• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Dr. Jill Biden

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
vi edit said:
Relevant lols....

View attachment 35690
Click to expand...
Paratus said:
YAdsagL_d.webp

If I’ve got a legitimate PHD (edit or MD or EDD), in anything I’m going by Dr. What a shitty opinion piece.
Click to expand...
I thought so too which is why I posted it.
7G3zITG.png
 
brycejones said:
WSJ Editorial page editor is already claiming victim status. That the Biden admin is trying to muzzle them.
Click to expand...

Yup

Why go to such lengths to highlight a single op-ed on a relatively minor issue? My guess is that the Biden team concluded it was a chance to use the big gun of identity politics to send a message to critics as it prepares to take power. There’s nothing like playing the race or gender card to stifle criticism. It’s the left’s version of Donald Trump’s “enemy of the people” tweets.

The difference is that when Mr. Trump rants against the press, the press mobilizes in opposition. In this case the Biden team was able to mobilize almost all of the press to join in denouncing Mr. Epstein and the Journal. Nearly every publication wrote about the Biden response, reinforcing the Biden-New York Times line: “An Opinion Writer Argued Jill Biden Should Drop the ‘Dr.’ (Few Were Swayed.)”

This strategy worked to protect Joe and Hunter Biden during the campaign, so it’s no surprise that they’re keeping it up as they head to the White House. Northwestern University, where Mr. Epstein taught for many years, did its part by denouncing him in a statement and appearing to purge his emeritus listing from its website. This is how cancel culture works.

The outrage is overwrought because, whether you agree or disagree, Mr. Epstein’s piece was fair comment. The issue of Jill Biden’s educational honorific isn’t new. As long ago as 2009, the Los Angeles Times devoted a story to the subject. From the piece by Robin Abcarian: “Joe Biden, on the campaign trail, explained that his wife’s desire for the highest degree was in response to what she perceived as her second-class status on their mail. ‘She said, “I was so sick of the mail coming to Sen. and Mrs. Biden. I wanted to get mail addressed to Dr. and Sen. Biden.” That’s the real reason she got her doctorate,’ he said.”

Many readers said Mr. Epstein’s use of “kiddo” is demeaning, but then Joe Biden is also fond of that locution. In his 2012 Democratic convention speech he even used it to refer to his wife in the context of his many proposals of marriage: “I don’t know what I would have done, kiddo, had you on that fifth time said no.” You can buy a T-shirt on the internet with Mr. Biden’s image pointing a finger saying “That’s where you’re wrong, kiddo!”
Click to expand...
 
Many, many people dont consider a Dr in education as a real Dr. Thats just a fact. It has nothing to do with male or female. Plenty of females hold the same opinion about it. Countless women snub their nose when they find out a man is a dentist, chiropractor or something similar. Or even worse, in eduaction. I have seen this first hand, and would bet everyone has. It is in plenty of movies and tv shows. Women snubbing their noses at men who dont have a doctorate in medicine. Not every comment that can be perceived as negative from a white male to a black person is based in racism, or a male to a female based in misogamy. No matter how much some people push it. Continuing with liberal dems being hypocrites, Melania was made fun of for being an immigrant, for having and accent and many other things. By the media. But that is acceptable as well. Even in this thread calling her a whore and slut, by men. And its acceptable. You cant stand and claim misogamy on one instance, and then not on another based purely on politics and have any credibility.

Speaking of credibility, WSJ in dozens of articles, refused to call Dr Ben Carson, a Dr. Repeatedly called him "Ben Carson", as a slight. Nothing was said about that. He is an actual Dr, and a very accomplished one. The same mag that is all in a tizzy over not calling Jill a Dr, didnt call a real Dr a Dr. Again, you cant have it both ways. Either you are upset about it, or not. It should not be based on who its about.

Good on her for pushing herself and getting all those degrees, that is something that only a fraction of people have. Its a pretty big deal, and impressive. If she wants to call herself a Dr, then so be it. She isnt wrong. It doesnt bother me. I thought medical Dr when I first read her name, as most people do. Most people when they hear "Doctor", think medical. Thats just a fact.
And the same people think less of the people who have it in something other than medicine.

sportage said:
I never realized that distinction at the time. I think they call it using code words. In Obama’s case, they were calling Obama the N word without actually using the N word.
Using “celebrity” in place of uppity, and using “arrogant” in place of HOW DARE HE NOT KNOW HIS PLACE. And they pull this same shit when attacking women.

Someday we’ll look back on this nonsense and we’ll just LAUGH. hahahahaha...hmmmmm
Click to expand...

Code words?

"I mean, 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." - Joe Biden.

Because a black man cant speak properly, be well dressed, free of drugs and wear a suit. Right? Thats exactly what Joe is out right saying, but that is perfectly ok apparently. Lots of cuck being thrown around. Clear example of it. Obama is one of the most revered people in the black community, and this got a 100% pass. People have lost their livelihood over much less. But hell, lets not ask about this comment at all, lets elect him president.
 
she probably doesn't even have a TARDIS and fly around the universe defeating horrible monsters!
 
Ackmed said:
Code words?

"I mean, 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." - Joe Biden.

Because a black man cant speak properly, be well dressed, free of drugs and wear a suit. Right? Thats exactly what Joe is out right saying, but that is perfectly ok apparently. Lots of cuck being thrown around. Clear example of it. Obama is one of the most revered people in the black community, and this got a 100% pass. People have lost their livelihood over much less. But hell, lets not ask about this comment at all, lets elect him president.
Click to expand...
No, shitbird.

That's a classic gaffe - saying something that you believe but isn't "politically correct".

Biden's simply said, he's the first African American male who has made it mainstream, and he has a lot of shit going for him, he's a walking Presidential candidate. Unless you'd like to name a previous black male politician who became as popular of a politician faster, before Obama. Please, if you can name that person, it'd make Biden wrong at least. And, possibly, a raging piece of shit racist or whatever y'all believe in your fever dreams.

Care to say who, so you can continue with the claim that Biden's gaffe was more than just a gaffe, and instead, "code words"?

Since you can't name one, I'll give you a hint about how much Obama took it as "code words".

Obama made Biden his VP. Which is definitely one of the major, if not the major, reason he is now President-elect.

It's always fun when shitbirds who rail against "political correctness" immediately jump on their political opponents saying something politically incorrect and innocuous.

Let me guess. You're the same kind of person who hears conservatives rail on about how Democrats keep African Americans "on the plantation" and don't bat an eye...as if African Americans don't have the agency to contrast which party isn't necessarily great for them, to the party that wants to stomp on their fucking throats.
 
pmv said:
Not sure what point you are making. They chose to publish something absurd and offensive. That's an editorial decision.

Also, I don't think you know what 'contrarian' means. I assume you mean 'different' or 'opposite'.
Click to expand...
It's statement of fact that what is signed by the byline "The Editorial Board" is what the WSJ is officially espousing. The opinion pieces such as commentary and letters are obviously the opinion of the writer alone.

It is with that latitude that the NY Times published a piece aytpical of their usual tone and that led to their typical following raking that paper through the coals. It's very clear that people will censor others because it's not about preservation of the rights, but rather a war to have a strong echo chamger.

I was responding to a very specific sentence call this "journalism". But people apparently are emotional creatures, and very arrogant in jumping to infer things about others based on indicators.

Op-eds are basically the blog posts of a previous era and thus should be treated as such. I'm not sure I want to pay $12 to have a full perspective of what he said just to debate here when people like you already will devolve the conversation towards the usual strawmen.

That's a slippery slope to justify censorships. The exercise of rights does mean allowing certain irreverent material to be published within the press. He can say it, and then can suck up the pushback and being deleted from Northwestern's website. That's the nature of "rights".


Since you are a strict contrarian, then the opinion piece about "Tear down this paywall" is something your disagree with and thus, you logically support the judicial branch charging 10 cents a page just to read through online documents.
 
I really don't see why anyone would care what she chooses to call herself.
Dr. Biden, Mrs Biden, Ms Biden, the First Lady Elect....
 
pcgeek11 said:
I really don't see why anyone would care what she chooses to call herself.
Dr. Biden, Mrs Biden, Ms Biden, the First Lady Elect....
Click to expand...
I'd go with Dr. Biden if that's her professional title. Who the fuck is anyone to deny her the professional title she earned.

When I was in school, I called my professors by their professional title and their name. Dr. "Whomever".

The only reason this is a big deal is because a bunch of right-wing cuck losers are such bad fucking cuck losers that they're latching onto any deranged shit they can think of to cry more like the fucking losers they are.
 
pmv said:
Not sure what point you are making. They chose to publish something absurd and offensive. That's an editorial decision.

Also, I don't think you know what 'contrarian' means. I assume you mean 'different' or 'opposite'.
Click to expand...


He knows exactly what contrarian means and implies, which is exactly why that word was chosen by him...to belittle, discount, to imply being the "wrong" opinion...and of course, he'll deny it and say it meant a differing opinion, but that's not what that word means or implies. He knows full well what he says and implies, despite playing the "who, me?" victim card time and again when called on crap like that.
 
Torn Mind said:
It's statement of fact that what is signed by the byline "The Editorial Board" is what the WSJ is officially espousing. The opinion pieces such as commentary and letters are obviously the opinion of the writer alone.

It is with that latitude that the NY Times published a piece aytpical of their usual tone and that led to their typical following raking that paper through the coals. It's very clear that people will censor others because it's not about preservation of the rights, but rather a war to have a strong echo chamger.

I was responding to a very specific sentence call this "journalism". But people apparently are emotional creatures, and very arrogant in jumping to infer things about others based on indicators.

Op-eds are basically the blog posts of a previous era and thus should be treated as such. I'm not sure I want to pay $12 to have a full perspective of what he said just to debate here when people like you already will devolve the conversation towards the usual strawmen.

That's a slippery slope to justify censorships. The exercise of rights does mean allowing certain irreverent material to be published within the press. He can say it, and then can suck up the pushback and being deleted from Northwestern's website. That's the nature of "rights".


Since you are a strict contrarian, then the opinion piece about "Tear down this paywall" is something your disagree with and thus, you logically support the judicial branch charging 10 cents a page just to read through online documents.
Click to expand...


I have no idea what all that gibberish is supposed to mean. Write in English next time.
 
Aikouka said:
Eh, a part of me wonders if we should really even report on this sort of drivel. I mean... do we want to give people like this the time of day? People making silly remarks like this remind me more of children that look to find any sort of reasoning to back up their "<insert thing here> bad!" viewpoint.

Although, in regard to the topic, I know people that have a Doctorate outside of a medical field and they use the "Dr." title.
Click to expand...

Normally yes, but the WSJ is a major paper with a pretty huge readership, especially among the nobility ruling class. sorry; "financial elite".
 
obidamnkenobi said:
Normally yes, but the WSJ is a major paper with a pretty huge readership, especially among the nobility ruling class. sorry; "financial elite".
Click to expand...

Although, do you think WSJ will happily publish it because they know it will cause a bit of an uproar, which is only good for them? Controversy also lends relevance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top