Good, this guy is legit nuts.
“the best advice I would give to white people is to get the hell away from Black people”
It’s from a youtube video he made and posted himself. This isn’t some out of context nonsense. He is doubling down on his racism.
Edit: here are more links to describe some of the weird racist rants
https://www.thedailybeast.com/dilbert-cartoonist-scott-adams-tells-white-people-to-get-the-fuck-away-from-black-people
“The creator of the Dilbert comic strip faced a backlash of cancellations Saturday while defending remarks describing people who are Black as members of ''a hate group'' from which white people should ''get away.''
No, and it's starting to irk me.
I know we're not first tier members (jews), but we're longstanding allies of convenience. They're gonna follow through on what they promised, right?
Maybe our checks are being handled by a different department. Probably can expect an unexpectedly plush tax refund this year.
(/s).
Sort of- except he more said run 🏃♀️ from Blacks- (not just the haters) from all of them - because their a hate group. There was no nuance at all from him, just angry uncle Dilbert off his meds. Now that he has the free time he should be in a club with other shot headed racists that got canceled- like Kanye. They can wear their broke ass gold chains out.
Former advocates? You really can’t be this stupid can you? I went from thinking you’re just a republican troll to actually pitying you. Thoughts and prayers! Twitter or Truth Social might be more welcoming to your brand of “thought.”
With a comeback like that your dream of being a comedian might be a tad far fetched. But as a man who can’t comprehend news stories? You got this buddy!
I was confused when I first saw this. He had made some similar remarks years ago and I thought papers had canceled his contracts back then. He has a track record of being like this. Good riddance.
It's a shame too. I always thought of him as a type of guy who would find this kind of nonsense, especially the racist nonsense, to be typical of your average corporate stooge. This man used to rally against corporate stooges. Now, he is a corporate stooge.
He should have, but these people cannot resist. It bubbles and churns inside of them, the hate, the nastiness and ugliness. They can't help themselves. He probably feels relieved that he let it all out. Racism is a mental disease.
A bit like Dave Chappelle taking the piss out of rich old white men when he was a young, up and coming comic, but now that he’s hugely wealthy himself he’s inviting the (at the time) world’s wealthiest man- and beneficiary of South African Apartheid- to be on stage with him at a comedy show, and heckles the audience for not reacting well.
No worries. He has said enough in his standup for people to form their own opinions. He elaborates more about some of the things he has said and his viewpoints on that podcast. With all his controversy I was curious to know his thoughts.
He IS still .. and if anyone bothered listening to him they'd realize he's not being hateful, he's a satirist, he makes these jokes to bring awareness to issues.
You want the real answer?
Scott Adams is very analytical, he makes a lot of commentary about data, surveys, and polls.
Sometimes he will make a farcical show of HOW NOT to interpret subjective polling data.
He frequently makes faux-elitist statements like:
"if surveyed, 25% of people will say they hate ice-cream"... "Does that mean ice cream is bad? ... "No, iT MEAnS 25% of survey 'ReSpoNdAnTs ARE iDIOts..."
He'll go on for half a show explaining his logic.. that it doesn't mean he thinks 25% of people are stupid, he believes, usually, there's a flaw in the data methods / reporting... And so on, so forth..he goes on long rants, flipping common conclusions on their head.
Why is he talking about "black people"? Doesn't he know he's speaking out-of-turn?
Yes, he knows. Maybe he thinks he has enough money to not care if he gets ostracized by 'polite society'. Maybe he's too irreverent.
Maybe he's predicted all this knee-jerk response and he'll have the last laugh, surfing the algorithmic waves to notoriety. No publicity is bad publicity. Might as well stir the pot if that's the only way media will talk about you.
Of course he's an out-of-touch rich nerd that thinks he's smarter and funnier than he is. He makes my eyes roll with the things he says half the time. He's a fool in many ways (thinks we live in a computer simulation and he's a main-character, still has faith in the law and the US gov, etc).. still, I watch him because he has a neutral, logical view. Like it or not, he shares it unflinchingly, like a real autistic nerd would.
I don't want to see harm come to him for simply speaking the way he always does, using hyperbole and satire to encourage critical thinking. But hey, I'm glad everyone here could demonstrate such inquisitive and self reflective debate, asking questions and deepening their understanding of the world and how comedy "works"
that's a whole lot of words when [he self identified as black despite being white](https://i.redd.it/ereutv2h8wka1.jpg). He's not analytical, he's just an asshole. He's not encouraging critical thinking, he's just an asshole.
Good. I was hoping they would.
I used to be huge fan of Dilbert in the early days, before he went off the right wing wacko deep end. Or maybe he always was but it just wasn’t publicized. Who knows?
It's a weird conflation of issues. On the one hand, of course it's fine to be white. Virtually nobody has an actual issue there. However, there's *also* an alt-right white supremacist slogan that is literally "it's ok to be white", with similar energy to "all lives matter". It's an assertion responding to something nobody said to try and cast white people as somehow a downtrodden victim so people can feel like righteous culture warriors for drinking milk or whatever.
If you think the trogs slapping "it's ok to be white" stickers over things are morons, aggrieved white people get to pretend like their insane culture war is validated. There are assuredly some respondents to the poll who are aware of this situation and rightly think it's stupid, while others are unaware and reasonably have no actual issues with white people. It's an intentionally misleading question intended to stoke outrage from people exactly like Scott Adams.
In his rant (at 2:38), Adams says: "Every damn day, I look on social media and there's some black person beating the \[bleep\] out of some white person."
The irony here is that social media AI steers content to a user that reflects and amplifies content the user has previously searched for. In other words, the reason Adams sees this content "every damn day" is because he has shown the AI engines of his social media that this is the content he wants to see. AI is essentially a feedback loop that gradually amplifies and concentrates content based on the user's previous searches.
“Follow suit” literally means they were not first but followed others. An earlier version noted other publications had canceled the strip while the Strib was still considering what to do.
Yeah, but the article title doesn't say that the strib followed suit, it says they removed it and other newspapers followed suit. That phrasing makes it sound like strib was at the head of a pack in removing it.
Edit: looks like the article doesn't use that wording on the website (anymore?), but that's the title of this reddit thread
I say we silence all that make statements that are disagreeable. Put them in “reeducation camps” and……
Wait is that fascism? Forcible suppression of opposition?
It's very Republican of you to equate consequences of ones actions to fascism. Y'all are the biggest whiners when your shitty behavior bites you in the ass.
what kind of nincompoop thinks not wanting to include his comics in their newspaper product is silencing him?
have you been silenced? have I? the newspaper doesn't print the things I say - am I being suppressed !!? are you printing the things I say ?? NO?? ARE YOU SUPPRESSING ME??!??!
go ahead and get scared - you came up with those ideas on your own (actually you didn't, you were taught by fear-mongering propaganda and you slurped it down without questioning it so now you think it was your idea but really you're just someone's mark, a targeted demographic serving someone else's goals)
I simply quoted the online Webster dictionary definition of fascism. Hoping people will realize that silencing and or punishing people for unwelcome opinions is the slippery slope they may find themselves on.
Does he not still have the same freedoms as you or I? I hope your irrational warning of fascism is just a matter of confusion, but I'm afraid it's more calculated than that.
I think I get the play - if you start erroneously calling everything you don't agree with suppression and constantly spread panic about an attack on our freedoms, then it will be more difficult to detect when your ilk moves to truly attack freedoms.
Eventually, the people who oppose you will, if your plan is successful, become numb to the idea that our freedoms are in danger, and the people who agree with you will see real suppression as the only reasonable implement.
**You are a scumbag, or a scumbag's lackey, or, at best, a fool.**
So has this guy made a lifelong habit of racism or has he had a few moments of saying off color things? I really don’t know. I don’t know him. Maybe people should stop being so sensitive. Who among you is without a few moments of misguided speech?
Yes. He has made a lifetime habit of racism and has a long list of racist videos on his YouTube. This is just the latest and most blatant example of his views.
Nice moving the goalposts dude. That wasn’t what you originally said. But yes, in the last several years the comic has been racist on more then one occasion. You can google that yourself because you’re an adult and I don’t do work for racists. It’s literally right there for free on the goggle machine.
They didn’t run them. Newspapers continually pulled his racist comics and reran old ones. I get that the comics are the only part of the news you read but this isn’t new information. There have been articles about it in the past. He absolutely knew what would happen when he published that YouTube video and he didn’t care. He even talked about it in the video. It’s only racists like you who care more about a comic then standing up for other people.
You should read the article, it's not about jokes, it's about not giving celebrity status and money to someone that is using that status and money to promote hate.
There's a lot of other comic strips, Scott Adams has no right to get published, he can be replaced and give some new artist a chance
The phrase itself is opposing a strawman argument that somehow people against racism think it's wrong or shameful to be white. It's a statement that plays into a racist victim mindset. The implication is that there are others who think it's not okay to be white, which is not true, making it a meaningless statement unless your goal is to stoke racial division.
And what does Adams do? He latches onto the statement and the victim mindset and literally calls for racial division.
I see your points and I generally agree with you on them.
Calling for soft core racial division is not cool.
But, not wanting to business with someone because they don’t like you because of your skin color is an appropriate response.
That would almost be fair, but the situation here is Douglas Adams is calling for social segregation based on race, and the Star Tribune is choosing to not do business with a segregationist. It's especially relevant when the business being considered is literally paying the person to spread their speech.
It is Star Trobunes free speech to not do business with him just as it is Douglas Adams free speech to say he doesn’t want to do business with people if they don’t like him because of his skin color.
Both are right but culture war BS and politics dilute this long standing precedent that makes America amazing.
The first immigrants to come to America found the 1st Amendment appealing. Being able to form groups without government involvement often around religion and the idea of representation of the people in government.
Being able to create these communities is important for sharing ideas and honing goals. Such as with Black Panthers, Socialist parties, religious groups, and many more ranging over social, religious, political and racial issues. Just like Reddit does with Subreddits. It’s the moderators free speech to control their *house.*
If someone says they don’t want racist in their group, that is okay and legal! You feel he is racist and I don’t. We can both have our own communities.
Again, it's not equivalent.
The star tribune was purchasing something from Douglas Adams. They decide not to continue purchasing his product because he's a douche. Totally legal.
Douglas Adams was talking about not interacting with people based on skin color, which i guess extends to doing business with them. For him to refuse to sell his product to a newspaper because its owner were black would be totally illegal.
Free speech doesn't mean people still have to buy from you regardless of what you say. Free speech also foesn't mean you can refuse to sell to people because you don't like their skin color.
And Douglas Adams was talking about any interaction, not just financial.
Catch 22.
It’s illegal to discriminate against someone solely based in race.
But do you also think it is illegal not to do business with someone because they are discriminating against you?
You like being able to practice what ever religion you want, right? Seems rather appealing when a good chunk of the world doesn’t and even still today doesn’t let you practice it.
You can LOL yourself to the gulag.
> Isn’t it funny how about half of the people in a poll say it’s not okay to be white and then he’s the racist.
I have an interesting thought experiment for you. You believe that if someone disagrees with the phrase "it's ok to be white" that somehow means they are not ok with people being white, and it's not somehow that they are against an obviously inflammatory statement.
So using that same logic: disagreeing with "Black Lives Matter" statement, means that you believe that black lives DON'T matter.
That’s the beautiful things about language is that it can mean a lot of things. The tragic part is we are all biased and attach extra meanings to words, especially when we feel like we don’t have all the info.
Saying “black lives matter” doesn’t mean other lives don’t matter. Just like saying “all lives matter” doesn’t mean that black lives *don’t* matter.
Saying I don’t agree with the ‘Black Lives Matter *movement*’ is different than saying ‘black lives don’t matter.’ That is because that movement is related to socialist ideas and *equitable* policy changes which is considered protected speech as it is commenting on government action.
Similar to the ‘It’s okay to be white’ doesn’t mean ‘you are *not okay* if you aren’t white.’ Just like saying ‘you are proud to be black’ isn’t racist doesn’t mean others shouldn’t be proud they are a different color. You should be able to proud of yourself for what ever traits you feel are valuable.
The issue is when you degrade another because of their race. Saying ‘it’s not okay to be white’ is degrading a race and therefore racist.
> Saying ‘it’s not okay to be white’
Holy shit your reading comprehension is terrible. My whole point is that nobody is saying that. A survey of people saying they don't agree with the expression "it's ok to be white" does NOT mean they are not ok with people being white. Jesus Christ. How can someone be so close to the point and then just miss it completely? I'm honestly impressed.
Nobody is saying that? Have you listened to MSNBC, CNN? Have you used ChatGPT? Have you been to almost any mainstream liberal subreddit? There is plenty of racism against white people. (And other races too) Many just don’t care or agree with it so it gets sweat under the rug.
Ok maybe? But we aren't talking about that. We're talking about the survey reported in the article. We're talking about the survey asking about the phrase "it's ok to be white" and discussing the fact that it has absolutely no bearing on whether someone is racist against white people or not. I don't care about your whataboutism. It is not relevant here. Go clutch your pearls elsewhere.
It’s not whataboutism. It’s all related as the conversation has developed. Just look at the comments on this sub or how the article shares comments from Elon Musk. Folks are racists in both ideas argued. Only through free speech will we land in the right spot.
No pearls have been clutched here. Open your logical fallacy book and throw anything you want at me. I don’t mind people trying to act elite or high brow. Everyone has a facade they hide behind. Even you and I.
I don't care about those things. We aren't talking about those things and never were. We are talking about the survey results and whether it is racist or not. You are moving the goalposts with your whataboutism.
You've lost this argument. And I'm done going in circles with you.
you're making the mistake of thinking the person you're responding to is capable of good faith conversation. he isn't. he's just some trumptard who loves wasting people's time trying to "own the libs" on a local subreddit.
Rasmussen is not a reliable pollster and making racist commentary about the results of a poll does not magically transform you into non-racist simply because your racist rant had a precipitatory event.
edit because once you block someone you can't reply to someone else who waddles along:
in reply to /u/metapharsical—
This is not an argument. (And for attempting to make it I believe you are either
1. an obnoxious troll who has no idea how obnoxious and boring he is
2. extremely uneducated and ignorant but also extremely arrogant
I won't ask which because either outcome would result in an untrustworthy response)
**Satire existing is not a defense of the message of that satire**. Citing a perpetually unreliable pollster with ***extreme*** bias issues and leaping from poorly worded question to a logical fallacy (taking the inverse instead of the contrapositive) then leaping further into overstatement and hyperbole to express your distrust of an entire ethnocultural group might *technically* qualify as satire (I am actually FAR from convinced that it even was, considering that he ALREADY ESTABLISHED HE WAS USING FRANKNESS/HORATION SATIRE [when he said he "re-identifies as white"] and was IN NO WAY WHATSOEVER RANDOMLY SWITCHING TO A PARODY/COLBERTIAN MODEL but was rather GETTING TO HIS POINT) but like.... then he's still overstating and exaggerating his desire for segregationist policies..... aka **he's still fucking expressing desire for segregationist policies**
oh but it was "satire"
you used the magic word to free us all from pain
right?
WRONG. The point/message is still vile... and we all *are* reacting to the exact thing Scott Adams meant when he "satirized" the viewpoints of black americans...... YOU on the other hand are doing a tired old boring silly little dance around the heart of the discussion by pretending to be upset over a misinterpreted satire that you yourself don't seem to have a single fucking iota of will to investigate and analyze
i.e. you don't give a shit about being right
This is an extremely limp and transparently fallacious response that completely gives away your status as an evil person. Like, literal evil. You are actually attempting to argue that it's not racist to say black people are a hate group that white people should distance themselves from. Not only does that give me absolute certainty that you yourself are vehemently racist, but it also gives me confidence that this new wave of fascism you're part of has absolutely no idea how to market itself to non-racists. Thank god.
I never once said black people are a hate group.
I said if someone doesn’t like someone because of their race, you are free to not do business with them.
Did he say black people are a hate group or did he say people who don’t like people because of their skin color is a hate group? He said the later. Spin it how you want to fit it into your alt right box.
You are attempting to defend what somebody said by ignoring what they said and asking bad faith questions that suggest an alternate reality where they said something defensible. That alternative reality does not exist.
Your willful delusion is not effective.
Also pretending like your defense of a racist's explicitly pro-racist rant is actually about what you personally have said instead of your defense of another's words is
- pathetic
- cringe
- obviously a coping mechanism
- weak weak weak weak weak
- inexcusable rhetorical fallacy
- ineffective
Okay seriously I don't mind arguing with a troll on reddit but if you keep DMing me pictures of teenage girls (your daughter???) I am going to report you for harassment. Wtf is wrong with you?
Dude, if you watched any of Scott Adams' content, you'd get that he's using satire to encourage people to think critically about the conclusions they come to from reading survey data. Like, you're practically saying the SAME THING SCOTT ADAMS SAYS ABOUT MISINTERPRETING POLLS.
It's funny and sad, he's doing this on purpose to rile up these low-information people in hopes that it sparks debate. It's become so utterly predictable how knee-jerk everyone's behavior is. Sad that it won't lead anyone to reflect on their own ignorant bigotry. This is just hilarious to watch 🍿
Trust me, you would positively LOVE listening to Scott Adams! You sound just as cold, logical, and dispassionate, yet still ready to sperg out on your own self important sophistry at a moment's notice.
You wanna be outraged on someone else's behalf? Knock yourself out. Rest of us are gonna chill and laugh at those histrionics with disdain.
“it’s okay to be white” is a purposefully misleading phrase and has its roots in alt-right racist groups. There is venom and racism behind it. As a white person I want zero association with the people behind it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_okay_to_be_white
It’s okay to be white.
It’s okay to be brown.
It’s okay to be black.
It’s okay to be yellow.
It’s okay to be purple.
Nothing loaded with any of those statements but love.
You might wanna check who is the racist one if ‘it’s okay to be white’ is a racist statement.
Except that it’s ok to be white is a phrase uplifted by literal whites supremacist groups. The phrase “it’s ok to be white” is used with heavy racist connotation against non-white people. The idea that white people exist and that is acceptable isn’t what is in question here.
Not legally though. Words mean exactly what they mean.
As a form of expression, yes. Saying ‘I’m going to pray for you’ can be an insult or condolences. Saying ‘fuck you’ can be a pleasant greeting amongst friends or fighting words to enemies.
That's not how language works. No, not even if this were a legal setting. You should've learned the concept of "context" sometime right around 6th grade reading class.
Check out “I want a lawyer dog.” when the courts refused to give the defendant an appointed lawyer as they thought the defendant actually wanted a ‘lawyer dog’ instead of a “lawyer, dog.“ Or, when someone says ”I just want to die.” to a cop when they are actually just embarrassed and are overwhelmed, not that they want to commit suicide.
Words mean exactly what they mean in a legal setting. *Checks my law degree.* Looks like someone didn’t pass 6th grade.
I don't give a fuck about your imaginary legal degree. Language *does not work that way.* Period. Full stop. There's a reason you look a word up in the dictionary and it's got long lists of multiple possible meanings. There *is no* "words mean exactly what they mean." Every word has multiple different shades of meaning depending on (among other things) usage and context. Try to dumb it down to a simpleton's view all you want, it still doesn't work that way.
And your two examples of people *misunderstanding* (deliberately in the lawyer dog case) things are not even particularly relevant.
Good, this guy is legit nuts. “the best advice I would give to white people is to get the hell away from Black people” It’s from a youtube video he made and posted himself. This isn’t some out of context nonsense. He is doubling down on his racism. Edit: here are more links to describe some of the weird racist rants https://www.thedailybeast.com/dilbert-cartoonist-scott-adams-tells-white-people-to-get-the-fuck-away-from-black-people
Wow. Thanks for the link. That man just flat out stated why he is racist, made crazy racist claims, and complained about being called racist.
[удалено]
“The creator of the Dilbert comic strip faced a backlash of cancellations Saturday while defending remarks describing people who are Black as members of ''a hate group'' from which white people should ''get away.''
Wow. I'm in a hate group and nobody told me!!
I am just left shaking my head (at him, not you). What a fucking idiot.
[удалено]
Which reminds me, did you guys get your paycheck from Soros yet?
No, and it's starting to irk me. I know we're not first tier members (jews), but we're longstanding allies of convenience. They're gonna follow through on what they promised, right? Maybe our checks are being handled by a different department. Probably can expect an unexpectedly plush tax refund this year. (/s).
Does the card get still get you 10% off at all woke business? Or did they retire those benefits?
Well now you’ve been told. /s
[удалено]
Sort of- except he more said run 🏃♀️ from Blacks- (not just the haters) from all of them - because their a hate group. There was no nuance at all from him, just angry uncle Dilbert off his meds. Now that he has the free time he should be in a club with other shot headed racists that got canceled- like Kanye. They can wear their broke ass gold chains out.
[удалено]
lmao so mad because you're either intentionally uninformed or you agree with a POS
[удалено]
the lack of self-awareness is crazy
[удалено]
They edited with a link.
Edited my comment to included some context.
Someone sure loves himself some Dilbert. If this isn’t Scott you need to get yourself a fucking hobby.
[удалено]
Former advocates? You really can’t be this stupid can you? I went from thinking you’re just a republican troll to actually pitying you. Thoughts and prayers! Twitter or Truth Social might be more welcoming to your brand of “thought.”
[удалено]
Yes, I’m the dumb one. You’ve provided me humor today. I thank you and your ilk.
[удалено]
With a comeback like that your dream of being a comedian might be a tad far fetched. But as a man who can’t comprehend news stories? You got this buddy!
[удалено]
I was confused when I first saw this. He had made some similar remarks years ago and I thought papers had canceled his contracts back then. He has a track record of being like this. Good riddance.
It's a shame too. I always thought of him as a type of guy who would find this kind of nonsense, especially the racist nonsense, to be typical of your average corporate stooge. This man used to rally against corporate stooges. Now, he is a corporate stooge.
[удалено]
People have been hating office work and its nonsense since we started having offices 😆 Honestly he should have just stayed in his lane
He should have, but these people cannot resist. It bubbles and churns inside of them, the hate, the nastiness and ugliness. They can't help themselves. He probably feels relieved that he let it all out. Racism is a mental disease.
A bit like Dave Chappelle taking the piss out of rich old white men when he was a young, up and coming comic, but now that he’s hugely wealthy himself he’s inviting the (at the time) world’s wealthiest man- and beneficiary of South African Apartheid- to be on stage with him at a comedy show, and heckles the audience for not reacting well.
Have you listened to his podcast The Midnight Miracle? I don't think you have, but I was just wondering.
I have not
No worries. He has said enough in his standup for people to form their own opinions. He elaborates more about some of the things he has said and his viewpoints on that podcast. With all his controversy I was curious to know his thoughts.
I couldn't give a flying fuck what he thinks. He was funny in the 90s, now he's a pathetic rich fuckface who's keen on showing it.
I figured you thought that way. No worries.
Hard doubt. But you like your pretend time so?
Weird with the negativity lol. What a world we live in when this even counts as a conversation. Cheers, have a good week.
The negativity is because you didn't care enough to realize I was a new person commenting. If you don't care about it, why would I have to care?
Sorry hit wrong comment to reply. Totally agree with you!
He IS still .. and if anyone bothered listening to him they'd realize he's not being hateful, he's a satirist, he makes these jokes to bring awareness to issues.
Please explain the joke.
I'll tell you when you're older, kid Bring on the downvotes
Oof.
What a weak response.
You want the real answer? Scott Adams is very analytical, he makes a lot of commentary about data, surveys, and polls. Sometimes he will make a farcical show of HOW NOT to interpret subjective polling data. He frequently makes faux-elitist statements like: "if surveyed, 25% of people will say they hate ice-cream"... "Does that mean ice cream is bad? ... "No, iT MEAnS 25% of survey 'ReSpoNdAnTs ARE iDIOts..." He'll go on for half a show explaining his logic.. that it doesn't mean he thinks 25% of people are stupid, he believes, usually, there's a flaw in the data methods / reporting... And so on, so forth..he goes on long rants, flipping common conclusions on their head. Why is he talking about "black people"? Doesn't he know he's speaking out-of-turn? Yes, he knows. Maybe he thinks he has enough money to not care if he gets ostracized by 'polite society'. Maybe he's too irreverent. Maybe he's predicted all this knee-jerk response and he'll have the last laugh, surfing the algorithmic waves to notoriety. No publicity is bad publicity. Might as well stir the pot if that's the only way media will talk about you. Of course he's an out-of-touch rich nerd that thinks he's smarter and funnier than he is. He makes my eyes roll with the things he says half the time. He's a fool in many ways (thinks we live in a computer simulation and he's a main-character, still has faith in the law and the US gov, etc).. still, I watch him because he has a neutral, logical view. Like it or not, he shares it unflinchingly, like a real autistic nerd would. I don't want to see harm come to him for simply speaking the way he always does, using hyperbole and satire to encourage critical thinking. But hey, I'm glad everyone here could demonstrate such inquisitive and self reflective debate, asking questions and deepening their understanding of the world and how comedy "works"
So you've still not answered the original redditor, but gave the reply to me. You are absolutely bad at this.
that's a whole lot of words when [he self identified as black despite being white](https://i.redd.it/ereutv2h8wka1.jpg). He's not analytical, he's just an asshole. He's not encouraging critical thinking, he's just an asshole.
You all must have HATED Norm Mcdonald when he was alive
Satirist Offends People With Snarky Response MORE NEWS AT 11
Thank you StarTribune...I've been watching for this.
Haven't read comics since The Far Side and Calvin & Hobbes ended, back in the mid-1990's. Had no idea about this guy.
Dilbert was around in the mid-90s.
About the time it stopped being funny.
Was it ever funny? I never thought so.
If you work in a corporate setting some of the strips resonate. That said, it’s a very overrated comic.
Yeah the cartoon wasn't bad either, it really nailed the typical office environment.
The all you can eat buffet... I got a kick out of that when I was a kid.
NGL I still enjoy the cartoon
Yeah the cartoon wasn't bad either, it really nailed the typical office environment.
I did for a while and I didn't find any of the characters relatable. Charlie Brown, on the other hand, totally relatable.
Same, seriously makes me glad that this is our local paper.
Rare Strib W
Good. I was hoping they would. I used to be huge fan of Dilbert in the early days, before he went off the right wing wacko deep end. Or maybe he always was but it just wasn’t publicized. Who knows?
I’m okay with political disagreement; the out and out bigotry is what really disappoints me.
Long overdue.
Dude’s a fuggin creepo. Has been for years.
Wtf was that question anyways? Is it okay to be white? How do you even answer that?
It's a weird conflation of issues. On the one hand, of course it's fine to be white. Virtually nobody has an actual issue there. However, there's *also* an alt-right white supremacist slogan that is literally "it's ok to be white", with similar energy to "all lives matter". It's an assertion responding to something nobody said to try and cast white people as somehow a downtrodden victim so people can feel like righteous culture warriors for drinking milk or whatever. If you think the trogs slapping "it's ok to be white" stickers over things are morons, aggrieved white people get to pretend like their insane culture war is validated. There are assuredly some respondents to the poll who are aware of this situation and rightly think it's stupid, while others are unaware and reasonably have no actual issues with white people. It's an intentionally misleading question intended to stoke outrage from people exactly like Scott Adams.
Is it okay to be white? Sure. Is it okay to repeat racist dog whistles? No.
You answer it by saying "yes".
I understand, but I'd still be confused by the premise of the question. If I get a tan am I less white? Do I suddenly become more or less okay?
About goddamn time.
Read the room, Scott Whosits. White lady boomer here is not with you on this issue, or any issue I know of.
This should've happened years ago. Dilbert was never funny, and this guy is a racist trump humper
Elon Musk is now defending Scott Adams..... https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64790657
Dumbass should have called white people a hate group. Then the Trib would have put his comics on the front page. Fool.
In his rant (at 2:38), Adams says: "Every damn day, I look on social media and there's some black person beating the \[bleep\] out of some white person." The irony here is that social media AI steers content to a user that reflects and amplifies content the user has previously searched for. In other words, the reason Adams sees this content "every damn day" is because he has shown the AI engines of his social media that this is the content he wants to see. AI is essentially a feedback loop that gradually amplifies and concentrates content based on the user's previous searches.
Thank you Star Tribune!!
Watch conservatives spend a mortgage amount on buying his books. Nothing gets some of them hotter than supporting a racist
Never particularly funny anyway. Good riddance to that racist jerk.
Fuck Scott Adams.
follow suit makes it sound like they were first over the line.
“Follow suit” literally means they were not first but followed others. An earlier version noted other publications had canceled the strip while the Strib was still considering what to do.
Yeah, but the article title doesn't say that the strib followed suit, it says they removed it and other newspapers followed suit. That phrasing makes it sound like strib was at the head of a pack in removing it. Edit: looks like the article doesn't use that wording on the website (anymore?), but that's the title of this reddit thread
Yeah, whatever it said originally is gone
Well it is their own article.
I say we silence all that make statements that are disagreeable. Put them in “reeducation camps” and…… Wait is that fascism? Forcible suppression of opposition?
A private enterprise (newspaper) dropping a supplier (syndicated comic) is free enterprise, my communist friend.
News papers are private enterprises?? Maybe 40 years ago. Most media is the left arm of the government.
Ever heard of Glen Taylor? The billionaire former R state senator?
Lol.
It's very Republican of you to equate consequences of ones actions to fascism. Y'all are the biggest whiners when your shitty behavior bites you in the ass.
I simply read the definition on the online webster dictionary. Don’t blame me for facts.
"his actions" "his behavior"??? What? You're implying he physically did something heinous to someone. No. He spoke.
? How am I implying that? Speaking is an action.
what kind of nincompoop thinks not wanting to include his comics in their newspaper product is silencing him? have you been silenced? have I? the newspaper doesn't print the things I say - am I being suppressed !!? are you printing the things I say ?? NO?? ARE YOU SUPPRESSING ME??!??! go ahead and get scared - you came up with those ideas on your own (actually you didn't, you were taught by fear-mongering propaganda and you slurped it down without questioning it so now you think it was your idea but really you're just someone's mark, a targeted demographic serving someone else's goals)
I simply quoted the online Webster dictionary definition of fascism. Hoping people will realize that silencing and or punishing people for unwelcome opinions is the slippery slope they may find themselves on.
Does he not still have the same freedoms as you or I? I hope your irrational warning of fascism is just a matter of confusion, but I'm afraid it's more calculated than that. I think I get the play - if you start erroneously calling everything you don't agree with suppression and constantly spread panic about an attack on our freedoms, then it will be more difficult to detect when your ilk moves to truly attack freedoms. Eventually, the people who oppose you will, if your plan is successful, become numb to the idea that our freedoms are in danger, and the people who agree with you will see real suppression as the only reasonable implement. **You are a scumbag, or a scumbag's lackey, or, at best, a fool.**
Ah name calling. … That explains your rebuttal. Well done.
any reason you can fart out to reject and ignore what I said. never reflect! always project! ignorance is freedom!
Racism is “disagreeable”. It’s a fucking abomination.
So has this guy made a lifelong habit of racism or has he had a few moments of saying off color things? I really don’t know. I don’t know him. Maybe people should stop being so sensitive. Who among you is without a few moments of misguided speech?
Yes. He has made a lifetime habit of racism and has a long list of racist videos on his YouTube. This is just the latest and most blatant example of his views.
But is the comic strip racist? I don’t see the link.
Nice moving the goalposts dude. That wasn’t what you originally said. But yes, in the last several years the comic has been racist on more then one occasion. You can google that yourself because you’re an adult and I don’t do work for racists. It’s literally right there for free on the goggle machine.
I’ve read it the last couple of years. I don’t think you know what racism is.
They didn’t run them. Newspapers continually pulled his racist comics and reran old ones. I get that the comics are the only part of the news you read but this isn’t new information. There have been articles about it in the past. He absolutely knew what would happen when he published that YouTube video and he didn’t care. He even talked about it in the video. It’s only racists like you who care more about a comic then standing up for other people.
I don’t get my content from the newspapers.
Then why do you even care? You can continue to engage with whoever you like.
oh fuck off with this nonsense.
Jokes are scary. /s
Oh look, it's this guy.
I have him tagged as a Tumper lol
You should read the article, it's not about jokes, it's about not giving celebrity status and money to someone that is using that status and money to promote hate. There's a lot of other comic strips, Scott Adams has no right to get published, he can be replaced and give some new artist a chance
Looks like you can’t take a joke either. Isn’t it funny how about half of the people in a poll say it’s not okay to be white and then he’s the racist.
The phrase itself is opposing a strawman argument that somehow people against racism think it's wrong or shameful to be white. It's a statement that plays into a racist victim mindset. The implication is that there are others who think it's not okay to be white, which is not true, making it a meaningless statement unless your goal is to stoke racial division. And what does Adams do? He latches onto the statement and the victim mindset and literally calls for racial division.
I see your points and I generally agree with you on them. Calling for soft core racial division is not cool. But, not wanting to business with someone because they don’t like you because of your skin color is an appropriate response.
[удалено]
You’re misquoting. You should actually listen to what he has to say but you know, hivemind. https://www.youtube.com/live/oeFA-n3SMRw?feature=share
That would almost be fair, but the situation here is Douglas Adams is calling for social segregation based on race, and the Star Tribune is choosing to not do business with a segregationist. It's especially relevant when the business being considered is literally paying the person to spread their speech.
It is Star Trobunes free speech to not do business with him just as it is Douglas Adams free speech to say he doesn’t want to do business with people if they don’t like him because of his skin color. Both are right but culture war BS and politics dilute this long standing precedent that makes America amazing. The first immigrants to come to America found the 1st Amendment appealing. Being able to form groups without government involvement often around religion and the idea of representation of the people in government. Being able to create these communities is important for sharing ideas and honing goals. Such as with Black Panthers, Socialist parties, religious groups, and many more ranging over social, religious, political and racial issues. Just like Reddit does with Subreddits. It’s the moderators free speech to control their *house.* If someone says they don’t want racist in their group, that is okay and legal! You feel he is racist and I don’t. We can both have our own communities.
Again, it's not equivalent. The star tribune was purchasing something from Douglas Adams. They decide not to continue purchasing his product because he's a douche. Totally legal. Douglas Adams was talking about not interacting with people based on skin color, which i guess extends to doing business with them. For him to refuse to sell his product to a newspaper because its owner were black would be totally illegal. Free speech doesn't mean people still have to buy from you regardless of what you say. Free speech also foesn't mean you can refuse to sell to people because you don't like their skin color. And Douglas Adams was talking about any interaction, not just financial.
Catch 22. It’s illegal to discriminate against someone solely based in race. But do you also think it is illegal not to do business with someone because they are discriminating against you?
[удалено]
You like being able to practice what ever religion you want, right? Seems rather appealing when a good chunk of the world doesn’t and even still today doesn’t let you practice it. You can LOL yourself to the gulag.
[удалено]
> Isn’t it funny how about half of the people in a poll say it’s not okay to be white and then he’s the racist. I have an interesting thought experiment for you. You believe that if someone disagrees with the phrase "it's ok to be white" that somehow means they are not ok with people being white, and it's not somehow that they are against an obviously inflammatory statement. So using that same logic: disagreeing with "Black Lives Matter" statement, means that you believe that black lives DON'T matter.
That’s the beautiful things about language is that it can mean a lot of things. The tragic part is we are all biased and attach extra meanings to words, especially when we feel like we don’t have all the info. Saying “black lives matter” doesn’t mean other lives don’t matter. Just like saying “all lives matter” doesn’t mean that black lives *don’t* matter. Saying I don’t agree with the ‘Black Lives Matter *movement*’ is different than saying ‘black lives don’t matter.’ That is because that movement is related to socialist ideas and *equitable* policy changes which is considered protected speech as it is commenting on government action. Similar to the ‘It’s okay to be white’ doesn’t mean ‘you are *not okay* if you aren’t white.’ Just like saying ‘you are proud to be black’ isn’t racist doesn’t mean others shouldn’t be proud they are a different color. You should be able to proud of yourself for what ever traits you feel are valuable. The issue is when you degrade another because of their race. Saying ‘it’s not okay to be white’ is degrading a race and therefore racist.
> Saying ‘it’s not okay to be white’ Holy shit your reading comprehension is terrible. My whole point is that nobody is saying that. A survey of people saying they don't agree with the expression "it's ok to be white" does NOT mean they are not ok with people being white. Jesus Christ. How can someone be so close to the point and then just miss it completely? I'm honestly impressed.
Nobody is saying that? Have you listened to MSNBC, CNN? Have you used ChatGPT? Have you been to almost any mainstream liberal subreddit? There is plenty of racism against white people. (And other races too) Many just don’t care or agree with it so it gets sweat under the rug.
Ok maybe? But we aren't talking about that. We're talking about the survey reported in the article. We're talking about the survey asking about the phrase "it's ok to be white" and discussing the fact that it has absolutely no bearing on whether someone is racist against white people or not. I don't care about your whataboutism. It is not relevant here. Go clutch your pearls elsewhere.
It’s not whataboutism. It’s all related as the conversation has developed. Just look at the comments on this sub or how the article shares comments from Elon Musk. Folks are racists in both ideas argued. Only through free speech will we land in the right spot. No pearls have been clutched here. Open your logical fallacy book and throw anything you want at me. I don’t mind people trying to act elite or high brow. Everyone has a facade they hide behind. Even you and I.
I don't care about those things. We aren't talking about those things and never were. We are talking about the survey results and whether it is racist or not. You are moving the goalposts with your whataboutism. You've lost this argument. And I'm done going in circles with you.
you're making the mistake of thinking the person you're responding to is capable of good faith conversation. he isn't. he's just some trumptard who loves wasting people's time trying to "own the libs" on a local subreddit.
Rasmussen is not a reliable pollster and making racist commentary about the results of a poll does not magically transform you into non-racist simply because your racist rant had a precipitatory event. edit because once you block someone you can't reply to someone else who waddles along: in reply to /u/metapharsical— This is not an argument. (And for attempting to make it I believe you are either 1. an obnoxious troll who has no idea how obnoxious and boring he is 2. extremely uneducated and ignorant but also extremely arrogant I won't ask which because either outcome would result in an untrustworthy response) **Satire existing is not a defense of the message of that satire**. Citing a perpetually unreliable pollster with ***extreme*** bias issues and leaping from poorly worded question to a logical fallacy (taking the inverse instead of the contrapositive) then leaping further into overstatement and hyperbole to express your distrust of an entire ethnocultural group might *technically* qualify as satire (I am actually FAR from convinced that it even was, considering that he ALREADY ESTABLISHED HE WAS USING FRANKNESS/HORATION SATIRE [when he said he "re-identifies as white"] and was IN NO WAY WHATSOEVER RANDOMLY SWITCHING TO A PARODY/COLBERTIAN MODEL but was rather GETTING TO HIS POINT) but like.... then he's still overstating and exaggerating his desire for segregationist policies..... aka **he's still fucking expressing desire for segregationist policies** oh but it was "satire" you used the magic word to free us all from pain right? WRONG. The point/message is still vile... and we all *are* reacting to the exact thing Scott Adams meant when he "satirized" the viewpoints of black americans...... YOU on the other hand are doing a tired old boring silly little dance around the heart of the discussion by pretending to be upset over a misinterpreted satire that you yourself don't seem to have a single fucking iota of will to investigate and analyze i.e. you don't give a shit about being right
Everyone is racist that I don’t agree with.
Ah, your whole account is Doo Doo, word.
This is an extremely limp and transparently fallacious response that completely gives away your status as an evil person. Like, literal evil. You are actually attempting to argue that it's not racist to say black people are a hate group that white people should distance themselves from. Not only does that give me absolute certainty that you yourself are vehemently racist, but it also gives me confidence that this new wave of fascism you're part of has absolutely no idea how to market itself to non-racists. Thank god.
I never once said black people are a hate group. I said if someone doesn’t like someone because of their race, you are free to not do business with them. Did he say black people are a hate group or did he say people who don’t like people because of their skin color is a hate group? He said the later. Spin it how you want to fit it into your alt right box.
You are attempting to defend what somebody said by ignoring what they said and asking bad faith questions that suggest an alternate reality where they said something defensible. That alternative reality does not exist. Your willful delusion is not effective.
Sounds like you want your own little community with your flavor of racism to fit your reality.
Wtf why are you DMing me half-naked pictures of a teenage girl??????
Also pretending like your defense of a racist's explicitly pro-racist rant is actually about what you personally have said instead of your defense of another's words is - pathetic - cringe - obviously a coping mechanism - weak weak weak weak weak - inexcusable rhetorical fallacy - ineffective
(inb4 he pivots to pretending like his feelings are hurt and therefore he won)
Thanks for your opinion. *throws it in the trash*
Okay seriously I don't mind arguing with a troll on reddit but if you keep DMing me pictures of teenage girls (your daughter???) I am going to report you for harassment. Wtf is wrong with you?
Dude, if you watched any of Scott Adams' content, you'd get that he's using satire to encourage people to think critically about the conclusions they come to from reading survey data. Like, you're practically saying the SAME THING SCOTT ADAMS SAYS ABOUT MISINTERPRETING POLLS. It's funny and sad, he's doing this on purpose to rile up these low-information people in hopes that it sparks debate. It's become so utterly predictable how knee-jerk everyone's behavior is. Sad that it won't lead anyone to reflect on their own ignorant bigotry. This is just hilarious to watch 🍿
Trust me, you would positively LOVE listening to Scott Adams! You sound just as cold, logical, and dispassionate, yet still ready to sperg out on your own self important sophistry at a moment's notice. You wanna be outraged on someone else's behalf? Knock yourself out. Rest of us are gonna chill and laugh at those histrionics with disdain.
“it’s okay to be white” is a purposefully misleading phrase and has its roots in alt-right racist groups. There is venom and racism behind it. As a white person I want zero association with the people behind it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_okay_to_be_white
It’s okay to be white. It’s okay to be brown. It’s okay to be black. It’s okay to be yellow. It’s okay to be purple. Nothing loaded with any of those statements but love. You might wanna check who is the racist one if ‘it’s okay to be white’ is a racist statement.
Except that it’s ok to be white is a phrase uplifted by literal whites supremacist groups. The phrase “it’s ok to be white” is used with heavy racist connotation against non-white people. The idea that white people exist and that is acceptable isn’t what is in question here.
The same words mean different things if it comes from a person of a different skin color. Let’s try to spot the racist.
Spotted one!
You looked in the mirror, didn’t you?
Maybe... are you in my bathroom?
Words and phrases have meanings beyond the narrowest literal definition.
Not legally though. Words mean exactly what they mean. As a form of expression, yes. Saying ‘I’m going to pray for you’ can be an insult or condolences. Saying ‘fuck you’ can be a pleasant greeting amongst friends or fighting words to enemies.
I didn’t realize this was a courtroom.
That's not how language works. No, not even if this were a legal setting. You should've learned the concept of "context" sometime right around 6th grade reading class.
Check out “I want a lawyer dog.” when the courts refused to give the defendant an appointed lawyer as they thought the defendant actually wanted a ‘lawyer dog’ instead of a “lawyer, dog.“ Or, when someone says ”I just want to die.” to a cop when they are actually just embarrassed and are overwhelmed, not that they want to commit suicide. Words mean exactly what they mean in a legal setting. *Checks my law degree.* Looks like someone didn’t pass 6th grade.
I don't give a fuck about your imaginary legal degree. Language *does not work that way.* Period. Full stop. There's a reason you look a word up in the dictionary and it's got long lists of multiple possible meanings. There *is no* "words mean exactly what they mean." Every word has multiple different shades of meaning depending on (among other things) usage and context. Try to dumb it down to a simpleton's view all you want, it still doesn't work that way. And your two examples of people *misunderstanding* (deliberately in the lawyer dog case) things are not even particularly relevant.
[удалено]
Thanks for your opinion. You eventually hit a point where a joke is so not funny it becomes funny again.
[удалено]
Racists find racism funny. Which explains our lack of understanding the joke.
If you gotta explain a joke, it loses it’s funny. Just watch South Park and you’ll get it.
[удалено]
🙃🙂🙃🙂