Is It OK to Be Scott Adams?

[cawacko]

This is from Glen Loury. He's a (black) public intellectual who has been a long time Social Sciences professor at Brown and at age 33 was the first black Economics professor at Harvard to earn tenure. He's a brilliant man and he has changed his political leanings a couple of times and he leans more conservative (though he's not a political partisan).

Most of the discussion on this board revolves around partisan politics and who people vote for but this post of his addresses something far deeper (and not who to vote for). I don't know that I agree with him (fully) but I think brings up excellent points of discussion.

For starters, I live in a City that's 1/3 Asian and a state that's almost 1/2 Hispanic. This idea of America being only white and black is antiquated. However many parts of our country are largely white and black so there's that. But what strikes me is you can push certain thoughts underground but it doesn't necessarily mean they go away. And he's right about how we separate ourselves based on where we live and where we send our kids to school.




Is It OK to Be Scott Adams?

Why was Scott Adams canceled? The story that’s being spun out in the media is that Adams, the Dilbert cartoonist and author, went on a racist tirade in which he referred to African Americans as a “hate group” and urged white people to “get the hell away” from black people. This, the story goes, is a call for segregation, a clear indicator that Adams harbors anti-black beliefs and as such cannot be allowed to remain a part of polite society. Accordingly, his long-running comic strip must be dropped, his book deals must be voided, and he must be prevented from contaminating the culture with his noxious views.

But you could tell another story. Shocking as his statement is, it gives voice to a sentiment harbored by many, many other white people who feel similarly about African Americans as a group. Clearly, some white people feel there are reasons to “get the hell away” from black people. They don’t say it in words; they say it when they choose to move away from cities and neighborhoods where a high proportion of crimes are committed by black assailants. You can cancel as many comic strips as you want, but it’s not going to prevent white people who no longer want to live near predominately black neighborhoods from acting in what they see as their own best interests. All it will do is prevent all of us from talking about the larger forces that made Adams’s statements a cause for panic.

Abstract beliefs about race don’t make people uproot their lives, sell their houses, move to new neighborhoods, and find new schools for their kids. Material incentives do. Whacking down every outré statement made by a white person about a black person may serve the cause of “anti-racism,” but it won’t put an end to the underlying incentives that cause groups to segregate themselves. If we’re unable to discuss those incentives openly, we’ll hardly notice when more and more people start taking Scott Adams’s advice.

 

[anonymoose]

This is from Glen Loury. He's a (black) public intellectual who has been a long time Social Sciences professor at Brown and at age 33 was the first black Economics professor at Harvard to earn tenure. He's a brilliant man and he has changed his political leanings a couple of times and he leans more conservative (though he's not a political partisan).

Most of the discussion on this board revolves around partisan politics and who people vote for but this post of his addresses something far deeper (and not who to vote for). I don't know that I agree with him (fully) but I think brings up excellent points of discussion.

For starters, I live in a City that's 1/3 Asian and a state that's almost 1/2 Hispanic. This idea of America being only white and black is antiquated. However many parts of our country are largely white and black so there's that. But what strikes me is you can push certain thoughts underground but it doesn't necessarily mean they go away. And he's right about how we separate ourselves based on where we live and where we send our kids to school.




Is It OK to Be Scott Adams?

Why was Scott Adams canceled? The story that’s being spun out in the media is that Adams, the Dilbert cartoonist and author, went on a racist tirade in which he referred to African Americans as a “hate group” and urged white people to “get the hell away” from black people. This, the story goes, is a call for segregation, a clear indicator that Adams harbors anti-black beliefs and as such cannot be allowed to remain a part of polite society. Accordingly, his long-running comic strip must be dropped, his book deals must be voided, and he must be prevented from contaminating the culture with his noxious views.

But you could tell another story. Shocking as his statement is, it gives voice to a sentiment harbored by many, many other white people who feel similarly about African Americans as a group. Clearly, some white people feel there are reasons to “get the hell away” from black people. They don’t say it in words; they say it when they choose to move away from cities and neighborhoods where a high proportion of crimes are committed by black assailants. You can cancel as many comic strips as you want, but it’s not going to prevent white people who no longer want to live near predominately black neighborhoods from acting in what they see as their own best interests. All it will do is prevent all of us from talking about the larger forces that made Adams’s statements a cause for panic.

Abstract beliefs about race don’t make people uproot their lives, sell their houses, move to new neighborhoods, and find new schools for their kids. Material incentives do. Whacking down every outré statement made by a white person about a black person may serve the cause of “anti-racism,” but it won’t put an end to the underlying incentives that cause groups to segregate themselves. If we’re unable to discuss those incentives openly, we’ll hardly notice when more and more people start taking Scott Adams’s advice.

Deserves a response but I’m still trying to think of one.

 

[anonymoose]

Last month, the Dilbert creator flagged a poll showing a thin majority of Black people agreed with the phrase, “It’s okay to be White,” which is a refrain occasionally used with racist memes.

“If nearly half of all Blacks are not okay with White people… that’s a hate group,” Adams said on his YouTube show.
https://www.mediaite.com/tv/scott-a...lly-completely-fine-with-his-racist-comments/

 

[cawacko]

Deserves a response but I’m still trying to think of one.

I've listened to Loury's podcast for quite awhile so I have an understanding of where he's coming from here. He's not justifying the comments per se but rather acknowledging the mindset that many others may share similar thoughts even if they don't express them verbally based on their life choices (where they live, send their kids to school etc.) So he's coming at it from a different angle and saying while it may feel good to shut down Adams it doesn't change the underlying beliefs and actions of people, nor does it help us address it. (that's my understanding at least)

 

[Concart]

This is from Glen Loury. He's a (black) public intellectual who has been a long time Social Sciences professor at Brown and at age 33 was the first black Economics professor at Harvard to earn tenure. He's a brilliant man and he has changed his political leanings a couple of times and he leans more conservative (though he's not a political partisan).

Most of the discussion on this board revolves around partisan politics and who people vote for but this post of his addresses something far deeper (and not who to vote for). I don't know that I agree with him (fully) but I think brings up excellent points of discussion.

For starters, I live in a City that's 1/3 Asian and a state that's almost 1/2 Hispanic. This idea of America being only white and black is antiquated. However many parts of our country are largely white and black so there's that. But what strikes me is you can push certain thoughts underground but it doesn't necessarily mean they go away. And he's right about how we separate ourselves based on where we live and where we send our kids to school.




Is It OK to Be Scott Adams?

Why was Scott Adams canceled? The story that’s being spun out in the media is that Adams, the Dilbert cartoonist and author, went on a racist tirade in which he referred to African Americans as a “hate group” and urged white people to “get the hell away” from black people. This, the story goes, is a call for segregation, a clear indicator that Adams harbors anti-black beliefs and as such cannot be allowed to remain a part of polite society. Accordingly, his long-running comic strip must be dropped, his book deals must be voided, and he must be prevented from contaminating the culture with his noxious views.

But you could tell another story. Shocking as his statement is, it gives voice to a sentiment harbored by many, many other white people who feel similarly about African Americans as a group. Clearly, some white people feel there are reasons to “get the hell away” from black people. They don’t say it in words; they say it when they choose to move away from cities and neighborhoods where a high proportion of crimes are committed by black assailants. You can cancel as many comic strips as you want, but it’s not going to prevent white people who no longer want to live near predominately black neighborhoods from acting in what they see as their own best interests. All it will do is prevent all of us from talking about the larger forces that made Adams’s statements a cause for panic.

Abstract beliefs about race don’t make people uproot their lives, sell their houses, move to new neighborhoods, and find new schools for their kids. Material incentives do. Whacking down every outré statement made by a white person about a black person may serve the cause of “anti-racism,” but it won’t put an end to the underlying incentives that cause groups to segregate themselves. If we’re unable to discuss those incentives openly, we’ll hardly notice when more and more people start taking Scott Adams’s advice.

I agree with his sentiment. This has long been a problem. I live in a gated community. I didn't move here to 'get away from black people', but the reality is that I moved here to avoid the crime that takes place in mostly black communities. No one wants to address the economic factors that cause the segregation and that causes the crime. Because that would force the country to admit that we have miles to go to achieve true racial equality. We have for decades redlined our communities, and made sure that we have a strong police presence to protect the white folks from the black folks. As long as we continue to be okay with that, we will never solve anything. It's easy to understand what is meant by 'Black Lives Matter'. The silent word is 'too'. Because right now, they don't really matter that much, as long as they stay in their lane and commit crimes against each other. We find reasons to lock them up for non-violent crimes and make sure they know their place. Adams just said the silent part out loud. Is that okay? No. But the author is right, cancelling Scott Adams might make white people feel better, but it solves absolutely nothing.

 

[anonymoose]

This is from Glen Loury. He's a (black) public intellectual who has been a long time Social Sciences professor at Brown and at age 33 was the first black Economics professor at Harvard to earn tenure. He's a brilliant man and he has changed his political leanings a couple of times and he leans more conservative (though he's not a political partisan).

Most of the discussion on this board revolves around partisan politics and who people vote for but this post of his addresses something far deeper (and not who to vote for). I don't know that I agree with him (fully) but I think brings up excellent points of discussion.

For starters, I live in a City that's 1/3 Asian and a state that's almost 1/2 Hispanic. This idea of America being only white and black is antiquated. However many parts of our country are largely white and black so there's that. But what strikes me is you can push certain thoughts underground but it doesn't necessarily mean they go away. And he's right about how we separate ourselves based on where we live and where we send our kids to school.




Is It OK to Be Scott Adams?

Why was Scott Adams canceled? The story that’s being spun out in the media is that Adams, the Dilbert cartoonist and author, went on a racist tirade in which he referred to African Americans as a “hate group” and urged white people to “get the hell away” from black people. This, the story goes, is a call for segregation, a clear indicator that Adams harbors anti-black beliefs and as such cannot be allowed to remain a part of polite society. Accordingly, his long-running comic strip must be dropped, his book deals must be voided, and he must be prevented from contaminating the culture with his noxious views.

But you could tell another story. Shocking as his statement is, it gives voice to a sentiment harbored by many, many other white people who feel similarly about African Americans as a group. Clearly, some white people feel there are reasons to “get the hell away” from black people. They don’t say it in words; they say it when they choose to move away from cities and neighborhoods where a high proportion of crimes are committed by black assailants. You can cancel as many comic strips as you want, but it’s not going to prevent white people who no longer want to live near predominately black neighborhoods from acting in what they see as their own best interests. All it will do is prevent all of us from talking about the larger forces that made Adams’s statements a cause for panic.

Abstract beliefs about race don’t make people uproot their lives, sell their houses, move to new neighborhoods, and find new schools for their kids. Material incentives do. Whacking down every outré statement made by a white person about a black person may serve the cause of “anti-racism,” but it won’t put an end to the underlying incentives that cause groups to segregate themselves. If we’re unable to discuss those incentives openly, we’ll hardly notice when more and more people start taking Scott Adams’s advice.

When I left N.O. a little over three decades ago I had enough of being a victim of petty crime - office, car and house broken into multiple times. Friends and family murdered. Unequal law enforcement.
Does it make me a rayciss for having had enough and leaving? No doubt the wokerati honestly believe that. Is the desire to live away from the nuisance of petty crime and the threat of violent crime rayciss? No doubt the wokerati truly believe that.

Let's look at the case of FoulWoman, one of the two or three most severely woke inflicted on the board. She left St. Louis, another underrated city for violent crime similar to N.O. because of its lack of population, to move to the UP. Does that make her rayciss?
We both did exactly what Adams suggested.

 

[cawacko]

I agree with his sentiment. This has long been a problem. I live in a gated community. I didn't move here to 'get away from black people', but the reality is that I moved here to avoid the crime that takes place in mostly black communities. No one wants to address the economic factors that cause the segregation and that causes the crime. Because that would force the country to admit that we have miles to go to achieve true racial equality. We have for decades redlined our communities, and made sure that we have a strong police presence to protect the white folks from the black folks. As long as we continue to be okay with that, we will never solve anything. It's easy to understand what is meant by 'Black Lives Matter'. The silent word is 'too'. Because right now, they don't really matter that much, as long as they stay in their lane and commit crimes against each other. We find reasons to lock them up for non-violent crimes and make sure they know their place. Adams just said the silent part out loud. Is that okay? No. But the author is right, cancelling Scott Adams might make white people feel better, but it solves absolutely nothing.

I hope I'm not derailing my own thread but as a real estate guy I love the topic and I'm obviously familiar with redlining and the history of housing segregation etc. What's interesting today is the focus on gentrification. A person of any race can be a gentrifier of course because it's about people with money moving into a previously lower income area but in reality it generally implies white (and Asian) people moving into formerly black and LatinX neighborhoods. And it intrigues me because people understandably complained when neighborhoods were forcefully segregated but now are complaining that they are becoming integrated. (part of gentrification is property values tend to rise and lower income people are forced out but is the alternative we all live separately based on whether white, black, LatinX or Asian?)

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Is It OK to Be Scott Adams?

Short answer, yes.

Sadly, the Republican Party no longer supports personal accountability. Just because few businesses want to do business with a racist and few people want to be associated with irate racists doesn't mean Scott is being "canceled". He brought this on himself.

Like all Americans, he has freedom of speech, but not freedom to force others to listen, much less do business with him.

 

[cawacko]

I agree with his sentiment. This has long been a problem. I live in a gated community. I didn't move here to 'get away from black people', but the reality is that I moved here to avoid the crime that takes place in mostly black communities. No one wants to address the economic factors that cause the segregation and that causes the crime. Because that would force the country to admit that we have miles to go to achieve true racial equality. We have for decades redlined our communities, and made sure that we have a strong police presence to protect the white folks from the black folks. As long as we continue to be okay with that, we will never solve anything. It's easy to understand what is meant by 'Black Lives Matter'. The silent word is 'too'. Because right now, they don't really matter that much, as long as they stay in their lane and commit crimes against each other. We find reasons to lock them up for non-violent crimes and make sure they know their place. Adams just said the silent part out loud. Is that okay? No. But the author is right, cancelling Scott Adams might make white people feel better, but it solves absolutely nothing.

I will say I appreciate you responding here. It's 2023 and in proper society being called a racist, or being seen as supporting a racist, is no bueno. But at the same time we've also reached a point where it is difficult for people to have honest conversations because of that fear and when people can't have those type of discussions with each other it actually hurts the cause of progress.

 

[anonymoose]

I didn't move here to 'get away from black people', but the reality is that I moved here to avoid the crime that takes place in mostly black communities.

Correct. I don't care who commits the crime, I just don't want to be around it.

No one wants to address the economic factors that cause the segregation and that causes the crime. Because that would force the country to admit that we have miles to go to achieve true racial equality.

What else can we possible do to 'create' racial equality? Pouring more money endlessly into inner city public schools isn't going to incentivise the kids from doing homework, attending class, studying (gasp!) for tests when there's no discipline at home, usually no father?

We have for decades redlined our communities,

Illegal for decades.

and made sure that we have a strong police presence to protect the white folks from the black folks.

You honestly believe that's why we have a strong police presence? To protect whites from blacks? Not to protect society from criminals?

As long as we continue to be okay with that, we will never solve anything.

As long as you believe that, we should go back to defunding the police. You see where that has brought cities.

It's easy to understand what is meant by 'Black Lives Matter'. The silent word is 'too'. Because right now, they don't really matter that much, as long as they stay in their lane and commit crimes against each other.

And what group of people least what police protection? Could it be the group that commits the most violent crime against each other?

We find reasons to lock them up for non-violent crimes and make sure they know their place.

Sure. As long as nobody gets hurt it's a non-violent crime, therefore not a crime? We have woke d.a.'s all over the country no longer prosecuting criminals. Even violent ones. That's not enough?

Adams just said the silent part out loud. Is that okay? No. But the author is right, cancelling Scott Adams might make white people feel better, but it solves absolutely nothing.

So what solution do you suggest that hasn't already been done (and hasn't worked)?

 

[Nordberg]

Scott is a public person and he should have thought about what he was saying. This is not the first time. I was told he was talking like that for a decade. He is not going to jail or being charged with a crime. We have free speech. But he will suffer the consequences for his bigotry. he will be shunned.

 

[cawacko]

Scott is a public person and he should have thought about what he was saying. This is not the first time. I was told he was talking like that for a decade. He is not going to jail or being charged with a crime. We have free speech. But he will suffer the consequences for his bigotry. he will be shunned.

Did you actually read what Glen Loury wrote?

 

[Nordberg]

This is from Glen Loury. He's a (black) public intellectual who has been a long time Social Sciences professor at Brown and at age 33 was the first black Economics professor at Harvard to earn tenure. He's a brilliant man and he has changed his political leanings a couple of times and he leans more conservative (though he's not a political partisan).

Most of the discussion on this board revolves around partisan politics and who people vote for but this post of his addresses something far deeper (and not who to vote for). I don't know that I agree with him (fully) but I think brings up excellent points of discussion.

For starters, I live in a City that's 1/3 Asian and a state that's almost 1/2 Hispanic. This idea of America being only white and black is antiquated. However many parts of our country are largely white and black so there's that. But what strikes me is you can push certain thoughts underground but it doesn't necessarily mean they go away. And he's right about how we separate ourselves based on where we live and where we send our kids to school.




Is It OK to Be Scott Adams?

Why was Scott Adams canceled? The story that’s being spun out in the media is that Adams, the Dilbert cartoonist and author, went on a racist tirade in which he referred to African Americans as a “hate group” and urged white people to “get the hell away” from black people. This, the story goes, is a call for segregation, a clear indicator that Adams harbors anti-black beliefs and as such cannot be allowed to remain a part of polite society. Accordingly, his long-running comic strip must be dropped, his book deals must be voided, and he must be prevented from contaminating the culture with his noxious views.

But you could tell another story. Shocking as his statement is, it gives voice to a sentiment harbored by many, many other white people who feel similarly about African Americans as a group. Clearly, some white people feel there are reasons to “get the hell away” from black people. They don’t say it in words; they say it when they choose to move away from cities and neighborhoods where a high proportion of crimes are committed by black assailants. You can cancel as many comic strips as you want, but it’s not going to prevent white people who no longer want to live near predominately black neighborhoods from acting in what they see as their own best interests. All it will do is prevent all of us from talking about the larger forces that made Adams’s statements a cause for panic.

Abstract beliefs about race don’t make people uproot their lives, sell their houses, move to new neighborhoods, and find new schools for their kids. Material incentives do. Whacking down every outré statement made by a white person about a black person may serve the cause of “anti-racism,” but it won’t put an end to the underlying incentives that cause groups to segregate themselves. If we’re unable to discuss those incentives openly, we’ll hardly notice when more and more people start taking Scott Adams’s advice.

Nothing abstract about it. People move out when they see neighborhoods changing. That pattern has been repeated over and over. That is the American way. It was called white flight in the early day.

 

[cawacko]

Nothing abstract about it. People move out when they see neighborhoods changing. That pattern has been repeated over and over. That is the American way. It was called white flight in the early day.

As I see Loury’s point, he’s saying you can be punished for saying you don’t want to live near (in this case) black people but there’s no repercussions for acting on it. “White flight” is Adam’s words in action. But no one gets called a racist, or cancelled, for doing it.

 

[Concart]

Correct. I don't care who commits the crime, I just don't want to be around it. What else can we possible do to 'create' racial equality? Pouring more money endlessly into inner city public schools isn't going to incentivise the kids from doing homework, attending class, studying (gasp!) for tests when there's no discipline at home, usually no father? Illegal for decades. You honestly believe that's why we have a strong police presence? To protect whites from blacks? Not to protect society from criminals? As long as you believe that, we should go back to defunding the police. You see where that has brought cities. And what group of people least what police protection? Could it be the group that commits the most violent crime against each other? Sure. As long as nobody gets hurt it's a non-violent crime, therefore not a crime? We have woke d.a.'s all over the country no longer prosecuting criminals. Even violent ones. That's not enough?
So what solution do you suggest that hasn't already been done (and hasn't worked)?

We cannot solve racial inequality until we admit it exists. You clearly aren't there yet. Obviously, the GOP is not there. But it does exist. I can't make people acknowledge a problem. We have a huge wage/wealth gap, but you, as a libertarian, wouldn't do a thing to fix it, and neither will the GOP. So, same, same.

Yes, I believe our policing was and still is something to protect white people from black people. It is what it is. Early police departments in big cities were almost exclusively white. And of course, law enforcement in the south began with slave patrols, which were basically storm troopers. If you were not aware of how policing started, then that again is part of the problem we face.

There are thousands of black people in jail for possessing marijuana. Not so much with white people. Why do you suppose that is, given that marijuana use is the same among both groups? That's the nonviolent crime I'm talking about. Same with crack cocaine. Why were penalties for crack so much more severe than penalties for powder? Take a wild guess.

 

[anonymoose]

What else can we possibly do to 'create' racial equality?

We cannot solve racial inequality until we admit it exists. You clearly aren't there yet. Obviously, the GOP is not there. But it does exist. I can't make people acknowledge a problem. We have a huge wage/wealth gap, but you, as a libertarian, wouldn't do a thing to fix it, and neither will the GOP. So, same, same.

You didn't answer the question. I'll rephrase: If you were king with unlimited power what would you do to 'create' racial equality?
I think it's absolutely absurd to think policing only exists to protect whites from blacks, but I'll address that another time.
Again: What would you do to 'create' racial equality?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

We cannot solve racial inequality until we admit it exists. You clearly aren't there yet. Obviously, the GOP is not there. But it does exist. I can't make people acknowledge a problem. We have a huge wage/wealth gap, but you, as a libertarian, wouldn't do a thing to fix it, and neither will the GOP. So, same, same.

Yes, I believe our policing was and still is something to protect white people from black people. It is what it is. Early police departments in big cities were almost exclusively white. And of course, law enforcement in the south began with slave patrols, which were basically storm troopers. If you were not aware of how policing started, then that again is part of the problem we face.

There are thousands of black people in jail for possessing marijuana. Not so much with white people. Why do you suppose that is, given that marijuana use is the same among both groups? That's the nonviolent crime I'm talking about. Same with crack cocaine. Why were penalties for crack so much more severe than penalties for powder? Take a wild guess.

While Trumpers are dimwitted racists, the fact remains the Federal and most State governments understand racism exists.

The problem I see is that too many people are benefitting from the status quo; be it money or political power. Do you agree that, as much as Trumpers deny there is a problem, that there are Democrats who make too much of it? "Too much" meaning it's more about political power and/or money and not justice or what is best for future Americans.

Notice that the problems you mention are in cities. Cities are almost exclusively Democratic Party bastions. The murder of Tyre Nichols is an example. Was it racism? If so, who was being racist?

 

[anonymoose]

While Trumpers are dimwitted racists, the fact remains the Federal and most State governments understand racism exists.

The problem I see is that too many people are benefitting from the status quo; be it money or political power. Do you agree that, as much as Trumpers deny there is a problem, that there are Democrats who make too much of it? "Too much" meaning it's more about political power and/or money and not justice or what is best for future Americans.

I admit it exists.
What’s your solution?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I admit it exists.
What’s your solution?

More tolerance, less division. Both major parties focus too much on "Us and Them" instead of "We, the People".

I'd also put more money into K-12. At the moment, only 8% of school funding is federal. The rest is county, city, state. I'd like to see federal money bumped up enough to ensure that there are quality schools across America, not just in the richest counties of the country.

Add to this is supporting public libraries with computers for online learning. I'm against "free college", but do support increased online learning programs. Students who excel online would be eligible for low-cost college loans, scholarships or other programs. The goal should be to maximize the potential of all Americans in order to allow our citizenry to compete in the modern world.

 

[Concart]

While Trumpers are dimwitted racists, the fact remains the Federal and most State governments understand racism exists.

The problem I see is that too many people are benefitting from the status quo; be it money or political power. Do you agree that, as much as Trumpers deny there is a problem, that there are Democrats who make too much of it? "Too much" meaning it's more about political power and/or money and not justice or what is best for future Americans.

Notice that the problems you mention are in cities. Cities are almost exclusively Democratic Party bastions. The murder of Tyre Nichols is an example. Was it racism? If so, who was being racist?

Agree largely with what you said here. I think Democrats are not necessarily going too far but their solutions aren't effective in any way and sometimes do more harm than good. As for Tyre Nichols, that was a case of a cop getting pissed off that an old girlfriend was dating Nichols, and deciding that he and his buddies would teach him a lesson. I don't think racism was involved at all. I think it was a premeditated murder.