We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Saturday, February 25. 2023
Do most "people of color" really hate caucasians? I don't see that, but what do I know?
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
The very term "people of color" is an expression of anti-white bigotry. The sickening negro worship that drips from every facet of modern society is going to rapidly come to an end when people are forced to understand the nature of the average negro. Most white people aren't forced to interact with them. The ones who do know how absolutely full of shit the television image of these people really is.
Do most "people of color" really hate caucasians?
Adams said nothing of the sort and focusing on how many hate white people completely misses his point.
He knew what was going to happen, but does not care. Has a big set of balls.
SA is making a point that is too subtle and allows him to be excoriated. His point is correct, I think, but it's like trying to reason with kindergartners. I hope he breaks down and simply says outright what he's alluding to.
Scott Adams is arguing for segregation. Prominent black figures make the same argument constantly and no one criticizes them. Then Scott says it and he’s the 2nd coming of Darth Vader. They’re both wrong. But only one gets criticized. It’s either racist for both of them or racist for neither. Make up your mind.
White people, and men, are the easy targets. They don't have activists taking their side in the fight. Essentially most white people and most men are too busy living their lives to get involved in all the fol-de-rol. But for POC it is a game, a chance to turn the tables as they see it. I spent 20 years in the military. I worked with, played sports with, lived with POC's that entire time. I got along with all of them and some were jerks and some were the greatest guys I know. The person I most looked up to in my life outside of my immediate family was a Chief Master Sargent who was black. I worked with him in two different extended tours of duty and he was the best. Honest, hard working, well spoken, fair and just a hell of a guy. But in most POC there is an under current of dislike for whites, a desire to "one up them". Not "hate: but more like resentment. But in spite of all that I was and still are happy to have met and worked with them all over the years and I think the solution to this problem is more integration, more co-working, co-living and getting together.
The present day problems are deeper than what I describe but again I will say a part of this is not enough "getting along" and being together in work and play. I blame welfare for most of the problems in the African American community. It destroyed their families and encourages them to not work and to have too many children.
I want to elaborate on something I said, and that was "Essentially most white people and most men are too busy living their lives to get involved in all the fol-de-rol." I think this is what most POC activists mean by white privilege. That is whites; white men will generally in spite of obstacles just do what they must to survive and take care of business. They don't look for someone to blame or just give up or resort to crime. They find a way to succeed or if not succeed continue the good struggle. I think that is essentially because there isn't another option. White men don't get hired because of their skin color and they don't qualify for welfare or free college or so many of the special programs and options that are mostly for POC or women. THAT is what you have to instill in the POC community; no more free ride. No handouts or lifetime welfare or special treatment because of your skin color. The earlier in life the better to learn to stand on your own two feet.
Well said. My experience has been similar in that I've worked with and known many POC, and have been made better the experience. I agree with your observation about white privilege, and will add that the corollary for POC is that they can feel special by being victims, a privilege of sorts that justifies feeling bitter and resentful and angry at others for the failures of your life.
Do most "people of color" really hate caucasians?
A majority of Blacks in the right-leaning Rasmussen poll agreed that “It’s OK to be white,” even though right-wing websites had originally pushed the phrase as a troll. (Like saying “White lives matter.”) So, regardless that a majority of Blacks had agreed, Adams decides to write off all Blacks.
Switch the groups and get back to us on how that would be reported.
"53 percent of whites say it's OK to be black."
You wouldn't be running around screaming majority, majority, majority!!!!! would you?
And black lives matter - by definition - is a racist statement. But that's OK by you because it's the 'right kind' of racism.
jimg: And black lives matter - by definition - is a racist statement.
It is a statement about race.
Apparently blacks don’t think black lives matter. They kill each other every day in Chicago. Watch any of the Chicago news programs and that’s all you will see every night.
As I've often said, the only black lives that matter to Black Lives Matter are the ones ended by White lives.
And LibDis is right. He should be praised for having the danglers to say what he did because it's the truth. He has plenty of eff-you money and will be just fine.
Zachriel, you're so full of excreta it's beyond belief. You're an automaton, a bot who spews out Progressive-Left dogma with the predictability of a Max Headroom.
You do know that you're seen through with little effort, right?
A statement about race is not necessarily a racist statement. The point remains.
"Do most "people of color" really hate caucasians? I don't see that, but what do I know?"
Maybe you should get out more.
Never forget what National Review did to John Derbyshire for merely telling the truth.
John Derbyshire posted a column about his reaction on vdare.com. He wrote that column back in 2012. His opinion is that Adams may be satirical. Read it and make up your own mind.
I don't support cancelling anyone.
I don't support saying things as tone deaf as what Adams did, and I generally like Adams' commentary.
I understand what he's saying and where he's coming from. But his 'response' to the data is just wrong. That's the crux of the issue.
Now, if this is an "experiment" I think it's a poorly designed one. So I'll take a pass. If it's reality, I'll also take a pass.
Lots of smart people have good ideas and say stupid things from time to time. I don't see why cancelling him makes the perceived problem go away. In fact, it usually causes people to double down on the stupid.
Ignoring the parts you don't like has always been more useful. Or avoiding direct contact until reparations are provided for.
Allude to indirectly, ignore, and avoid. It's pretty simple. But cancellation is idiotic.
One could make a strong argument that, based on the data, that Adams' POV is nothing more than a statement on race.
Whether it is or not really depends on what he's trying to achieve. I'd posit that's all it is. Just a statement on race, and not racist.
I have seen, at various workplaces I've worked, similar statements made about white people because it's "a statement on race" when in fact, it could be construed as racist. How you perceive it doesn't make it racist. What was INTENDED is what makes it racist. Certain people think they understand what was intended, and often think they are the "authority" on the topic.
But if you can't see inside Adams' soul, then you can't really know.
Racism is based on a sense of superiority of one race over another. Nothing Adams said explicitly says that being white is "better than" being black. In fact, he's pointing out a severe problem inherent in very poor studies like this one which provide a poor platform for discussions on race. They open the door to statements on race which can then be construed as racist.
Fact is, if someone came into my office and said "I know you support minority businesses, and I know you do a lot of work mentoring young people of every race, but you're white so I don't trust you and can't be near you." Honestly, I'd say "do what you think is best for you."
I don't think its racist. It's someone who is confused.
If they followed up with "I'm black/asian/hispanic and you're white and you need to be eliminated both from the workforce and life." Well, now you've stepped into a whole new area of discussion.
Fact is, I have LITERALLY had these discussions. I mean really I have. But generally speaking, the people aren't as obtuse as the troll and I make pretty good headway in shifting views.
Bulldog: I don't support cancelling anyone.
Newspapers don't want to financially support or to be associated with people who espouse racist views.
Bulldog: One could make a strong argument that, based on the data, that Adams' POV is nothing more than a statement on race.
"the best advice I would give to white people is to get the hell away from black people. Just get the fuck away." — Scott Adams
That's not "nothing more than a statement on race." Adams advocates not working with Blacks, not going to church with Blacks, not shopping where Blacks do, not living in neighborhoods with Blacks. It's racial prejudice, plain and simple.
Adams has every right to be a racial bigot. And everyone else has a right to shun and ostracize him for being a racial bigot.
The Palestine train wreck was an environmental disaster. Where is the outrage from the environmentalists? This is eerily like the active shooter situation where the shooter turns out to be a POC and the media buries the story. Or like the racist story where someone writes racial slurs on the Dorm door of a black person and then it turns out that the black person did it and the story disappears. The problem for the residents of Palestine is that they are white Trump voters so there is nothing to see here. Even the environmentalist who should not care what their color or political preference is should be upset about this toxic spill but strangely don't care. In fact you could go a step further and say that everyone on the left seems strangely pleased that this happened in E. Palestine to poor white people who vote for Trump. Are you getting the feeling everything is about politics AND that the left hates you and hates America.
OneGuy: The Palestine train wreck was an environmental disaster. Where is the outrage from the environmentalists?
Huh? Environmental groups have long warned about the unsafe transportation of materials by rail, and Norfolk Southern, in particular.
Ohio Democrats Meet with Environmental Groups to Discuss Next Steps for East Palestine: Democrats say they are looking to work with Republicans on legislative fixes to the faults spotlighted by the Norfolk Southern train derailment.
Erin Brockovich is a grifter. She is there for the attention or the money.
What amazing is it knows that it is wrong and yet it keeps showing up.
A recommendation is pretty standard when a clear situation is presented. That recommendation isn't explicitly saying one side is better or worse than the other, it's just an option to utilize.
As for not supporting associations, I find it odd that many of these firms DO support groups espousing "acceptable" racist views. I have worked for firms that support the clearly racist BLM. But hey - you get to believe whatever the hell you want when you're an idiot living in a basement.
Rationalizing, moving goalposts, engaging in misdirection of discussion. All part of the idiot leftist playbook.
A truly moral person would not cancel. They'd distance themselves effectively. While Adams' statement can be construed in any way some idiot wants to construe it (and trust me I wholly disagree with him), the reality is Dilbert itself has never been racist, espoused racist views and has been a scathing indictment of the stupidity of the corporations some idiot thinks are trying to "do the right thing" by cancelling ideas.
Hell, cancelling Dilbert is a win. You silenced one of corporate America's biggest critics. And you get to use a trumped-up reason to justify it!
Toasts all around for the morons!
Bulldog: Lots of smart people have good ideas and say stupid things from time to time.
Sure. A simple apology works in most cases of simple missteps. But, as can be seen on this forum, many people don't want to change. They would rather wallow in their bigotry. Well, Blacks and their friends read newspapers and buy advertisements, too. They don't want to support racist cartoonists. Most newspapers also have a set of values contrary to those of racist cartoonists.
Bulldog: I don't see why cancelling him makes the perceived problem go away. In fact, it usually causes people to double down on the stupid.
Doubling down on stupid is, well, stupid. Even Chief Gillespie changed, albeit, painfully.
Bulldog: I have worked for firms that support the clearly racist BLM.
Advocating for the end of racial disparities is not the same as being "clearly racist."
As usual, it thinks it is morally and intellectually superior. I will let it have the last word because it will reply to this.
BLM IS racist. It is NOT advocating to end racial disparities and if you studied it, worked near it, or even had anything to do with it you'd understand how and why it is a racist organisation. But hey, telling people they aren't welcome (which they do and have done) based on race isn't racist. Except if the view is 'commonly accepted'.
So yeah - believe what you want dipwad. You're so out of touch with reality it hasn't even come home to roost yet. You think these are conversations that you need to "win" which is why you always show up with idiotic points and MUST have the last word. Because the last word means you win. Right?
Have at it. You're clearly a sad lump of carbon.
Bulldog: BLM IS racist. It is NOT advocating to end racial disparities and if you studied it, worked near it, or even had anything to do with it you'd understand how and why it is a racist organisation.
You forgot to provide evidence to support your claim.
There is an official Black Lives Matter group, but Black Lives Matter is actually a movement of many disparate groups.
We acknowledge, respect, and celebrate differences and commonalities.
We work vigorously for freedom and justice for Black people and, by extension, all people.
BLM guiding principles:
The original question in the poll is nothing but race-baiting. What other purpose could there be? If you're white and you answer in the negative, should you kill yourself? What other option is there"? If some blacks feel that it's not OK to be white, what would they suggest, genocide?
Why not ask if it's OK to be Asian, Hispanic, etc. Or how about is is OK to be Jewish, Muslim, Hindu?
There is no legitimate purpose to the question. It's just more stirring the pot.
BLM is a smash and grab culture. It's on Starhiphop and newsroom video. FIRE and other sites related to academia also present the endless race hatefulness of academia that perpetuates nearly every social science class. The progs promote equal outcome which is more than enough evidence that progs understand nothing of human nature.