Dilbert creator Scott Adams doesn't expect to live much longer(mercurynews.com) |
Dilbert creator Scott Adams doesn't expect to live much longer(mercurynews.com) |
"he called Black Americans a “hate group”"
"*IF* nearly half of all Blacks are not OK with White people... that's a hate group"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?
"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?"
I just wanted to get the facts out there, so people know The Mercury News is not a good news source.
I enjoy his cartoon, I still do in fact. But I don't think I'll enjoy the company of the creator himself.
Having said that, an untimely death is deserved by nobody and I hope he can remain comfortable and pain free till the end.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
The type of crime is the product of complex factors.
The presence of crime in general is also complex but is exposed by and increased by poverty
As for racism and intent, leaving an area because it's unsafe is one thing. Leaving an unsafe area because you think black people are inferior AND because of safety is another thing entirely.
In the same way, it is one thing to understand historic trauma has negatively impacted a demographic, and another thing to decide that the behavior you're disturbed by is intrinsic is another. That's the reason that discrimination based on a trait a person cannot change (like skin colour) is racist even if you argue it is statistically rational. Judging people individually on criteria of character, ability, etc... is a recipe for better social outcomes overall.
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.
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.
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.
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"
And couldn't that taint the people against the phrase?
You're trying to have it both ways.
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.
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.
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.
I agree.
It's entirely possible that some interpreted it as only the literal meaning and still disagreed with it.
My point is "You can disagree with making that statement without thinking it's not okay to be white", and that the poll's poor design does not allow us to distinguish the two, which was answering your question ("How is [the poll's results] not a red flag for "hate" against another racial group?").
If a poll asks people whether they identify as "pro-life" and the majority of liberals say no, it's not a sound argument to say that then implies the majority are admitting to being pro-death, or that it's a red flag for them being some kind of death cult. The term "pro-life" has meaning (relating to abortion) beyond its literal reading (and in this case I'd expect far more to pick up on it). Maybe there genuinely are some pro-death misanthropes in the sample answering no, but the poll's design does not allow you to conclude that.
> [...] you're dismissing all those accepting as being unaware.
Those that answer in support may be unaware of its usage, or aware but choosing to interpret the poll as asking about its literal meaning, or even aware and agreeing with the implicature/associations.
> For your view to be true, you're saying the other 49% of blacks polled are clueless [...]
I'm not sure how you've drawn this conclusion.
Here you say "some". Nobody would disagree, at least not me.
Your prior comment was dismissive.
>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.
Your new comment is broader.
>Those that answer in support may be unaware of its usage, or aware but choosing to interpret the poll as asking about its literal meaning, or even aware and agreeing with the implicature/associations.
As for
>it's not a sound argument to say that then implies the majority are admitting to being pro-death, or that it's a red flag for them being some kind of death cult.
"Death cult." I don't get it and presume most people wouldn't place that label either. I agree that would be weird.
As in the lack of mentioning those "aware and agreeing with the implicature/associations" in my prior comment? Notably my prior comment was replying to your:
> > 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.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I understood your point there to be "there wouldn't be enough black people who agree with its supposed alt-right usage to make up to 49%", so I gave two alternate reasons people would agree making with the statement (those unaware of the alt-right usage, and those aware but choosing to interpret the poll as asking about the literal meaning).
I'm not ruling out that some of the black respondents responded "agree" because they're aware of and agree with the statement's implicature/associations, it was just already the context of the prior comment that there wouldn't have been enough of them alone (for the alt-right associations).
> I don't get it and presume most people wouldn't place that label either. I agree that would be weird.
Similar is the idea here - people can/will disagree with a slogan because of its implicature and associations without disagreeing with its literal meaning.