<Gasp!> I liked "Dilbert." This is so sad. I had no idea Scott Adams had gone off into wacko white nationalist / conspiracy theory land.

I guess the message here is that some people can't escape racism -- no matter their education or social connnections.

Steve Benson, please comment.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/25/business/dilbert-comic-strip-racist-tirade/index.html

Newspapers across the country dropped the “Dilbert” comic strip over the weekend after the creator of the satirical cartoon went on a racist tirade, calling Black Americans a “hate group” and suggesting that White people should “get the hell away” from them.

The USA Today Network, which operates hundreds of newspapers, said it had pulled the plug on the long-running comic strip. The Washington Post and The Plain Dealer also in Cleveland said they would no longer carry the comic.

The move came after Scott Adams, the cartoonist behind “Dilbert,” effectively encouraged segregation in a shocking rant on YouTube. His comments came in response to a poll from the conservative firm Rasmussen Reports that said 53% of Black Americans agreed with the statement, “It’s OK to be White.”

The Anti-Defamation League has noted that the phrase emerged on the infamous message board 4chan in 2017 as a trolling campaign and has a “long history” in the white supremacist movement.

“If nearly half of all Blacks are not OK with White people – according to this poll, not according to me, according to th is poll – that’s a hate group,” Adams said Wednesday on his YouTube show “Real Coffee with Scott Adams.”

“I don’t want to have anything to do with them,” Adams added. “And I would say, based on the current way things are going, the best advice I would give to White people is to get the hell away from Black people, just get the f**k away … because there is no fixing this.”

Adams has since said on Twitter that he was only “advising people to avoid hate” and suggested that the cancellation of his cartoon signals that free speech in America is under assault.

Andrews McMeel Syndication, the company that distributes “Dilbert,” did not immediately respond to a CNN request for comment.

The newspapers that have cut the comic strip have been clear with readers.

“Scott Adams, creator of the Dilbert comic strip, went on a racist rant this week … and we will no longer carry his comic strip in The Plain Dealer,” wrote Chris Quinn, editor of the paper. “This is not a difficult decision.”

“We are not a home for those who espouse racism,” Quinn added. “We certainly do not want to provide them with financial support.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2023/02/25/scott-adams-dilbert-canceled/



“Scott Adams is a disgrace,” Darrin Bell, creator of “Candorville” and the first Black artist to win the Pulitzer Prize for editorial cartooning, told The Post on Saturday. “His racism is not even unique among cartoonists.” Bell compared Adams’s views to the Jim Crow era and more recent examples of White supremacy, including “millions of angry people trying to redefine the word ‘racism’ itself.”

In fact, Adams did exactly that on his YouTube show Saturday. He offered a long, quasi-Socratic defense of his comments, which he said were taken out of context, and seemed to define racism as essentially any political activity. “Any tax code change is racist,” he said at one point in the show. He denounced racism against “individuals” and racist laws, but said, “You should absolutely be racist whenever it’s to your advantage. Every one of you should be open to making a racist personal career decision.”

In the same show, Adams suggested that he had done irreparable harm to a once-sterling career.

“Most of my income will be gone by next week,” he told about 3,000 live-stream viewers. “My reputation for the rest of my life is destroyed. You can’t come back from this, am I right? There’s no way you can come back from this.”

What a lot of Caucasians (and this included me for the longest time) don't understand is that racism really has two components. One is the actual hatred of black people, and many white people, including many conservatives, will acknowledge that that kind of hatred does exist and that it is wrong.

The second component of racism which many of my fellow whites don't understand is the idea of systematic racism; that is, government rules and regulations were specifically put in place to allow Caucasians to have system advantages over other racial groups. It is efforts to curb this systematic racism that are now under attack from white evangelicals, state legislatures, and state and Federal court systems.

I disagree to a certain extent. Yes, the right is moving against the dismantling of systemic racism.

But don't underestimate the overtly malign sort of racism either. What's happened is that hatred has become publicly acceptable again. People are increasingly willing to express sentiments that their parents and grandparents taught them had to remain quiet.

It must feel liberating to let the inner demons out.

I'm waiting for Keith Knight to weigh in.

It's not the first time he's gotten in trouble. He lost 77 newspapers in September as well, after pursuing a racial theme in his comics. And he's made at least one other ill-advised racial remark in public. Reading his Wiki, he comes off as a bit of a whack-a-doodle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Adams

His Dilbert strip ran in more than 2,000 newspapers, and it remains to be seen how many of them he will keep. He also has a lot of other irons in the fire.

I enjoyed his cartoon strip for many years. Even though it was about the business world, it was often on target for the teaching profession as well -- lots of built-in institutional absurdity.

Yes, that's what I linked above. I read all or most of it ("Reading his Wiki...") Hence the "whack-a-doodle" comment.

He just needs a place to fit in. Maybe a church or something.

If mormonism dumped the Word of Wisdom I bet he would become a mormon.

Adams has been a Trumper since 2016.

That includes after Jan 6th.

Here is the Salt Lake Tribune's announcement...they are also cancelling Dilbert starting tomorrow 2-27-2023

https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/2023/02/26/tribune-will-stop-publishing/

gemini Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here is the Salt Lake Tribune's
> announcement...they are also cancelling Dilbert
> starting tomorrow 2-27-2023
>
> https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/2023/02/26/tribune-
> will-stop-publishing/

According to the owner of Twitter/Tesla/SpaceX, Scott Adams isn’t racist, it’s the media who are racist, against white people like him and Adams.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/elon-musk-dilbert-scott-adams-racist-b2290004.html?amp



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2023 06:44PM by schrodingerscat.

I haven't read the article yet but just off the top: If the majority of owners of media are White, how likely is it that they are racist against White people?


OK. So I've read it now. His defence is that people are in a "fake news bubble"? Interesting. Two sides to every question but only one side is in a fake news bubble. I guess the trick is to figure out who's in which bubble. Unless both are fake. And then we're all really in trouble.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2023 07:17PM by Nightingale.

> According to the owner of Twitter/Tesla/SpaceX,
> Scott Adams isn’t racist, it’s the media who
> are racist, against white people like him and
> Adams.

Why does the ownership of "Twitter/Tesla/SpaceX" matter? Does that give him credibility?

If you were alternatively to describe him as "Elon Musk," wouldn't he lose credibility relative to his resume given the sorts of tripe he has offered up on virtually every topic under the sun?

Celebrity doesn't matter. Musk's just the anti-vax, free-speech hypocrite who bans those who criticize him; the unwitting tool of Putin; the man who spawns with the frequency and lack of parental concern of a salmon; the pretentious sociopath who named his kid "X AE A-12."

He's a living "bright shiny object" and no more thoughtful than Kanye West.

That AND he has 130 million followers on Twitter, so what he says has a huge influence, like it or not.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Celebrity doesn't matter. Musk's just the ... unwitting tool of Putin

Blaming Russia for all your internet woes is so 2010s. (Most of it comes from America anyway.)

Adams cancelled himself.

He’s well aware of that and is ok with it.
He says he feels like a free man, now that he doesn’t have to worry about being cancelled for speaking his mind, because he’s already been cancelled and he’s not going to stop speaking his mind, he’s just not going to be doing it in any newspapers from now on.

His choice. As we teach young children, actions (and speech) have consequences. Those might be positive consequences, or negative consequences. As a child, you get a certain amount of grace, but as an adult, you are expected to adhere to commonly accepted standards of speech and behavior.

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> He’s well aware of that and is ok with it.

He's not "okay with it." He's gone on an apology tour, attempting in vain to explain why his comments were not racist.

He's manifestly NOT "okay with it."

I’ve been listening to his podcasts from yesterday and today and he is not backing down, at all.

Once again, your inability to detect nuance leads to wildly erroneous conclusions.

"Not backing down" and "failing in an attempt to back down" are not the same thing.

He was crazy lite around 2016, but I think just non-offensive enough to not get his strip canceled.

I was not aware he was still being published but I have not bought or read a news paper in many years. When I was a teenager I thought his stuff was the funniest thing ever. I ever read his books that were not comics it think it was The Dilbert Principal.

This is not even one of those dog whistle comments that could be argued in good faith that he meant some other thing. Maybe Fox Nation will give him a cartoon deal.

> Maybe Fox Nation will give him a cartoon deal.

I'm skeptical. His cartoons would need fewer words and more pictures.

Why is cancel culture considered a good thing? Self-censor or be canceled? It seems kind of Mormon.

I get that Scott Adams is an asshole. Do I want to ruin his life for having an unrealistic opinion? No. I don't think anyone does.

I would call cancel culture a social pathology created by social media. Is social media use corrosive? Is it fit for human consumption? Information at our fingertips has not made us wiser.

It's more of a consequence culture, IMO. People don't need to pretend they respect certain divisive behaviors. Let the consequence follow and all that.

I agree. No one is "cancelling" Scott Adams. They simply don't want to do business with him. People make tons of similar decisions every day.

Adams is still free to continue with the Dilbert comic and associated gear, to have his You Tube show, etc. He still has tons of ways to make money.

Bradley said : "Do I want to ruin his life for having an unrealistic opinion?"

The thing about opinions is that everyone has them, but not everyone goes public with them. I'm sure some of my opinions would shock many posters here but - crucially - I don't share or push those opinions here (or indeed anywhere ;-). Adams has gone public and used his considerable sway in the media to push his opinions as widely as possible. As such, he has brought all this down upon himself.

Freedom of speech: yes. Freedom from the consequences of our actions (including speaking out): NO!

> Freedom of speech: yes. Freedom from the
> consequences of our actions (including speaking
> out): NO!

It’s at rare moments like this that I wish RfM had a little emoji of a woman in a prairie dress and bonnet applauding with unseemly enthusiasm.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/28/2023 04:41AM by Lot's Wife.

Does anybody know what he was responding to? It's a little more nuanced than CNN says.

There was a poll where 50% of the black people polled said it's not ok to be white. He said that if a group thinks it's not ok to be white, that's a hate group. And he doesn't want to live near them.

If 50% of ANY group said it's not ok to be white, I wouldn't want to live near them either.

Turn it around. What if 50% of the white people polled said it's not OK to be black, or Asian, or Hispanic? Wouldn't that be a hate group?

If 50% of Asians polled said it's not ok to be hispanic or black or Native American, they'd be a hate group. It's no different when black people say it's not ok to be white.

What's with all the racial division, anyway? Emotive language and editorializing aren't helping at all. Articles like this only serve to add to the division.

We all know that polls are almost useless. Maybe it was a really small sample size. Maybe it was taken right after George Floyd died. I don't trust polls.

Also, it was not a racist tirade. If he said he hated a racial group because of the color of their skin, that would be racist. But he said he doesn't want to live near people who say it's not ok to be white.

Quite different.

Except for the fact that "It's OK to be white" is a well-known White-supremacist/racist trope... In fact, I can't think of any other context in which I've come across it.

And, in the opinion of this non-American, it's a very strange question to ask anyone - but particularly non-white people. Almost as if they were seeking a scandal to react performatively to...

I think the question was phrased something like: "Do you agree with the statement 'It's okay to be white?'"

Cleverly worded, if someone were looking to stir up trouble.

I can think of three reasons a respondent would understand the question such that they would answer 'no', and only one of them would be because they have a problem with white people.

"I can think of three reasons a respondent would understand the question such that they would answer 'no', and only one of them would be because they have a problem with white people."

My thoughts exactly.

Anon4now, take a look at my post below. I think you'll find that it accords with your views.

Soft Machine Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Except for the fact that "It's OK to be white" is
> a well-known White-supremacist/racist trope... In
> fact, I can't think of any other context in which
> I've come across it.

Ahhh. Thank you! I was completely totally not understanding the question. It comes across to me as completely stupid. Also confusing.

Now I understand more.

Thanks for easing my mind. I was worrying about my powers of comprehension when the question just confused me - it felt like it came out of mid air and sounds completely ridiculously stupid. Also, bound to be divisive.

I must be fortunate indeed to live in this bubble where I can't understand a question like that. Not that we don't have issues of racism in British Columbia/Canada but in everyday life, for the most fortunate of us, it's not front and centre. As I stated recently, 1% of people in B.C., where I live, are Black and nation-wide it's 3.5% (2016 figures). The issues of racism here are more related to Asians and Indigenous Peoples but news of current hate crimes is rare (in my experience).

I'm sure there are White supremacists about but fortunately they don't get much air time, that I have noticed.

I feel a little sick to my stomach at that phrase now ("it's OK to be white") because just ugh.

Thank's for the details, LW. I also didn't like the use of the word "Blacks". There are dark-skinned people all over the world, including a lot (I'm glad to say) where I live and most of them do not descend from slaves. Are they all the same in his mind?

He sounds mentally ill to me. But then that's what racism is: a nasty mental illness.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/28/2023 03:42PM by Soft Machine.

Yeah, the nomenclature is difficult. I get sloppy in my usage.

The situation in the States is different from in southern Europe. The vast majority of American "blacks" (US sense, not including subcontinentals and others) are the descendants of slaves. There has been more recent immigration but nothing relative to the statistical base like what you've seen.

My suspicion is that the people who interpret that Rasmussen study as evidence of African American racism exhibit a pathological tendentiousness, for neither the study nor the Washington Examiner's gloss claimed anything of the sort.

These people are looking for an excuse to be offended, a sort of vindication of their own views that white people (more sloppy shorthand on my part) are victims.

I've worked in a predominantly black urban school system for more than a quarter century. This includes work with black professionals as well as families and children. In my experience black against white (reverse) racism is relatively rare. It does exist in small numbers. But the majority of black individuals that I have dealt with are far kinder and open-hearted toward whites than most of us have any right to expect, given the history of slavery and poor treatment.

I would say that sometimes blacks approach whites with what I would call a sense of caution, which is understandable.

When Barack Obama was elected President, I saw pure joy mixed with a sense of wonderment. The black people that I talked to said that they never expected to see that happen in their lifetimes.

Just my own POV.

Well, there are different forms of racial consciousness in different communities and different parts of the country.

Soon after Obama's 2008 election, I was speaking with a young black man--30 or so years of age--and he was convinced that it was only a matter of time before the new president would be assassinated. Another friend of mine, who spent decades at a prominent investment bank before becoming a senior executive at a global philanthropy in his fifties, assures me that he still feels intense anxiety when he sees police lights in his rear-view mirror.

As for your assertion that "the majority of black individuals . . . are far kinder and open-hearted toward whites than most of us have any right to expect, given the history of slavery and poor treatment," I could not agree more.

I understand what you are saying, which is why I was careful to say, "Just my own POV." That's all I can give. But in terms of racism, I've had almost entirely positive experiences with the black community with whom I've worked for many years, more than most people might expect.

A teacher sincerely trying to help their children? What parent of any color would not be grateful for that?

Which I guess is a way of saying that black parents are just parents like everyone else.

Who would have thought?

First, thanks to LW for pointing out what the poll results actually were (as in, you can't simply take positive replies, subtract from 100, and assume that everything else is a negative reply) and also how the question was deeply ambiguous and confusing - almost certainly deliberately so.

And I saw an article this morning from professional polling analysts who agreed with Soft Machine that this may be a case of mental illness.

For an analysis of this particular event, and polling in general, see:
https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2023/Items/Feb28-4.html

A comic would normally reference something like that in the strip. That's sometimes the novelty about comic strips. The reader says I wonder if they're saying...

What a way to go out!

Does he go back into the closet now?

#1. Rasmussen is a C+ rated pollster
#2. No reputable pollster would ask such a race baiting question.
#3. ”It’s ok to be white” is similar to the statement,”All Lives Matter” which is a well known white supremacist reaction to BLM. Of course it’s ‘ok’ to be the color you were born as, through no choice of your own and of course all lives matter, but when those slogans are used mainly by white supremacists to race bait non- whites, that’s the main reason 28% of Americans can’t agree with a provocative white supremacist slogan.
#4. Scott Adams interpreted the data to mean that blacks are a hate group and advised white people to stay TF away from black people, who he lumps into one, all inclusive, hate group. That blatant racism got him cancelled and he knows it.

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ”It’s ok to be white” is similar to the
> statement,”All Lives Matter” which is a well
> known white supremacist reaction to BLM.

This I did not know. On the face of it, you'd think anybody would agree with the statement that all lives matter. Of course they do. I wasn't aware of the seamy underbelly of the phrase. That's why I couldn't even parse the question - is it OK to be white. It made zero sense to me, for all the reasons I and others have stated.


> but when those slogans are used
> mainly by white supremacists to race bait non-
> whites, that’s the main reason 28% of Americans
> can’t agree with a provocative white supremacist
> slogan.

Yeah, I didn't know the white supremacy stuff and now it's understandable to me that people would object to the questions, answer the way they do, and reject the conclusions reached by flawed studies.

I've lost track now but I was querying the percentages and the way some posters were extrapolating certain conclusions from them. I saw Brother of Jerry and others explaining the math on that. In fact, even I knew the math wasn't adding up the way some are using the data. Care is needed in grabbing hold of numbers and percentages to use in bolstering one's argument. You have to consider how the questions are asked and other details of the surveys if you want to come up with accurate conclusions about the info.

The Cat is mangling the data again.

First, the vast majority of people don't know that "it's okay to be white" is a white supremacist slogan. My heavens, I didn't--and don't--know that. The Cat cannot produce any information from the survey or its analysis supporting his claim. Why? Because it's not there. I checked.

Second, the number of people who rejected the statement was not 28% but rather 12%. 72% said it's okay to be white, 16% didn't answer the question, and only 12% said it was not okay to be white.

But taking his (incorrect) data as true for the sake of argument, does it make sense to you that 72% of Americans would reject the proposition that it is okay to be white?

I thought not.

Now you’ve done it. You’ve put me in the awkward position of having to defend El Gato. “All Lives Matter” is a “who do you think you are” put-down, and is a dog-whistle version of “White Lives Matter.” It’s part of the trope that Blacks, or homosexuals, or feminists, or fill in whatever out-of-favor group, want “special rights.”

Many years ago I participated in several Susan Van Komen Foundation 5 k runs to raise funds for breast cancer research, and got the obligatory t-shirts, which I wore now and then.

People will occasionally see the t-shirt and comment. Most commonly, I got a thank you for supporting breast cancer research. That might lead to a question about whether I had a family member with breast cancer, or a comment about the legal troubles the Van Komen Foundation found itself in.

One thing that nobody ever said was “All Cancers Matter”, like somehow supporting breast cancer research was some kind of insult to everyone suffering other forms of cancer.

And that is the problem with “All Lives Matter.” It is manufactured outrage by people who think Blacks and BLM supporters should sit down and STFU.


As for El Gato’s distortion of the poll results, Gatos gotta gato.

Oh, I agree about "All Lives Matter."

But I don't believe that every American knows "It's okay to be white" is a comparable white supremacist slogan. Do you know that? It could be that I'm an outlier in my ignorance, but at this point I do not believe it is well known.

And even if it is, wouldn't the inference from 28% rejecting the proposition mean that those 28% don't think it is okay to be white? It is ridiculous to assert that those 28% voted it is not okay because they think it is okay.

Am I missing something?

I don’t think “it’s ok to be white” is comparable to Black Lives Matter. “White Lives Matter” is comparable in the negative, and I have actually heard people say WLM. Their tone of voice was one of agrievement.

To the extent that's true, El Gato's interpretation of the data is erroneous.

Brother Of Jerry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> One thing that nobody ever said was “All Cancers
> Matter”, like somehow supporting breast cancer
> research was some kind of insult to everyone
> suffering other forms of cancer.

Very. Good. Analogy.


> And that is the problem with “All Lives
> Matter.” It is manufactured outrage by people
> who think Blacks and BLM supporters should sit
> down and STFU.

I have to say I haven't heard that phrase at all (ALM), except now and here. I'm glad you are all explaining it to me.

I've always thought that the fact that anybody has to say BLM is very incredibly sad. Like, it should go without saying. Most unfortunately, not.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> the vast majority of people don't know that
> "it's okay to be white" is a white supremacist
> slogan. My heavens, I didn't--and don't--know
> that.

Oh, whew. Thought I was really losing it. I consume enough news from assorted sources that I would think I could keep up with social issues such as this.

I've been busy, and distracted, lately and I'm rushing and not checking and confirming statements as much as I should be. I'll have to be more vigilant about that.


> Second, the number of people who rejected the
> statement was not 28% but rather 12%. 72% said
> it's okay to be white, 16% didn't answer the
> question, and only 12% said it was not okay to be
> white.

Yeah, as I've said a couple of times now, I could tell something was off with the way the numbers were being interpreted but I couldn't explain it. That's what we've got BoJ (and others) for! You do have to say that if even I can tell the interpretation from the numbers seems off then it's really obviously not right.


> does it make sense to you that
> 72% of Americans would reject the proposition that
> it is okay to be white?

> I thought not.

Yeah. That's why my head was spinning. I thought I was completely losing it. First, that that could possibly be correct. And second, that such a thing could be occurring and I would never have heard of it.

This Dilbert guy is getting on my nerves.

Scott Adams has long been a schmuck. It's interesting how it took a blatant racist tirade for the dullards to finally spot his irksome foibles.


HH =)

I think a lot of people just didn't notice, because why would they? They might read his comic, or at least be aware of it, but have no knowledge of his other activities.

Now that we have had about a week for the dust to settle, a couple of observations:

As an analyst said in the article I posted upthread, Adams was cancelled so fast it practically created a sonic boom.

There has been very little full-throated outrage about his being fired by just about everyone doing business with him. I’ve seen some tut-tutting, but the only Big Name who has defended Adams and called his detractors racist against whites is Elon Musk, who, besides being an all-around piece of work himself, was born and raised in Apartheid-era South Africa.

One thing I am not sensing is that anyone is thinking that they over-reacted in cancelling Mr Adams.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/02/2023 05:45PM by Brother Of Jerry.

Don't we have to distinguish between commercial actors and the rest? Advertisers generally flee from this sort of thing, and they have every right to do so.

It could be that the storm passes and they reconsider their position. Commercial entities can generally be counted on to adjust course if they overshoot public opinion.

But who else is canceling him? Who else that matters?

Agreed. I’m just saying that I am not getting the sense at this point that the commercial entities think they overshot public opinion.

He apparently has a history of putting his foot in his mouth. This particular instance took him over the top.

I watched about 3 minutes of an interview with him and some extremist guy whose name I can't remember. It was cringe-worthy. The link was in a post here - I'm not sure if it's still up. I wanted to watch it to be more informed but couldn't stand it. But I get the general idea.

Suffice to say they both yapped about their many grievances. It got tiring, fast.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/02/2023 06:28PM by Nightingale.

I see.