"*IF* nearly half of all Blacks are not OK with White people... that's a hate group"
inhumantsar•17h ago
In the same stream he also said he moved house to get away from black people and "I'm not saying start a war or anything like that ... I'm just saying get away."
He's also questioned Holocaust numbers, claimed the Dilbert tv show was cancelled because he is white, predicted that Republicans would be hunted down after Joe Biden won the election, and tried treating his cancer with ivermectin.
Aggressive cancer like that is a shitty way to go and I feel for him, but let's not pretend he's a reasonable, well-adjusted person.
gregbot•16h ago
are we still denying that Black america has a crime problem in 2026? So you’re saying Scott isn’t “well adjusted” because he doesn’t want to live in the ghetto? Do you call black people who move away from the ghetto “unreasonable” or just White people?
Induane•15h ago
Scott Adams didn't move from a ghetto, he moved to get away from black people. The presence of black people does not a ghetto make.
There are though absolutely places with a large black population which have serious crime issues, but you see similar crime rates in impoverished areas that are predominantly white. Calling it a problem in black America makes it seem like a black problem when that is correlative rather than causitive. Poverty is the core.
Historical inertia, past (though fairly recent) laws, etc... are part of a complex story of which the result is poverty among a specific demographic (though not limited to that demographic of course - the extractive mining towns in Appalachian areas created parallel stories of systemic poverty in predominantly white regions).
It takes a long time for societal wounds to heal.
caminante•15h ago
You're switching topics.
The prompt was whether blacks leaving black neighborhoods would be labeled racist. The assumption is that although it is categorical racism, nobody would call the act racist.
As for crime, it's such a messy topic, though, recheck. I can easily find a lot of studies showing black communities having higher gun homicides, etc. after controlling for wealth (which you disagree with).
Induane•10h ago
On the topic of crime,no, I don't necessarily disagree there. I'm sure your statistical data is correct.
The way societal traumas manifest is tied to the types of trauma each demographic experienced and experiences (including their own self-perceptions of the ways in which they have been victimizes).
Poverty is often a stressor that squeezes out behavior we tend to identify as criminal, but it just a common factor in exposing the wounds.
Depending on the group in poverty, it may manifest as gun violence, physical violence without guns, domestic violence, theft, stimulant abuse, opiate abuse, and a myriad of other things.
i.e. if your cultural wound is to feel powerless, a gun may make you feel powerful; in charge.
If the wound is anxiety, you might choose to numb out.
Controlling for wealth only gets you so far because it is a single dimension.
caminante•8h ago
You brought up POOR, white Appalachia. Therefore, controlling for wealth is reasonable. Other factors are presumably controlled for too.
If you want to bring up generational trauma, then it sounds to me like you're making the argument to leave a neighborhood based on skin color. Yet, I don't know how to reconcile that with your criteria that racism is about intent regardless of risk.
Induane•10h ago
(making two replies to separate topics) ... So as for switching topics... maybe? I meant that the comparison of black people moving from a ghetto isn't a good comparison just because they're literally moving away from a black community. They're not moving away from blackness, they're escaping a physical location tied to all kinds of negative risks.
I think I would call the act racist because what makes it racist is tied to intent. But one could argue otherwise I suppose. That's just my take.
kayamon•17h ago
Scott Adams:
"I’d also like to know how the Holocaust death total of 6 million was determined. Is it the sort of number that is so well documented with actual names and perhaps a Nazi paper trail that no historian could doubt its accuracy, give or take ten thousand? Or is it like every other LRN (large round number) that someone pulled out of his ass and it became true by repetition?"
estimator7292•16h ago
That's really not any better at all. The second statement is still overt racism, just with ornamentation.
caminante•15h ago
You're skipping steps.
Adam's was reacting to a poll where a majority of black americans took a stance against saying "it's OK to be white."
How is that not a red flag for "hate" against another racial group?
mindslight•13h ago
When two pigs wrestle, they're both covered in shit. We don't say "pig #2 should be considered clean because he was only responding to pig #1".
It's eminently possible for the original poll and Adams (and the Mercury News for that matter) to all be fanning the flames of racism.
caminante•10h ago
>possible
Why equivocate to one side and assume the worst from a poll?
By your reasoning, it's "possible" he was correct.
FWIW, Adams conditioned his language with similar reasoning ... See the "If"
mindslight•9h ago
I said "possible" because I don't feel like signing myself up to wade through pig shit to finely arbitrate who is over the line where.
caminante•7h ago
What's the point?
You don't want to arbitrate, but also want to posture with "everyone's shitty here" with a bias that even the poll is biased.
I don't get it.
mindslight•7h ago
Yes, everyone engaging in populist racism is basically shitty. I don't think that should be a controversial statement, yet there are lots of people thinking that by pointing to the "other side's" shittiness, this absolves "their team's" shittiness.
caminante•6h ago
I get what you're saying, now.
I agree.
Suppafly•3h ago
>It's eminently possible for the original poll and Adams (and the Mercury News for that matter) to all be fanning the flames of racism.
I'd even go so far to say that it's highly likely.
Ukv•13h ago
The phrase "it's ok to be white" has implicature (by maxim of relevance) and associations (by how the phrase originated and is used in practice) beyond its literal meaning. You can disagree with making that statement without thinking it's not okay to be white.
caminante•10h ago
>used in practice
This has been debunked.
If it was co-opted, then why did 49% of blacks take a neutral to supportive view of the phrase in the poll?
Explain that.
Ukv•8h ago
> This has been debunked.
What in particular has been debunked, and by what?
> If it was co-opted, then why [...]
I wouldn't say it was "co-opted" - as far as I'm aware it originated as and still mostly is an alt-right slogan.
> [...] then why did 49% of blacks take a neutral to supportive view of the phrase in the poll? Explain that.
Those unaware of the statement's usage, and those who choose to interpret the poll question as asking only about the statement's direct literal meaning, would likely answer supportive of the statement.
A better-designed poll could separate out those two issues, asking about both the statement's literal meaning and what it implies, but instead it's kind of mushed together dependant on how the respondent chose to interpret the question.
caminante•8h ago
>direct literal meaning
And couldn't that taint the people against the phrase?
You're trying to have it both ways.
Ukv•7h ago
> And couldn't that taint the people against the phrase?
In that, you think some people would agree with the phrase when taken with its implicature and connotations, but then object to its far milder literal meaning? Struggling to see what worldview that'd be possible for.
caminante•6h ago
No.
They'd be agnostic of the alleged nefarious meaning just like you're dismissing all those accepting as being unaware.
For your view to be true, you're saying the other 49% of blacks polled are clueless instead of seeing alternative, non nefarious meanings.
It's possible, but I wouldn't take that bet.
Natfan•13h ago
68 isn't that young...
jtotheh•11h ago
One of many creative people whose work I love and who have some questionable aspects. I'm sorry he's suffering and dying young (IMO). The Dilbert strip was genius.
treetalker•9h ago
On the off-chance he ever sees this, I am grateful to him as the vector through which I acquired the mental model that systems beat goals (the key to many types of success is consistently repeated action — the activity, not the lagging indicator of results). (Book: How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big.)
fragmede•6h ago
If you're really trying to reach him, email him at dilbertcartoonist@gmail.com
damnitbuilds•18h ago
inhumantsar•17h ago
He's also questioned Holocaust numbers, claimed the Dilbert tv show was cancelled because he is white, predicted that Republicans would be hunted down after Joe Biden won the election, and tried treating his cancer with ivermectin.
Aggressive cancer like that is a shitty way to go and I feel for him, but let's not pretend he's a reasonable, well-adjusted person.
gregbot•16h ago
Induane•15h ago
There are though absolutely places with a large black population which have serious crime issues, but you see similar crime rates in impoverished areas that are predominantly white. Calling it a problem in black America makes it seem like a black problem when that is correlative rather than causitive. Poverty is the core.
Historical inertia, past (though fairly recent) laws, etc... are part of a complex story of which the result is poverty among a specific demographic (though not limited to that demographic of course - the extractive mining towns in Appalachian areas created parallel stories of systemic poverty in predominantly white regions).
It takes a long time for societal wounds to heal.
caminante•15h ago
The prompt was whether blacks leaving black neighborhoods would be labeled racist. The assumption is that although it is categorical racism, nobody would call the act racist.
As for crime, it's such a messy topic, though, recheck. I can easily find a lot of studies showing black communities having higher gun homicides, etc. after controlling for wealth (which you disagree with).
Induane•10h ago
The way societal traumas manifest is tied to the types of trauma each demographic experienced and experiences (including their own self-perceptions of the ways in which they have been victimizes).
Poverty is often a stressor that squeezes out behavior we tend to identify as criminal, but it just a common factor in exposing the wounds.
Depending on the group in poverty, it may manifest as gun violence, physical violence without guns, domestic violence, theft, stimulant abuse, opiate abuse, and a myriad of other things.
i.e. if your cultural wound is to feel powerless, a gun may make you feel powerful; in charge.
If the wound is anxiety, you might choose to numb out.
Controlling for wealth only gets you so far because it is a single dimension.
caminante•8h ago
If you want to bring up generational trauma, then it sounds to me like you're making the argument to leave a neighborhood based on skin color. Yet, I don't know how to reconcile that with your criteria that racism is about intent regardless of risk.
Induane•10h ago
I think I would call the act racist because what makes it racist is tied to intent. But one could argue otherwise I suppose. That's just my take.
kayamon•17h ago
"I’d also like to know how the Holocaust death total of 6 million was determined. Is it the sort of number that is so well documented with actual names and perhaps a Nazi paper trail that no historian could doubt its accuracy, give or take ten thousand? Or is it like every other LRN (large round number) that someone pulled out of his ass and it became true by repetition?"
estimator7292•16h ago
caminante•15h ago
Adam's was reacting to a poll where a majority of black americans took a stance against saying "it's OK to be white."
How is that not a red flag for "hate" against another racial group?
mindslight•13h ago
It's eminently possible for the original poll and Adams (and the Mercury News for that matter) to all be fanning the flames of racism.
caminante•10h ago
Why equivocate to one side and assume the worst from a poll?
By your reasoning, it's "possible" he was correct.
FWIW, Adams conditioned his language with similar reasoning ... See the "If"
mindslight•9h ago
caminante•7h ago
You don't want to arbitrate, but also want to posture with "everyone's shitty here" with a bias that even the poll is biased.
I don't get it.
mindslight•7h ago
caminante•6h ago
I agree.
Suppafly•3h ago
I'd even go so far to say that it's highly likely.
Ukv•13h ago
caminante•10h ago
This has been debunked.
If it was co-opted, then why did 49% of blacks take a neutral to supportive view of the phrase in the poll?
Explain that.
Ukv•8h ago
What in particular has been debunked, and by what?
> If it was co-opted, then why [...]
I wouldn't say it was "co-opted" - as far as I'm aware it originated as and still mostly is an alt-right slogan.
> [...] then why did 49% of blacks take a neutral to supportive view of the phrase in the poll? Explain that.
Those unaware of the statement's usage, and those who choose to interpret the poll question as asking only about the statement's direct literal meaning, would likely answer supportive of the statement.
A better-designed poll could separate out those two issues, asking about both the statement's literal meaning and what it implies, but instead it's kind of mushed together dependant on how the respondent chose to interpret the question.
caminante•8h ago
And couldn't that taint the people against the phrase?
You're trying to have it both ways.
Ukv•7h ago
In that, you think some people would agree with the phrase when taken with its implicature and connotations, but then object to its far milder literal meaning? Struggling to see what worldview that'd be possible for.
caminante•6h ago
They'd be agnostic of the alleged nefarious meaning just like you're dismissing all those accepting as being unaware.
For your view to be true, you're saying the other 49% of blacks polled are clueless instead of seeing alternative, non nefarious meanings.
It's possible, but I wouldn't take that bet.