influence at the time, you could argue Charlie christian had more influence at sorta the same time, you could argue Zeppelin, Sabbath, the Beach boys…

Nobody came crashing into music from deep left field like Hendrix did though, just like nobody came into the Olympics from deep left field the way fosbury did (I’d argue for korbut, but nobody followed her lead due to pretty much everything she did getting banned).

I get what you mean and don’t disagree, but I did say I was speaking to a specific context ;)

Hendrix. Hendrix is the fosbury of music. Dude went off in his own direction in both technical and compositional terms, and a lot of people followed.

There’s solid points in the comments, but I feel like we’re talking about a single individual ignoring convention here, and there’s really only one answer in that context :)

Being black isn’t a disqualifier if you can access resources…

How much discrimination do you think obviously wealthy black people face? A much as a poor black person?

It’s not a matter of skin color in reality, that shit’s nothing more than some extra melanin. The difference is the perception that black people are poor… People see a young black guy in a high end Audi and assume he’s a drug dealer, because they have this societally developed perception that a person of his melanin content is incapable of acquiring that kind of money legitimately. The discrimination is centric to the resources, always has been. There are white people who get just as discriminated against as any other poor person, it’s a huge factor in why Trump’s stupid ass has the following he does… He plays that shit up and nobody else will touch it with a ten foot pole…

Your question would be much better applied to height discrimination, which is something that’s almost never mentioned, but is a lot more indicative of the nature of discrimination itself.

It is instinctual, as others have said, but it has nothing to do with tribalism or war, its about resources. Discrimination is almost always about resources (the notable exception being gender/orientation based discrimination, which I guess is religious?).

The discrimination against small people (and obesity and age as well), is more basic, and likely older (in evolutionary terms), and is oriented towards hunting and fighting. We think less of smaller, fatter, and older people because they’re assumed to be less capable of gathering (and fighting for or defending) basic resources.

Discrimination against races is more recent, and more societal, and is more about monetary resources, and isn’t even entirely a matter of race. Poor white people can be discriminated against in the exact same way for the exact same reasons. Racism is more classist than discrimination against height, weight age, etc. but is essentially still a matter of these classes being seen as less capable of getting resources.

You can see it more easily if you look objectively at the discriminatory tendencies of women (and I mean that in a very generalized way). They tend to be far more discriminatory towards resource based biases… Height, weight, physical condition… They’re often inexplicably attracted to overly aggressive partners, occasionally to their own detriment. The more instinctual a woman is, the more likely to pursue the overly aggressive men. Race isn’t anywhere near as much a factor, and there are notable exceptions in all factors for women if a man obviously has a lot of resources already (no indictment intended ladies, just is what it is, and generally)

And of course it’s more obvious among women for the same reason… The disparity (again, in a very general sense) between male and female in ability to gather and defend resources affects women’s choices of partners more so than men.

Encephalitis is caused by viral infections. Our immune system usually suppresses said viruses, and HIV takes away the ability to suppress them.

This happens with a lot of illnesses… thrush, Tuberculosis, fungal infections. HIV allows a lot of stuff to have far worse impact than it normally would.

That’s not quite the same as HIV causing them… Pedantic maybe, but since we’re talking about words meaning things… ;)

"went home, kicked sarumans ass for good, and then got to slammin…

Oh right, the whole battle of the shire isn’t a thing because some dork chopped it and Tom bombadil completely out of a movie script.

What? No… I’m not bitter… much