I don’t agree with everything Scott says, but Dilbert is legit funny & insightful.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 27, 2023
We should stop canceling comedy!
२८ फेब्रुवारी, २०२३
They cancelled Roseanne Barr for a lot less.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१२२ टिप्पण्या:
"They cancelled Roseanne Barr for a lot less."
Mighty poor bar being set there.
The anti-cancel argument doesn't care if people were cancelled for less or for more. You get to say anything you want and then other people get to say whatever they want and that's it.
That horrid ugly monster not-funny comedian Kathy Griffith (Griffin?)
she said horrible things about a young boy who merely stood there. Nick Sandman.
She openly asked for people to Doxx him and ruin his life.
"But the way he expressed his point wasn’t smart because
- People are stupid and can’t sense hyperbole
- People wanna be recreationally offended
- it’s easy to clip the stream - making him seem racist"
So in other words, the stupid, sadistic, bomb-throwing and manipulative are in effective control of all global cultural properties and forums.
Got it!
They cancelled Roseanne Barr for a lot less.
And they didn’t cancel Biden for a lot more.
What does that tell you?
Scott Adams reacted angrily to a poll of 1000 people. The so-called offensive part is when he basically said that we should stay way from people (blacks) who hate us. He also said we should stay away from the evil Woke, too. Because they hate hate hate and want to hurt, cancel and strangle free speech and common decency with insane woke/radical rules.
Now - the race part of his statement was not a good idea, because it was a gift to the white left.
"LOOK! See - Scott Adams is a White Supremacist!" Dumb to give the white left gifts.
Seriously- what is 'racist' anymore? The word has been so voluminously used, misused, and abused for so many years now, it's lost its original meaning. It now stands for any non-Black person questioning or just commenting on anything said or done by a Black person. Or simply just being non-Black, no action or thought required (per our top race hustlers).
It's become one of those words with no true meaning any longer other than to use as a pejorative. But used only by those approved to 'use' the word.
Scott Adams gained 100,000 followers on Twitter yesterday. Now at 902,000. I think he’s decided that the digital and virtual worlds are the proper media for him to be most politically effective. This move away from the legacy print media was planned. Adams has not lost influence. He’s gained.
Althouse you are doing something quite specific with words; I expect that someone of your learning and legal knowledge is doing it deliberately.
You say "They canceled Roseanne Barr for a lot less." Well, ABC did quite literally "cancel" the Roseanne Barr television show after remarks made by the eponymous star. In this day and age, it's a rare correct usage of "cancel." ABC stopped production of the show.
Now we have Elon Musk suggesting two incorrectly misused terms. That Scott "I no longer care about the fucking law" Adams was "canceled", and that it was for "comedy." To wit: "We should stop canceling comedy."
How is Adams "canceled"? A whole flock of newspapers, mostly operating independently, decided that they no longer wished to associate with Adams. The absolute essence of free speech and a free press. You know, just like Elon gets occasional moods that cause him to suspend or remove certain Twitter accounts. Or like the Althouse blog occasionally blocks or removes comments.
And then the part that is so obvious that it barely needs articulation; that Adams wasn't banned for "comedy." Adams wasn't trying to be funny. Adams has been rejected for racially inflammatory speech that was so hateful, so toxic, so outre, so lacking in insight or intelligence or any redeeming value, that the newspapers to whom Adams syndicated his comic strip deemed it damaging to their brands and their public ethics that they had to separate themselves from him.
Is Adams, free to do his weekday online commentaries, free to write books, free to try to sell his comic strip to anyone who is willing to purchase it and publish it, really "cancelled"?
I hope I am not (although sometimes I think I am) the only person who remembers Adams' "I no longer care about the fucking law" rant regarding Trump. Because apart from this self-made kerfuffle over racial slurs, I really do think that we're going to get some historic Adams freakouts when Trump gets indicted. And I am going to savor it.
People wanna be recreationally offended
Exactly.
On yesterday's podcast, Scott said that he has been dropped by his syndicate. That means that no newspaper will carry Dilbert (I think, but not sure, worldwide) because he no longer has any distributor.
This also includes Dilbert books and calendars.
Scott actually seems happy about this, saying that he is now "the freest man on the internet". He did not get into details but I assume that all distribution rights revert to him. I have both self-published and traditionally published and would never go the trad route again.
It used to be you needed a distributor to get into newspapers and bookstores. These folks got a lot of the money. Deservedly perhaps but a lot. He no longer needs bookstores or newspapers, he can control his own distribution.
He will continue doing Dilbert posting daily on his Locals channel. I'll be signing up for $5/month. Partly for Dilbert but partly to support him.
He also said that Dilbert.com will go away. He apparently does not own it. He said he does not ant the hassle of running it. I suspect that nobody else can use it without his permission due to copyright and trademark issues.
This whole kerfuffle is getting really interesting on several different levels.
John Henry
Blogger Chuck said...
That Scott "I no longer care about the fucking law" Adams was "canceled", and that it was for "comedy."
That is a bizarre statement even for you, Chuck. What law is it that you think Adams doesn't care about?
John Henry
When I heard Adamas say, "Nobody could come back from this" I was pretty sure he had every intention of being that person all along.
Adams had already been cancelled in a way because he'd been vilified for his opinions on Trump and the vaccine to the point that the "right thinking" people, who still read the newspapers, had stopped reading Dilbert and everybody else had stopped reading the newspapers.
And some even more mentally off-kilter people want to be recreationally offensive.
Chuck said...
How is Adams "canceled"? A whole flock of newspapers, mostly operating independently, decided that they no longer wished to associate with Adams. The absolute essence of free speech and a free press. You know, just like Elon gets occasional moods that cause him to suspend or remove certain Twitter accounts. Or like the Althouse blog occasionally blocks or removes comments.
This paragraph just highlights not only how stupid Chuck is, but how dishonest he is at the same time.
You are a completely dishonest piece of shit Chuck and everyone sees right through you Bulwark Republicans.
Nobody likes you.
All 100 or so of you.
You can implement physical, emotional, and career safety measures in your life without broadcasting them. Doesn't mean you are racist. It's a risk reward decision.
I don't party in Milwaukee near as much as I used to. I stay in the safety of Waukesha County and Lake Country. Milwaukee used to be a blast, but it's not the same place anymore. In reality, I'm probably avoiding the liberal white people more than anything. They are a complete pain in the ass.
Liberals from Madison, Whitefish (Whitefolks) Bay, Shorewood, and Glendale don't go to Milwaukee as much anymore either. They're just hypocritical about it. As a matter of fact the population migration in SE WI is toward the west as Milwaukee's violence and car thefts now have hit the Marta's Vineyard Ivory Towers.
"The so-called offensive part is when he basically said that we should stay way from people (blacks) who hate us."
The offensive part was not saying to stay away from people who hate you. It was presuming, based on race, that a person is hateful. That form of reasoning, judging an individual by a trait you ascribe to his race, is racism. It doesn't matter whether the trait is true or false as a generalization about the group. It is racism to make a generalization about the group and use to to determine how you will treat an individual. Stick to that and see where it goes.
Shouting Thomas said...
Scott Adams gained 100,000 followers on Twitter yesterday. Now at 902,000. I think he’s decided that the digital and virtual worlds are the proper media for him to be most politically effective. This move away from the legacy print media was planned. Adams has not lost influence. He’s gained.
People were questioning whether or not what Adams said was "smart." He is way out in front of the intellectual cowards.
We are moving faster now. More people are fighting the WEF Globalist regime and their captured media.
We will be moving to a more decentralized paradigm across the board.
Roseanne made the unforgivable mistake of telling the truth about Obama's handler. She wasn't wrong.
9:05
I agree up to a point Ann. I just don't think Scott is a racist. I think he, like many white men, are fed up with the way they are treated and just wanting to walk away.
Also - remember that Scott was reacting to a Rasmussen Poll that found (based on 1000 people) that blacks think it's OK to hate whitey just based on Him/her being white.
That's racism too.
Ann Althouse said...
The offensive part was not saying to stay away from people who hate you. It was presuming, based on race, that a person is hateful. That form of reasoning, judging an individual by a trait you ascribe to his race, is racism. It doesn't matter whether the trait is true or false as a generalization about the group. It is racism to make a generalization about the group and use to to determine how you will treat an individual. Stick to that and see where it goes.
Jealousy is not a good thing.
Adams is taking on the racists and fighting the entrenched racist system. He is taking risks and fighting against a system that can do him and his life harm.
You have been punching down at little people your whole life.
I hope I am not (although sometimes I think I am) the only person who remembers Adams' "I no longer care about the fucking law" rant regarding Trump.
Poor Chuck has to get his hobby horse into the discussion.
I tend to agree that this was planned by Adams.
The reasons for cancellation will continue to shift to ever more exacting standards. That is the nature of purity-testing in late-stage hustles like the 'Woke' one: it becomes harder and harder to find suitable victims.
It looks to me like Adams has recognized what Weiss, Taibbi, and others have recognized: There is a healthy and growing market of engagement outside the shrinking realm of Legacy Media. Better to leave the leaking ship before it sinks altogether. Those of the 'departed' ilk have been making a very successful go of it with their own cottage subscription media model.
Just wondering: Is 'Stay away from crowds' now becoming a racist statement? Asking for a dear departed friend....
Musk reportedly had a new round of firings at Twitter Saturday night. Workforce reportedly down 80% since he went private. But I guess the employees who had stuck it out weren't funny like Adams. While he awaits word from Del court whether he gets to keep his Tesla $55 billion pay package.
“It doesn't matter whether the trait is true or false as a generalization about the group. It is racism to make a generalization about the group and use to to determine how you will treat an individual. Stick to that and see where it goes.”
By that logic, around 50% of African-American people are racist against white Americans. Which was sort of Adams’ point.
I am so glad that we had to suffer through eight years of Obama presidency in order to achieve this amazing level of racial healing.
How about we cancel all these leftwing motherfuckers who relished the opportunity to turn the focus of their perennial hate on their fellow citizens who declined the vax and who asked valid questions about masking and the madness of the clampdowns.
And people wonder how the German people could support the Nazi oppression and murder of Jews and others. The German people relished that opportunity.
"They cancelled Roseanne Barr for a lot less."
They cancel people for whatever they want. Arbitrariness is part of their MO. Anything can be held against you.
It was not a generalization. It was a poll. The poll said that 1 out of every 2 black people think it is not ok to be white. That's horrifyingly racist, and that should be the focus of any "racism" complaints.
All he is doing is reacting to that poll. If 1 out of every 2 black people really think it is not ok to be white, that is an extremely dangerous 5th column to have around your neighborhood, your city, your state, and your nation. Every single conversation you have with a black person, you have a 50-50 chance that the person you are talking to *disagrees with your continued existence*. If the poll said that 1 out of every 2 non-blacks think it is not ok to be black, then it would be all the media would talk about for a decade. It would be Selma all over again, x100.
You can argue that the poll is inaccurate, but if the poll is accurate, it is terrifying news for the state of the nation. That is all he is reacting to, IF the poll is accurate, then: bad stuff
It was not a generalization. It was a poll. The poll said that 1 out of every 2 black people think it is not ok to be white. That's horrifyingly racist, and that should be the focus of any "racism" complaints.
All he is doing is reacting to that poll. If 1 out of every 2 black people really think it is not ok to be white, that is an extremely dangerous 5th column to have around your neighborhood, your city, your state, and your nation. Every single conversation you have with a black person, you have a 50-50 chance that the person you are talking to *disagrees with your continued existence*. If the poll said that 1 out of every 2 non-blacks think it is not ok to be black, then it would be all the media would talk about for a decade. It would be Selma all over again, x100.
You can argue that the poll is inaccurate, but if the poll is accurate, it is terrifying news for the state of the nation. That is all he is reacting to, IF the poll is accurate, then: bad stuff
Shorter Chuck: It's not canceling when a bunch of newspapers simultaneously stop carrying a cartoon that had nothing to do with the underlying offense.
"It is racism to make a generalization about the group and use to to determine how you will treat an individual. Stick to that and see where it goes."
In principle, that's a worthy sentiment. In practice, it only works in one direction. Applying generalizations about a group to individuals is perfectly fine when the target is whites or Asians, and only called racist by a few uncouth, powerless deplorables.
Following the principle partly depends on how fine-grained you make "the group" and partly on context. Forget the stupid Rasmussen poll, inform your actions with FBI crime stats.
The offensive part was not saying to stay away from people who hate you. It was presuming, based on race, that a person is hateful.
The more clever part was saying all white people keep black people down due to "structural racism" and "microaggressions".
This makes black people free to hate every white person, not for their race, but for things every white person must be doing and can't prove they aren't.
Isn't this the foundation for "It's not OK to be white?"
Too much attention to Adams, too little to Rasmussen. They're the ones that should be cancelled for a race-baiting meme poll designed to troll the ADL - and in the process inflame race relations in America. They are supposed to be a legit polling outfit. If they are using their professional polling system for this bullshit, they need to close up shop.
Darkisland said...
Blogger Chuck said...
That Scott "I no longer care about the fucking law" Adams was "canceled", and that it was for "comedy."
That is a bizarre statement even for you, Chuck. What law is it that you think Adams doesn't care about?
John Henry; "I no longer care about the fucking law" is a direct quote from Scott Adams, made on his Periscope chat a day or so after the FBI searched the home and office of then-Trump consigliere Michael Cohen. Adams probably realized what a big deal that was, and how legally complicated it would be to obtain a search warrant on an attorney, and especially an attorney for a President, and even moreso, a sitting President.
Adams was unusually deranged on that one. He practically spit out the words, "I no longer care about the fucking law."
If you want to search for it yourself, check out the time period around April 9 to 11, 2018. And enjoy! With a steaming mug or flagon or chalice of your favorite covfefe product.
Let me know when you find it so we can have a simultaneous sip.
Apparently it's not obvious that I am very critical of what they did to Roseann.
Michael K said...
...
...
I tend to agree that this was planned by Adams.
So then this is the result that Adams wanted and achieved, right? Has Adams been wronged? What sort of evidence might it be in any breach of contract case that Adams might have with his syndication agency, if you, Dr. Michael K, were actually correct? That Adams "planned" it? Or will there even be a breach of contract claim? Did Adams plan that part? Planned, that is, to provoke the woke mob so that they would cancel him so that he could sue them? Or maybe that was never part of any plan. Maybe Adams just planned to get "canceled" to prove some point, or go glamorously/notoriously into retirement from cartooning.
They're both right.
Sanity in an insane world.
Rosanne's cast threw her under the bus as fast as they could.
That was shameful...
Roseanne Barr's colleagues on her own show let her down, as I wrote at the time. It is why I refused to watch the rebooted show- I won't reward their cowardice.
Althouse: "The offensive part was not saying to stay away from people who hate you. It was presuming, based on race, that a person is hateful. That form of reasoning, judging an individual by a trait you ascribe to his race, is racism."
I believe this is not just incorrect, it actually reverses Adam's meaning.
Adams logic, by my understanding after listening to his entire discussion, basically goes like this:
- A reputable pollster has polled black Americans and has determined nearly half of all blacks, statistically, either do not believe its okay to be white or are unsure if its okay to be white.
- People who think its NOT okay to be white are clearly racists and represent a danger to whites and/or unwilling to engage with whites on an individual basis and should be avoided.
- Therefore, channeling Malcolm X a bit while moving to a Martin-Luther-King's-view-is-no-longer-operable framework, IF that poll is anywhere close to being correct, it makes rational sense for whites to move away from blacks generally because...
...and welcome to the story twist here...
...you actually CANNOT tell, simply by skin color alone, what a person's character and intent is (the OPPOSITE of racism and Martin Luther King makes a rhetorical comeback!), all you can do is make the most rational decision off the statistical evidence!
A very Adams-ian position across almost all topic areas.
This seemed fairly straightforward to me as I heard it and it has been fascinating to watch the usual suspects and smear merchants (looking at long time racist poster LLR Chuck) immediately move to attack Adams while contorting themselves liguistically to avoid the implications of the poll results that is driving the discussion.
As I was listening I was thinking of what I would look for if I were to challenge Adams and also what the end goal Adams was pursuing because he is so clearly not a racist.
By comparison, LLR Chuck's 8 year history of vicious racist attacks against prominent black conservatives which mirrors his vicious misogynistic attacks against republican conservative women and in particular those that are viewed as very attractive (all kinds of Freudian stuff happening there) provides a good measuring stick to contrast with a clearly non-racist Adams.
I am very interested to see just how many truly influential and non-crazed leftists are engaging with Adams on the substantive issue and creating a real dialogue on this important topic.
Was that the point all along?
Someone above mentioned Adams gained 100k+ followers over the last several days. Ive seen the usual lefty idiot LLR Chuck-types arguing its all the 4th Reich types following Adams but that makes no sense as those new people following Adams are doing at precisely the moment Adams is having interesting and clearly non-racist discussions with blacks from all political persuasions.
Not exactly Stormfront desired content.
I will also end with this: if the First Rule of Persuasion is "attention", then Adams is likely where he expected to be.
Darkisland said...
"Blogger Chuck said...
That Scott "I no longer care about the fucking law" Adams was "canceled", and that it was for "comedy."
That is a bizarre statement even for you, Chuck. What law is it that you think Adams doesn't care about?
John Henry"
He will never answer. Because he can't.
Staying away from people who hate you is good advice for any race.
It is racism to make a generalization about the group and use to to determine how you will treat an individual. Stick to that and see where it goes.
It is sad to see an intellect like Althouse fall into the "racism" trope (or trap).
What you have defined as racism is actually prejudice.
Aside.
Is Chuck actually trying to convince us that the mass cancelling of Adams is freedom of speech?
LLR Chuck: "That Scott "I no longer care about the fucking law" Adams was "canceled", and that it was for "comedy."
John Henry: "That is a bizarre statement even for you, Chuck. What law is it that you think Adams doesn't care about?"
LLR Chuck, from his entirely inconsequential perch as a pro-dem/Whitmer Fanboy "lawyer" in MI, has never forgiven Adams for Adams prescient analysis of the 2015/16 campaign and quite early correct assessment of the likely outcomes while self-styled "political insider" with self-proclaimed "deep" "knowledge" LLR Chuck was shown to be a sputtering buffoon who simply regurgitated every Rachel Maddow/Media Matters "hot take" for years.
Adams early on understood the complete corruption of the establishment and how that corruption was leading from one hoax to the next. The very democratical/LLR hoaxes Chuckles was pushing at Althouse continuously and still does.
Adams could see how lawfare was being used and LLR Chuck did not like that one bit because, as Chuck himself has admitted explicitly, Chuck was only posting at Althouse to:
- Drive a wedge between Althouse and her readers
- Smear and lie about Trump and conservatives to advance democratical party interests.
All that on top of LLR Chuck's sustsined racist attacks against black republicans.
Easy to understand why LLR Chuck was banned from Althouse blog.
I have a little prediction. Nothing much of any consequence riding on it, other than my own general reading pleasure.
But there's this; one of Scott Adams' signature themes was his personal promotion of "the Charlottesville Hoax" Hoax. Wherein Adams tried to make some cogent sense out of Trump's several rambling incoherent responses to questions about the riot and killing in Charlottesville surrounding the "Unite the Right" rally in August of 2017.
The Charlottesville Hoax Hoax was beautifully deconstructed by Bulwark writer Robert Tracinski a few months later in 2019. "The Charlottesville Hoax Hoax."
These two sides -- very loosely described as the ForeverTrump/Adams Side, and the NeverTrump/Tracinski Side -- hate each other so much, that as Adams continues to double down on his infamy, my little prediction is that Tracinski (a deeply avowed conservative who lives outside of Charlottesville and who personally opposed the removal of Confederate historical figures) will do another Adams-related column.
I will of course let you know.
"The offensive part was not saying to stay away from people who hate you. It was presuming, based on race, that a person is hateful."
I agree. But I also always do a reverse-the-races hypothetical. What if a poll had come out saying half of white people disagreed with "It's okay to be black" and Ta-Nehisi Coatses responded by saying it shows how awful white people are. No one would be dropping his book contract or cancelling his speeches. In fact, many, many people would be cheering him. And there would be a large overlap with the people who say Scott Adams said something awful. A big double standard.
Now, I went to law school and I can "distinguish" the two situations. There are different histories, blacks don't do as well as whites so should be treated more leniently, etc., etc. But I don't like it and I don't agree with it.
Yeah, call out Scott Adams for overgeneralizing, but call out everyone else too.
I bow to no man in my detestation of Chuck the drunk lawyer, so it pains me to say this, but he is right about the newspaper's decision to stop carrying Dilbert. They do not want to be associated with Scott Adams because they feel it reflects poorly on them, so they are no longer carrying his comic strip. Fair enough. This is in no way the same as Twitter shutting down accounts at the behest of US government agencies or Canadian banks freezing accounts on the say so of Trudeau.
I also have opinions about what newspapers choose to publish and I act accordingly in my purchases.
Rosanne Barr tweated that "muslim brotherhood & planet of the apes had a baby=vj" about Valerie Jarrett. Pretty mean, but I buy Barr's claim that she didn't realize Jarrett had a parent who was African American. Still, if you're going to comment publicly, it's probably good to know these things. Yet another downside to social media. Dumb comments get you in hot water. The Beatles weren't cancelled when John Lennon said they were more popular than Jesus. Created a shitstorm, though. The problem with shitstorms now is that they move faster and do more irreversible damage.
“ I no longer care about the fucking law"
Reminiscent of how Jesus answered Pontius Pilate?
People, mostly white people, are attributing more to Adams than he said. In context, his decision was to stay away from groups of black people, don't live in a majority black neighborhood, etc. I can see where those who fear giving voice to what they know is logical would rush to associate his statement as not interacting with individual black people. If you didn't know this before, you didn't grow up in the South in the '70s. And the same goes for a large group of white people you don't know if they emit the "you aren't from here vibe".
Look at January 6th. A small group, in my mind planted instigators, got the crowd going by breaking the "peace", stepping across the threshold most people stop at. In the poll Adams cited, 25% held the view against whites, 22% more somewhat agreed, so in a crowd, there are those who if emboldened can quickly take action safe in the anonymity of the crowd. And it takes a person of that group of very, very strong character to put a stop to the mob starting.
As for dealing with member of another group individually or in small numbers, well, you can quickly figure out whether they hate you and whether they are likely to act on it so you can continue or disengage as is best. But in groups, your attacker is likely to come out of the blue. Goes quadruple if there is alcohol involved.
It’s a pity Scott Adams learned nothing from the examples of Roseanne Barr, Kathy Griffin, and the Dixie Chicks: You’re free to be an entertainer and you’re free to be an edgy political commenter, but don’t whine if the latter affects the former.
Darkisland said...
On yesterday's podcast, Scott said that he has been dropped by his syndicate. That means that no newspaper will carry Dilbert (I think, but not sure, worldwide) because he no longer has any distributor.
This also includes Dilbert books and calendar
as of 5 minutes ago, you could STILL buy them on Amazon (and through the Althouse Portal)
https://www.amazon.com/s?k=dilbert+book&i=stripbooks&crid=38OYBTCSGQ9YH&sprefix=dilbert%2Cstripbooks%2C132&ref=nb_sb_ss_ts-doa-p_1_7
Kevin: "Shorter Chuck: It's not canceling when a bunch of newspapers simultaneously stop carrying a cartoon that had nothing to do with the underlying offense."
Recall that LLR Chuck also claimed it was just a bunch of "independent" social media companies all making independent decisions based on well understood rules for social media users that all together arrived at the same conclusion at the same time about Trump's status and banning him.
LOL
Well, we know how that democratical lie played out, don't we?
It also partly explains LLR Chuck's hatred and attacks against Musk since it was Musk's purchase and exposure of LLR Chuck's dem heroes in government that actually pushed the social media firms in all their authoritarian censorious behavior.
LLR Chuck is never going to forgive Musk for that exposing of his beloved Team Dem.
It is now up to our African American friends to dispute the medias claim that almost half of them hate white people.
Meade said...
“ I no longer care about the fucking law"
Reminiscent of how Jesus answered Pontius Pilate?
"Thou sayest." Matthew 27:11 (King James version.)
Fascinating, how many versions there are of that line in the different modern translations.
"So you say."
"Thou sayest."
"You have said so."
"You have said it."
"It is as you say."
"Those are your words."
That's not funny, and we're not serious. #HateLovesAbortion
The lines between corporate freedom and cancellation and between comedy, social commentary, and offensiveness are a lot blurrier now than they once were. Most "cancellation" is done by corporations doing what they have a right to do.
The First Amendment doesn't apply to private enterprises, but I'd be wary about saying that what the corporations were doing was exercising their right to free speech. "Corporate freedom" or "corporation freedom" or just "freedom" might be a more accurate term. The newspapers aren't obligated to run the strip, but if they drop it they are cancelling it and it's disingenuous to say that they are exercising free speech.
Irony and satire can be hard to do and hard to spot. That seems to be true in Scott Adams' case. Is that because he's seen as a conservative ideologue or because he's such a bland old white guy that people assume that he's a straight shooter who wouldn't say something he doesn't mean? Satire seems to be one place where white privilege doesn't exist. One can imagine a black comedian saying something similar and getting laughs.
Reminiscent of how Jesus answered Pontius Pilate?
He turned the tables on the identity changers.
"It is now up to our African American friends to dispute the medias claim that almost half of them hate white people."
It wasn't the media's claim, it was Rasmussen's based on a deliberately trash troll poll. It is Rasmussen's responsibility to apologize. And yours to inform yourself of what actually happened here (in Rasmussen's own words)
Adams's position is that it's the media that have poisoned the blacks, not a self-produced political position. It's good for ratings in the media business model so that's why they do it.
Still, the result is stay away from anonymous collections of blacks.
I'm curious why this is controversial. Black skin color is a market of a 50% hostile probability vs some lesser number for white skin color.
Derbyshire put it that roughly 5% of blacks want actively to harm or inconvenience whites, and in a crowd about half the blacks will go along with it (but wouldn't instigate it). So avoid crowds of blacks. That was ten years ago.
They have been waiting for a chance to cancel Scott adams ever since he supported trump. That is fact. Probably the same with Roseanne.
Diversity politics.
Daniel12 said...
"It is now up to our African American friends to dispute the medias claim that almost half of them hate white people."
It wasn't the media's claim, it was Rasmussen's based on a deliberately trash troll poll. It is Rasmussen's responsibility to apologize. And yours to inform yourself of what actually happened here (in Rasmussen's own words)
So, you are disputing the claim? Because you have a black friend?
Daniel12: "It wasn't the media's claim, it was Rasmussen's based on a deliberately trash troll poll."
"...a deliberately trash troll poll"
Ok. Lets hear why it was "a deliberately trash troll poll".
Be sure to show your work.
Chuck,
I am not sure whether citing a 5 year old comment, completely irrelevant to the conversation, makes your original comment any less bizarre. More bizarre, I think.
Batshit crazy would be another characterization.
I vaguely remember the comment by Adams. I also remember other comments in a similar vein. I don't remember ever hearing that Adams has ever broken any laws* as you seem to have been implying. Otherwise why bring the quote?
John Henry
* we all, supposedly, commit 2 felonies per day just in the course of our normal trying to be law abiding lives. I assume that Adams is no different. So, probably commits felonies daily like Chuck and me (and you, plural) but has never been charged with a crime.
Daniel12 said...
Too much attention to Adams, too little to Rasmussen. They're the ones that should be cancelled for a race-baiting meme poll designed to troll the ADL - and in the process inflame race relations in America. They are supposed to be a legit polling outfit. If they are using their professional polling system for this bullshit, they need to close up shop
Rasmussen merely pointed out that you progressives are just racist shitheads.
Of course you want them shut down.
That is what racist and fascist shitheads do.
"Black skin color is a market of a 50% hostile probability vs some lesser number for white skin color."
No, it is not. To repeat, this is a misreading of a poll intentionally set up to troll the ADL about a meme.
"Derbyshire put it that roughly 5% of blacks want actively to harm or inconvenience whites, and in a crowd about half the blacks will go along with it (but wouldn't instigate it). So avoid crowds of blacks. That was ten years ago."
You say that like it's settled science, instead of the 10 year old musings of an ignorant person.
Earnest Prole said...
It’s a pity Scott Adams learned nothing from the examples of Roseanne Barr, Kathy Griffin, and the Dixie Chicks: You’re free to be an entertainer and you’re free to be an edgy political commenter, but don’t whine if the latter affects the former.
When people look to the right in the IQ curve they can see about 20 points.
Prole just has no idea what Adam's goals are. This post is the typical surface level stupidity we expect. Adams was happy to be fired from a bunch of failing dinosaur media institutions.
Conflating Adams with Griffin and the Dixie Chicks is just hilarious.
Prole looking at Adams is more like 40 or 50 points...
Someone mentioned breach of contract. None of us know the terms of his contract, of course, but it is hard for me to see how this could be a breach.
If they try to take him to court saying that he ruined the brand, all he would have to do would be to explain to the court the reasonableness of Adams' argument about avoiding people who don't like you.
OTOH, he has said specifically on at least one occasion that he was going to do some stuff to get cancelled. So the syndicate might be able to use that against him. Though the way he said it, he might have some wriggle room.
Last fall(?) he introduced a new character called Dave, a black man hired by the pointy haired boss to improve DIE. But the kicker was that Dave identified as white. He had fun with this for a week or so. Some newspapers refused to run those specific strips. I seem to recall that a couple newspapers cancelled the comic over it but might be wrong on that.
He found it quite amusing and discussed what he was doing, seeing how far he could go, in some depth over several podcasts.
John Henry
Speaking of “steaming”, ladies and gentlemen, may I present Chuck.
They cancelled Roseanne for less but shouldn't have cancelled her at all!
How many times do we, (and by "we", I mean the people in charge), have to make the same mistakes before learning anything?
So Ann, correct me if I am wrong but I have the impression that you live in a pretty white neighborhood. That is, a lower than average for Madison percentage of black neighbors.
When was the last time you had a black person to your house socially? As opposed to a black plumber or piano mover or the like.
Are you avoiding black people? Do you go to black areas of Madison to hang out with black people or do you normally hang out with mostly white people?
Why do you live in what is statistically the most racist city in the US? It used to be for the job but you no longer need to live there for that, so why continue?
A lot of people, shit-stirrers mainly, would say that the above makes you racist.
Me, having read you daily for 14-15 years I disagree. I DO NOT think you are racist. I think like most white people you are just living a normal life. But that normal life, according to the shit-stirrers is racist.
FWIW, I am not racist. I am Puerto Rican and everyone knows BIPOCs cannot ever be racist. I've also been waking up next to a black woman most mornings for nearly 50 years. The same black woman, actually.
Oh, crap, wait. She is Puerto Rican. Can someone be Puerto Rican AND black? Can I be Puerto Rican AND white? It's all so confusing.
John Henry
I, an OWG, will not walk through North Minneapolis.
This is not because I think that guy over there, and those two kids here, will attack me. There's nothing individualized about my decision.
It's because, given racial attitudes, it would be statistically stupid for me to walk there.
That, I think, was Adams' point.
Am I racist for that refusal? Given the new definitions, yeah, I suspect I am.
Ask me if I care. I used to care. They burned that care out of me.
Adams became rather burned out by how people treated him for his beliefs regarding the vax. He pursued a rather rational path of disbelieving most of what he heard from anecdotal sources on both sides, and got excoriated for it.
I think this was him withdrawing from what he thought was a rational world but wasn't. He's rich, he'll continue to make money, but I think he's washing his hands of most of the people.
Can't blame him.
Blogger Earnest Prole said...
It’s a pity Scott Adams learned nothing from the examples of Roseanne Barr, Kathy Griffin, and the Dixie Chicks: You’re free to be an entertainer and you’re free to be an edgy political commenter, but don’t whine if the latter affects the former.
Do you really think he didn't learn? That he did not know exactly what he was doing and what would likely happen?
Could you direct me to him whining about it? I've listened to over 4 hours of his podcast since Saturday. He is hardly whining. Gleeful would be a better description.
Have you listed to him, as opposed to people talking about him, at all since this happened?
John Henry
Blogger Earnest Prole said...
It’s a pity Scott Adams learned nothing from the examples of Roseanne Barr, Kathy Griffin, and the Dixie Chicks: You’re free to be an entertainer and you’re free to be an edgy political commenter, but don’t whine if the latter affects the former.
Do you really think he didn't learn? That he did not know exactly what he was doing and what would likely happen?
Could you direct me to him whining about it? I've listened to over 4 hours of his podcast since Saturday. He is hardly whining. Gleeful would be a better description.
Have you listed to him, as opposed to people talking about him, at all since this happened?
John Henry
Blogger Old and slow said...
This is in no way the same as Twitter shutting down accounts at the behest of US government agencies or Canadian banks freezing accounts on the say so of Trudeau.
Unless the newspapers and syndicate dropped the strip at the behest of the govt. Not saying they did or even that I suspect that they did. But I would not be overly surprised if this turns out to have happened.
Back in the 60s and 70s it came out that the media was filled with CIA employees and reporters compromised by the CIA.CIA had a huge influence on what was published and the spin put on it. They said they stopped. Is there any reason to trust them?
Them being CIA or Media.
How much direct influence does CIA, and FBI, NSA, DIA and other agencies exert on the media. We have an inkling how much it is with social media. I doubt we know the full extent yet, or ever will. Why would we feel comfortable thinking that it is just social media.
John Henry
Blogger Old and slow said...
This is in no way the same as Twitter shutting down accounts at the behest of US government agencies or Canadian banks freezing accounts on the say so of Trudeau.
Unless the newspapers and syndicate dropped the strip at the behest of the govt. Not saying they did or even that I suspect that they did. But I would not be overly surprised if this turns out to have happened.
Back in the 60s and 70s it came out that the media was filled with CIA employees and reporters compromised by the CIA.CIA had a huge influence on what was published and the spin put on it. They said they stopped. Is there any reason to trust them?
Them being CIA or Media.
How much direct influence does CIA, and FBI, NSA, DIA and other agencies exert on the media. We have an inkling how much it is with social media. I doubt we know the full extent yet, or ever will. Why would we feel comfortable thinking that it is just social media.
John Henry
Adams just posted that his publisher for his non-Dilbert Books has cancelled his upcoming book as well as his entire backlist.
Seems like it might be good news for Scott.
The normal book deal gets the author 10-15%. He's a big name, let's assume 15%. If the book sells for $20, he gets 3. Probably pays his agent 10% so perhaps $2.70/book net royalty.
If he self-publishes on Amazon, and sells for $20, he will about $12 royalty. He will probably not have to pay his agent, probably, so he will net almost $11 more per book.
Assuming he has the DOCX files to hand, he can be in print and Kindle on Amazon as early as Thursday raking in that sweet, sweet, moolah generated by the controversy.
If he sells directly, his cost per book will be less than $3 so his royalty goes to about $17 per book. Ive never tried it but I think he can even get Amazon to dropship individual books to customers. All he would need to do would be send them a list of customers each day.
I'm having a harder and harder time seeing how this whole kerfuffle hurts him financially. Or even reputationally in the long term as more and more people realize that he was not wrong. About avoiding people that don't like you.
It's the Chik-Fil-A and Memories Pizza playbook all over again.
Well played, Scott, well played.
Adams just posted that his publisher for his non-Dilbert Books has cancelled his upcoming book as well as his entire backlist.
Seems like it might be good news for Scott.
The normal book deal gets the author 10-15%. He's a big name, let's assume 15%. If the book sells for $20, he gets 3. Probably pays his agent 10% so perhaps $2.70/book net royalty.
If he self-publishes on Amazon, and sells for $20, he will about $12 royalty. He will probably not have to pay his agent, probably, so he will net almost $11 more per book.
Assuming he has the DOCX files to hand, he can be in print and Kindle on Amazon as early as Thursday raking in that sweet, sweet, moolah generated by the controversy.
If he sells directly, his cost per book will be less than $3 so his royalty goes to about $17 per book. Ive never tried it but I think he can even get Amazon to dropship individual books to customers. All he would need to do would be send them a list of customers each day.
I'm having a harder and harder time seeing how this whole kerfuffle hurts him financially. Or even reputationally in the long term as more and more people realize that he was not wrong. About avoiding people that don't like you.
It's the Chik-Fil-A and Memories Pizza playbook all over again.
Well played, Scott, well played.
"It is now up to our African American friends to dispute the medias claim that almost half of them hate white people."
“It wasn't the media's claim, it was Rasmussen's based on a deliberately trash troll poll. It is Rasmussen's responsibility to apologize. And yours to inform yourself of what actually happened here (in Rasmussen's own words)”
That might be asking too much of this guy.
Althouse said:
"That form of reasoning, judging an individual by a trait you ascribe to his race, is racism. It doesn't matter whether the trait is true or false as a generalization about the group. It is racism to make a generalization about the group and use to to determine how you will treat an individual. Stick to that and see where it goes."
***************
We all see where it goes, it goes right to "All white people are innately racist oppressors."
It goes to CRT High Priest Abram X. Kendi saying: “there is nothing right about white people” .
Racism, straight up.
Blogger Iman said...
Speaking of “steaming”, ladies and gentlemen, may I present Chuck.
Would that be like a "Cleveland steamer", Imam?
John Henry
Rasmussen trolled with the poll. The ADL, SPLC, or both decided that “it’s OK to be white” is “hate speech”, and the polling results to that question showed that more than half of Blacks surveyed agreed with the putatively hateful statement.
Then Adams comes along and queers their play.
Rasmussen trolled with the poll. The ADL, SPLC, or both decided that “it’s OK to be white” is “hate speech”, and the polling results to that question showed that more than half of Blacks surveyed agreed with the putatively hateful statement.
Then Adams comes along and queers their play.
"The offensive part was not saying to stay away from people who hate you. It was presuming, based on race, that a person is hateful. That form of reasoning, judging an individual by a trait you ascribe to his race, is racism."
In which case, I wonder how many DEI trainings are racist. It seems to be fairly common to say all white people harbor (some, maybe unconscious) anti-black racist attitudes--which is, of course, one reason the training is needed.
I support free speech. Regardless of its consequences.
When I went to the Palm Beach Gardens Mall in 2004 with my soon-to-be wife to buy her engagement ring, a pasty-white fellow, about mid -20s, was walking by. His t-shirt had this message: "Jesus Is a C***" Except, no asterisks. I almost sucker punched the guy but I got that impulse contained. It had nothing to do with the religious hated on display. It had to do with someone wearing that in public. I also did not think going to jail for battery would be in my best interests.
Obama was the most racist president in modern times.
Biden is the most stupid racist president.
His lies about going to two masses at day at a local black Catholic church and his Corn Pop horseshite, as well as telling a black guy that the guy "wasn't black" if he failed to vote for Biden. But only the conservatives point out such racist comments -- the MSM ignores it and the Democrat lemmings just chant "Orange Man Bad" over and over as they go over the cliff without gas, without gas stoves, without money left over from their paychecks.
There. My rant is over.
Have a blessed day.
MarcusB. THEOLDMAN
After canceling the morning paper a few years ago, I had not thought much about Adams and wasn't sure "Dilbert" was even a thing any more.
I've read/watched about 50% of Prof's Adams posts, and either agree with his point or can appreciate where he's coming from. He is one of many people who are probably smarter, and definitely more clever and creative, than I am, whose opinions are just his opinions as far as I'm concerned.
The avoidance of even small crowds, especially crowds of youth, especially especially crowds of youthful POC, is only common sense to my mind, and has been for decades.
I really hate to point this out, but Scott Adams is really doing the whole "speak truth to power" thing in real life.
All he's really done is highlight a growing trend in American society, which is that black Americans are nutting themselves up to have a fight with white America. That it's being encouraged by a bunch of supposedly "woke" whites ain't no accident, either. Trends keep going the way they are, there will be a short, sharp racial conflict in this country, and the blacks aren't going to win it. They can't; they make up maybe 12% of the population, and they've alienated every other ethnicity that might join them. The Mexicans and Central American hispanics loathe them, on general principles; the Jews have been excoriated by the blacks for imagined offenses; the Asians all hate them because of the abuse heaped on them by the blacks they live among. Ask a Korean or a Vietnamese shop owner near a black-majority community what they think of blacks...
Whole thing has amazing potential to blow up and result in the effective destruction of black America, and I'm not even sure it's their fault; they're largely being manipulated by outsiders. They are to blame for falling for it, because I'll be damned if I understand why the average black hates the same Jews that were at the forefront of the Civil Rights movement, fighting the establishment for them. Of course, I'll never understand how a black person could vote Democrat, either, but there you are... Stockholm Syndrome, maybe?
Lots of white people, often good liberal white people, do what Adams said to do. They move to mostly white neighborhoods. But they do it "for the schools".
The terrible tragedy is that they are largely right, if a good school system is one where students do well on state tests or SATs or ACTs. There is a strong negative correlation between the percentage of black students and the average school score on those tests.
"It’s a pity Scott Adams learned nothing from the examples of Roseanne Barr, Kathy Griffin, and the Dixie Chicks: You’re free to be an entertainer and you’re free to be an edgy political commenter, but don’t whine if the latter affects the former."
The most lucid comment here. The Dixie Chicks were free to criticize Bush. Radio programmers were free to stop playing their records.
Could you direct me to him whining about it?
He sounded whiny in his Los Angeles Times interview, like it’s other people’s job to clean up for him when the Master Communicator misspeaks:
‘He said the stories that reported his comments pulled a trick: “The trick is just to use my quote and to ignore the context which I helpfully added afterwards.”’
But he also sounded introspective:
‘Adams said Monday that he would have presently the message differently had he not been speaking off the cuff.’
‘He admitted that what he said was “awkward” and could have been explained better.’
Call it a wash.
Prole just has no idea what Adam's goals are. Adams was happy to be fired from a bunch of failing dinosaur media institutions.
In that case it’s a win-win.
‘Would that be like a "Cleveland steamer", Imam?‘
The steamiest, John Henry. They’d be failing to shake it off in Shaker Heights!
Shut up, Chuck. Shut your filthy hole.
"Rasmussen merely pointed out that you progressives are just racist shitheads.
Of course you want them shut down.
That is what racist and fascist shitheads do."
Anyone with any understanding of survey item construction (read: people who work at Rasmussen, who are professional pollsters; also me, a sociologist) understands exactly what they did. Indeed, they understand exactly what they did! From their own twitter account: "Update: Astroturf has finally discovered our 'Ok to be White?' poll, inspired by the @ADL literally defining the wording of the question as "hate speech."
So, they polled a phrase that THEY KNEW was understood by an unknown segment of the population to be hate speech -- indeed, they polled it because the ADL designated it as hate speech, as they said. They then reported the results as if they represented public opinion about white people, rather than public opinion about a meme designated as hate speech.
This is a serious polling outfit. Yet they deliberately manipulated and misrepresented the public's opinion. Once a pollster has shown they will manipulate their polling, there's no reason to trust anything at all that comes out of them. So yes, I think they should apologize, fire the people who came up with this, and either earn back trust or fold.
I would like to understand more about why you, Achilles, and others on this board, are ignoring this and seem to be happy to be manipulated by Rasmussen. Or where I've misunderstood what Rasmussen did, if that's the case.
I set the cancellation bar at Ezra Miller.
He choked a woman at a bar in Iceland.
Credible accusations of grooming.
Hitting a woman with a chair he threw.
He has not been cancelled. At all.
Anything less than that should not lead to cancel.
bobby said...
Adams became rather burned out by how people treated him for his beliefs regarding the vax. He pursued a rather rational path of disbelieving most of what he heard from anecdotal sources on both sides, and got excoriated for it.
I think this was him withdrawing from what he thought was a rational world but wasn't. He's rich, he'll continue to make money, but I think he's washing his hands of most of the people.
Can't blame him.
Exactly ! Obama has poisoned the racial well and it will take a generation to fix this. That generation is being left stupid and uninformed so I doubt anything will improve.
Elon Musk impersonating DT(poorly and without conviction) is getting tired.
Daniel12: "Anyone with any understanding of survey item construction (read: people who work at Rasmussen, who are professional pollsters; also me, a sociologist)..."
LOL
Can you believe a "sociologist" would be waving around THAT as an appeal to authority? What a joke.
But lets continue.
So the partisan far lefties at the ADL declared the phrase "hate speech"...well gee, case closed on that one eh?
But wait, it gets even "I'm a Sociologist Dammut"-"better"!
Daniel12: "So, they polled a phrase that THEY KNEW was understood by an unknown segment of the population to be hate speech"
Wow!
You mean a WHOLE UNKNOWN SEGMENT OF THE POPULATION "understood" something!!
Which "unknown" "segment" of the population? Rural vs city? Working class vs white collar? Indoctrinated lefty university idiot sociology types vs engineers?
Lefty defined "hate speech" or generally recognized common sense truth by the normals? (See: men can't have babies and can't become women just by wishing it were so)
LOL
Ladies and gentlemen, I believe our sociologist is flipping his democratical/LLR (but I repeat myself) talking point script from "fake but accurate" to "I Got Nothin' but its still FAKE if I just can just shove the entire discussion into a lefty partisan academic box with our Calvinball "rules"!"
Here's an idea sociology lad: why dont YOU and your lefty pals take time out from pushing one hoax after another to poll the black community to establish what your "unknown" population component is and then we'll talk more.
Probably easier just to keep BS'ing and attempting to cancel though, eh?
1. Asking the question "Is it okay to be White?" is a racist question. Why? because it has a high probability of eliciting responses that cast Black respondents in a negative way.
2. Citing the responses to the racist question is a racist action (the citing) because it calls attention to the fact that Black respondents responded in a negative (racist) way.
3. Inferring from the fact that Black respondents responded in a negative (racist) way implies that some/many Blacks are racist is a racist inference because it casts Blacks in a negative way.
1. Asking the question "Is it okay to be White?" is a racist question. Why? because it has a high probability of eliciting responses that cast Black respondents in a negative way.
2. Citing the responses to the racist question is a racist action (the citing) because it calls attention to the fact that Black respondents responded in a negative (racist) way.
3. Inferring from the fact that Black respondents responded in a negative (racist) way implies that some/many Blacks are racist is a racist inference because it casts Blacks in a negative way.
Daniel12's little exercise in narrative control should be quite familiar to any sentient human in the US over the last several decades: The dems/left demand to be able to set all parameters for any discussion on any issue.
Daniel12's latest attempt in this thread to redefine the discussion in a way that serves his/her political requirements and attempting to patina it with a typically fake sociological patina of scientific rigor is par for the course these days.
For comparison purposes, think about the "Black Lives Matter" ploy. Recall how so many people began to see that phrase as something other than what the Thought Control Crowd demanded they think of it as and we were inundated with all sort of "explainers" as to why we were not allowed to think of that phrase in any ways other than the way mandated by our authoritarian lefties.
Then, right on the heels of that, we had a few other phrases pop up, such as "Blue Lives Matter", started by the loved ones and backers of law enforcement personnel who had seen a rapid increase in the number of law enforcement personnel killed on duty.
And how did the lefties characterize that phrase? White Supremacy.
And then we saw "All Lives Matter" and how did the lefties characterize that phrase? White Supremacy.
We saw the explicit teaching of sexuality and radical gender lies to young people and the normals again revolted against it. How did the lefties characterize that? Hateful Transphobia.
The normals were not deterred in the slightest by this rhetorical attack because this time the lefty insane-o's had come for the children and these radicals were called what they were: Groomers
How did the lefties react to that? White supremacy, murderers and transphobia.
The pattern is quite clear and irrefutable and we will not sit idly by and accept your drivel without pushback any longer.
TeaBagHag: "Elon Musk impersonating DT(poorly and without conviction) is getting tired."
I am impressed by the volume of your examples which appears to hover around.....zero.
Earnest Prole: "He sounded whiny in his Los Angeles Times interview, like it’s other people’s job to clean up for him when the Master Communicator misspeaks:"
No, he did not "sound" whiny in the slightest.
But parroting the legacy media hot take on things is par for the course for our "moderate" middle-of-the-roader just-calling-balls-and-strikes-here above-it-all prole.
Adams is right. What he might have said is that every individual should be judged on his own character, regardless of race or color - HOWEVER -it is wise for white people to avoid concentrations of black people. Sporting events, Street parties, social justice "marches, inner city neighborhoods, night clubs. Be smart, don't take chances, you won't end up just being a crime story buried by the media.
And FJB hard.
“Those here who amuse themselves at Twisters expense should ask themselves how they will feel when their comments finally drive him over the edge.”
Oh!… I know, I know… vindicated?
Adams' observations work for me. Then until recently I was a Portlander
"Musk reportedly had a new round of firings at Twitter Saturday night. Workforce reportedly down 80% since he went private. But I guess the employees who had stuck it out weren't funny like Adams. While he awaits word from Del court whether he gets to keep his Tesla $55 billion pay package."
You should change your username to Non Sequitur.
Was Adams referencing ALL BLACK PEOPLE or just those who responded negatively in the poll? His words were "stay away from people who hate you." I would imagine those are a subset of black people, but not the entire race.
I'm not making a partisan point. I'm making a survey design point. They asked a question that had two meanings, a meme and its plain meaning, and reported the results as if it only has one, the plain meaning.
The way you would usually ask this is, have you heard of the slogan, "it's ok to be white"? If so, what do you think about it?
Or, if you wanted to know what people thought about being white, you'd ask the question in a way that avoids wording people might misinterpret or mistake for a meme. Like, do you believe it is acceptable to be white in this country?
Rasmussen asked using the meme wording, deliberately, but reported it as if it were sentiment about being white, not the meme. Their question doesn't allow them to tell whether 47% of black people disapproved of a meme, or disapproved of white people. No doubt it's some mix of the two, but we don't have any idea what mix because they didn't ask!
At best, this is bad survey design - surprisingly bad from a professional firm like them. At worst, it's deliberate manipulation of results via question wording (which is most assuredly a thing). Either way, it's disastrous and irresponsible.
I honestly just don't think anyone should believe this result. Let someone else confirm it in an honest way first.
Daniel12: "I'm not making a partisan point."
LOL
What a joke.
Daniel12: "Either way, it's disastrous and irresponsible."
Yeah, lets get the "respectable" polling outfits on this right away...you know...the ones that have spent the last few decades lying about every single issue or, better yet, the fake academics that produce a tidal wave of BS "studies" every year that are completely driven by politics and whose results are transparently false and Living Statistical Violations.
The only thing "disastrous and irresponsible" are the white liberals that have trapped the bulk of black America on their lunatic modern day plantations....with the "best" of intentions...(wink wink).
Daniel12: "It wasn't the media's claim, it was Rasmussen's based on a deliberately trash troll poll."
It was a poll of 1000 people. Now I too think polls are mostly useless. but your blaming the polling firm for the results is... wow. really lame.
A Daniel12 - I don't know what the meme meaning of "It's okay to be white" is. My wife tells me I don't get out much so I didn't even know it had one. What is its meme meaning?
"Yeah, lets get the "respectable" polling outfits on this right away...you know...the ones that have spent the last few decades lying about every single issue or, better yet, the fake academics that produce a tidal wave of BS "studies" every year that are completely driven by politics and whose results are transparently false and Living Statistical Violations."
So then don't believe this one either.
"It was a poll of 1000 people. Now I too think polls are mostly useless. but your blaming the polling firm for the results is... wow. really lame."
I don't have any problem with the sample size or composition, which seemed very standard. I have a problem with the question and what it's actually measuring. And yes, I'm blaming the polling firm for a very clear, very obvious problem that I explained in detail. You'll have to help me understand why that's lame, and why you think polls are mostly useless but you are trusting this one.
Roger, from the ADL site:
"The phrase “It’s Okay To Be White” is a slogan popularized in late 2017 as a trolling campaign by members of the controversial discussion forum 4chan. The original idea behind the campaign was to choose an ostensibly innocuous and inoffensive slogan, put that slogan on fliers bereft of any other words or imagery, then place the fliers in public locations. Originators assumed that “liberals” would react negatively to such fliers and condemn them or take them down, thus “proving” that liberals did not even think it was “okay" to be white.
Whether the original trollers were white supremacist or not, actual white supremacists quickly began to promote the campaign—often adding Internet links to white supremacist websites to the fliers or combining the phrase with white supremacist language or imagery. This was not a surprise, as white supremacists had themselves used the phrase in the past—including on fliers—long before the 4chan campaign originated.
The original flier campaign occurred in late October 2017 and a similar campaign took place at the same time in 2018, but use of the phrase has extended far beyond the flier campaigns."
https://www.adl.org/resources/hate-symbol/its-okay-be-white
I am NOT agreeing or disagreeing with the ADL designation or narrative. I'm just saying, because it's widely out there -- indeed is the entire reason for the poll, according to Rasmussen -- you have to assume that some people will answer the question thinking about it. Or, better than assuming, you ask them, so you can intepret the data by whether they've heard of the meme.
@ Daniel12 - Thanks for the information. I wonder how "widely out there" the meme meaning is. It sounds like something a good progressive reader of the New York Times would know but not many people in "the hood". Though, like I say, I don't get out much.
And I can't help but think what would have happened if the races had been reversed, if say, the firm had asked, "Do you agree with the phrase, 'Black Lives Matter?" Now lots of non-progressive people think that BLM is a hate organization, that while pretending to be non-racial, it is actually anti-white." If half the whites who responded said they didn't really agree, would we be having this conversation about how the results don't mean what they seem to mean and it's the polling firm's fault or would there be a lot of publicity about how awful white people are (and how they need to be returned for regrooving)?
Good questions Roger. We don't know how widely out there the meme is (though Rasmussen could have asked that question). We do know that the reason they asked the question is because of the meme.
Re BLM, that's something that gets polled quite often. Here's a summary writeup from 528 from April 2021, for instance. Key quote:
"Meanwhile, in the almost four years Civiqs has been asking about support for the Black Lives Matter movement, a majority of white people have never supported the movement. Support peaked at 43 percent last June, just days after Floyd’s death. Since then, white Americans’ support for the movement has dipped back down to roughly where it was before Floyd’s death and is currently at 37 percent."
Now, let me ask you:
If Civiqs polled perceptions of Black Lives Matter, and then announced that only 37% of white Americans think that black people's lives matter -- would that be accurate?
BLM is an evil entity. It takes money and lives with the support and encuragement of the government and according to you 37% of the white people.
White lives matter is a general idea, an ideal, a humane statement.
BLM is an agressive hate group. What bullshit you talk
@ Daniel12 - If they asked the question, "Do you approve of the movement Black Lives Matter?" and only 37% said "yes", it would not be accurate to say "that only 37% of white Americans think that black people's lives matter".
If they asked the question, "Do you believe that black lives matter?" and only 37% said "yes", then I think it would be accurate to say "that only 37% of white Americans think that black people's lives matter."
If they asked the question, "Do you agree with the statement that black lives matter" and only 37% said "yes", then I think it would be accurate to say "that only 37% of white Americans think that black people's lives matter."
If they asked the question, "Do you agree with the statement: 'Black Lives Matter'?" and only 37% said "yes", then I think it gets a little iffy. "Well, of course I believe all lives matter but I said no because I disagree with the Black Lives Matter movement and some of the people involved." I gather this is essentially what you think happened in the poll that Scott Adams was referring to. I find it hard to believe that a lot of people would say "no" in either case, because though they agreed with the literal truth of the statement they thought it was used as a slogan for bad purposes, so they would not say yes even though they believed the statement was literally true.
Somewhat related to the larger question, today Ann has a post ""... Lightfoot may be a harbinger, or at least a warning, for the other big-city Black mayors..."" where the defeated mayor seems to be tip-toeing toward the idea that for a lot of people it's not okay to be white, because those people "are hateful of anyone who isn’t white and Republican in our city, in our country." Since she is complaining that the guy who got the most votes "is giving voice and platform to [those] people", that suggests she thinks there are quite a few of them.
Chuck wrote:
And then the part that is so obvious that it barely needs articulation; that Adams wasn't banned for "comedy." Adams wasn't trying to be funny. Adams has been rejected for racially inflammatory speech that was so hateful, so toxic, so outre, so lacking in insight or intelligence or any redeeming value, that the newspapers to whom Adams syndicated his comic strip deemed it damaging to their brands and their public ethics that they had to separate themselves from him.
...
I don't know... I always think about these things "what if the shoe were on the other foot?" In this case is it conceivable that someone could say the same thing about say white people? What would be the consequences? Well we don't have to hypothesize. Everything DEI is saying "Whiteness" is bad, and all white people are bad people if for no other reason than they are white. The consequences are they get a cushy job at any university or corporation. Or they get to go on speaking tours. It is encouraged not discouraged.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा