Zone1 Did any of the haters actually LISTEN to what Scott Adams said in his podcast?

[Doug1943]

In liberal-run cities, in liberal-run states, what do Black people have to be angry about?

They actually do have reason to be angry in these places.

This excellent article from City Journal spells out exactly how liberals encourage the criminal Black underclass, who make life hell for all law-abiding people, Black and white and of every other color.

[ Crime and Chicago's Toxic Leadership | City Journal ]
A snippet from it:

Chicago had 797 homicides last year, according to city police—the most of any city in the United States and the most in Chicago for a quarter century. That figure doesn’t include the increased number of homicides on expressways, which fall under the jurisdiction of the Illinois State Police. Including those numbers brings the count to at least 800.

Homicides are only the tip of the spear of Chicago’s crime wave. More than 4,000 people have been shot—about 70 percent more than two years ago. The city’s homicide figures would surely be much higher if not for advances in medicine that prevent more people from dying from shootings. Carjackings and robberies are on the rise as well.

The toll is greatest among minorities and residents of poor neighborhoods, but crime is seeping into affluent places as well, and the spillover endangers Chicago’s economy. Premium retailers at the city’s Magnificent Mile have attracted shoppers from across the Midwest for decades. Now, because of both Covid and crime, many of those retailers have packed up and left. Empty storefronts along the avenue signal an ominous future. Chicago relies on its high sales taxes, including a levy targeted at the downtown area, but sales taxes won’t fill the city’s coffers if there are no buyers.

Chicago’s crime explosion has many causes, of course, but an important one is dreadful political leadership. Never in its history has Chicago had such a feckless trio in charge of public safety: Cook County state’s attorney Kim Foxx, Illinois governor J.B. Pritzker, and Chicago mayor Lori Lightfoot.

Foxx is the worst of the three. She is single-handedly creating a culture in which crime pays. James Q. Wilson’s famous Broken Windows theory argued that visible signs of disorder in a community foster a climate that encourages more serious disorder and crime. Foxx seems almost to want broken windows, instituting a policy not to seek felony charges against retail theft unless it exceeds $1,000. The result has been not just more retail theft but even worse, a culture in which young people become habituated criminals without fear of substantial consequence.

Foxx has also destroyed key relationships with the police through her reckless professional misconduct. She infamously dropped charges against Jussie Smollett for his hate-crime hoax, despite the solid case police built against him. Fortunately, a judge appointed a special prosecutor who charged and eventually convicted Smollett on five felony counts. The judge also commissioned an investigative report that concluded that Foxx had lied about talking to Smollet’s sister about the case after learning the actor was a criminal suspect, telling her at one point that “your brother should be fine as long as he stays consistent.” How can the police trust a prosecutor who gives legal advice to suspects and then lies about it?

Governor J. B. Pritzker, meantime, focuses on the political appearances of his policies rather than on their effects. According to Chicago hedge-fund titan Ken Griffin, during the George Floyd riots in the summer of 2020, Pritzker delayed sending in National Guard troops because it would “not look good to have people with assault rifles patrolling Michigan Avenue.”

There is much more. Read it!

 

[JoeB131]

In liberal-run cities, in liberal-run states, what do Black people have to be angry about?

They actually do have reason to be angry in these places.

This excellent article from City Journal

Naw, I usually avoid reading that Nazi rag.

So the question is, why did the murder rate in Chicago go up? Well, a part of that reason was the NRA went to SCOTUS and got Chicago's gun laws thrown out.

 

[Doug1943]

Naw, I usually avoid reading that Nazi rag.

So the question is, why did the murder rate in Chicago go up? Well, a part of that reason was the NRA went to SCOTUS and got Chicago's gun laws thrown out.

Hmmm... a part, huh? So it's the NRA who is to blame for 'part' of the astonishingly high Black murder (self-murder in most cases) rate.

Okay... what's the other part?

And again, to show how unhinged it is to call City Journal (which I'll bet this silly fellow has never read a word of) a "Nazi rag", I invite everyone here, Left or Right, to actually have a look at it.

[ City Journal ]

Go on. Find one single article that could be called, by anyone who is not completely unhinged, or a congenital liar, 'Nazi' or 'racist'.

 

[JoeB131]

Hmmm... a part, huh? So it's the NRA who is to blame for 'part' of the astonishingly high Black murder (self-murder in most cases) rate.

Okay... what's the other part?

And again, to show how unhinged it is to call City Journal (which I'll bet this silly fellow has never read a word of) a "Nazi rag", I invite everyone here, Left or Right, to actually have a look at it.

I've read more than a few articles, and it's the usual racist dogwhistles you hear from the right.

Point was, in Chicago, we had sensible gun laws. Then the McDonald decision happened, and we had concealed carry stores pop up on every corner. Not surprisingly, the murder rate went through the roof.

 

[jillian]

Jillian! Look at this post ( Zone1 - The Whole Story On What Scott Adams Said ) and tell us how you would react. It's a way to smoke out hidden racists.

I heard what he said. He’s disgusting. And people have the right to be disgusting and normals have the right to tell them to get lost. There are ramifications to being a racist loser.

 

[jillian]

Hmmm... a part, huh? So it's the NRA who is to blame for 'part' of the astonishingly high Black murder (self-murder in most cases) rate.

Okay... what's the other part?

And again, to show how unhinged it is to call City Journal (which I'll bet this silly fellow has never read a word of) a "Nazi rag", I invite everyone here, Left or Right, to actually have a look at it.

[ City Journal ]

Go on. Find one single article that could be called, by anyone who is not completely unhinged, or a congenital liar, 'Nazi' or 'racist'.

City Journal Media Bias Rating

Learn the AllSides Media Bias Rating of City Journal. AllSides rates the media bias of hundreds of news outlets, media sources and writers.

www.allsides.com

City Journal has a right wing bias according to allsides.com. Unfortunately in this environment that generally means white supremacist friendly. Does that means they are nazis? No. But it does mean they are ok with them

 

[Doug1943]

I heard what he said. He’s disgusting. And people have the right to be disgusting and normals have the right to tell them to get lost. There are ramifications to being a racist loser.

He's actually an interesting personality. For a brief moment, I wondered if he might be a very clever, unscrupulous Rightwinger, running a 'False Flag' operation to discredit the Left.

They do that to us sometimes: you may remember the woman who turned up at a Trump rally with some sort of racist sign, in order to be photographed so as to provide propaganda to the Left. She got unmasked, but I'm sure there are others who succeed. (Not that we don't have a few idiots working for the enemy for free, eg people who bring Confederate battle flags to our rallies.)

And I have come across a few people on the Right whom I suspect do something like that to the Left. But probably not.

There are equivalent people on the Right. That is, people who are so extremely partisan, they literally do not care, do not think about, the truth of what they say.

So I've gotten email with supposed 'quotes' from Hillary Clinton and Obama about how we have to abolish the Constitution. Well, even if they believed that, they are not so stupid as to say it. I supose the people who circulate lies like this think, "Well, it's what they really believe. I'm just articulating their secret beliefs."

It's poisonous. It degrades our side's ability to understand political reality, a precondition for successfully changing it.

There is a supposed quote from Khruschev, told to the Republican Sec of Agriculture, Ezra Benson, when Khruschev visited America in1959. (Sometimes it's given other sources.)

"Your children's children will live under communism. You Americans are so gullible. No, you won't accept communism outright; but we will keep feeding you small doses of socialism until you will finally wake up and find you already have Communism. We will not have to fight you; We will so weaken your economy, until you will fall like overripe fruit into our hands."


"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."'

Someone has to be terminally stupid to believe that Khruschev said this. Even if he believed it, would he give the game away by saying it? Ridiculous. (And, for anyone who knows a bit about the history of Communism, the general idea of a peaceful transition to socialism is, in the Communist world, 'revisionism' and is heresy -- and in the late 1950s, China and the USSR were moving apart, with the Chinese accusing the Russians of being 'revisionists'.

So endorsing the idea of a peaceful transition to socialism was the last thing Khruschev would have done. [Which is not the same thing as 'peaceful co-existence', the Soviet phrase for the desirable relationship beween communist and capitalist nations.]
[Sino-Soviet split - Wikipedia] (This Wiki article is well worth reading, by the way. Many people on the Right are ignorant of the history of this period, especially as it applies to China.) )

So here we have, in the form of this fellow, someone on the Left who literally doesn't care about the truth of what he says. It's a shame, because he's actually a smart, sophisticated proponent of his political views, when he's not lying about other people.

Or maybe I should say it's not a shame, because, to honest people, Left, Right, or Center, he discredits those views. Once someone is caught lying, they then tend to be disbelieved about everything they say.

And I'll just repeat here: this man is not typical of people on the Left. There are many decent, honest people there. Misguided, yes, but personally honest. We can reach some of them and change their minds.

 

[jillian]

He's actually an interesting personality. For a brief moment, I wondered if he might be a very clever, unscrupulous Rightwinger, running a 'False Flag' operation to discredit the Left.

They do that to us sometimes: you may remember the woman who turned up at a Trump rally with some sort of racist sign, in order to be photographed so as to provide propaganda to the Left. She got unmasked, but I'm sure there are others who succeed. (Not that we don't have a few idiots working for the enemy for free, eg people who bring Confederate battle flags to our rallies.)

And I have come across a few people on the Right whom I suspect do something like that to the Left. But probably not.

There are equivalent people on the Right. That is, people who are so extremely partisan, they literally do not care, do not think about, the truth of what they say.

So I've gotten email with supposed 'quotes' from Hillary Clinton and Obama about how we have to abolish the Constitution. Well, even if they believed that, they are not so stupid as to say it. I supose the people who circulate lies like this think, "Well, it's what they really believe. I'm just articulating their secret beliefs."

It's poisonous. It degrades our side's ability to understand political reality, a precondition for successfully changing it.

There is a supposed quote from Khruschev, told to the Republican Sec of Agriculture, Ezra Benson, when Khruschev visited America in1959. (Sometimes it's given other sources.)

Someone has to be terminally stupid to believe that Khruschev said this. Even if he believed it, would he give the game away by saying it? Ridiculous. (And, for anyone who knows a bit about the history of Communism, the general idea of a peaceful transition to socialism is, in the Communist world, 'revisionism' and is heresy -- and in the late 1950s, China and the USSR were moving apart, with the Chinese accusing the Russians of being 'revisionists'.

So endorsing the idea of a peaceful transition to socialism was the last thing Khruschev would have done. [Which is not the same thing as 'peaceful co-existence', the Soviet phrase for the desirable relationship beween communist and capitalist nations.]
[Sino-Soviet split - Wikipedia] (This Wiki article is well worth reading, by the way. Many people on the Right are ignorant of the history of this period, especially as it applies to China.) )

So here we have, in the form of this fellow, someone on the Left who literally doesn't care about the truth of what he says. It's a shame, because he's actually a smart, sophisticated proponent of his political views, when he's not lying about other people.

Or maybe I should say it's not a shame, because, to honest people, Left, Right, or Center, he discredits those views. Once someone is caught lying, they then tend to be disbelieved about everything they say.

And I'll just repeat here: this man is not typical of people on the Left. There are many decent, honest people there. Misguided, yes, but personally honest. We can reach some of them and change their minds.

Who is endorsing a peaceful transition to socialism? We have a made economy. And if you don’t recall, there were right wingers at BLMrallies to try to create violence. Te left doesn’t run “false flag” operations.

The differences between the right and left right now are massive. And the left isn’t inciting violent insurrection.

And he may be interesting. But he hasn’t denied what he said. So stop pretending he didn’t say what he did. I have no doubt that a racist can also be interesting under certain conditions

Finally, the only one who has said he wanted. To get rid of the constitution was Donald

 

[Doug1943]

City Journal Media Bias Rating

Learn the AllSides Media Bias Rating of City Journal. AllSides rates the media bias of hundreds of news outlets, media sources and writers.

www.allsides.com

City Journal has a right wing bias according to allsides.com. Unfortunately in this environment that generally means white supremacist friendly. Does that means they are nazis? No. But it does mean they are ok with them

Jillian: yes, City Journal is on the Right. Just like American Conservative, National Review, First Things, New Criterion, etc etc. If you, or AllSides, wants to call that 'bias', fine. In fact, Allsides.com has this to say about 'bias':

Everyone is biased — and that's okay. There's no such thing as unbiased news. But hidden media bias misleads, manipulates and divides us.

And there are journals on the Left which are "biased". Here is a chart of Left, Center, and Right "biased" media,. again, from AllSides:
AllSides Media Bias Chart
AllSides is right. "There is no such thing as unbiased news." We all have political opinions, pre-suppositions, beliefs, and these influence how we process reality.

Interestingly, although AllSides puts City Journal into the 'Right' category, it gives it a '4' rating, rather than '5' or '6'. (Allsides makes '0' its 'Center' rating, and +6 its 'most Right' rating -- with -6 being 'most Left'.

In other words, City Journal was close to being in the 'Leans Right' area as opposed to the 'Right' area -- And Allsides doesn't have great confidence in its judgement here, with some of their readers disagreeing with the 'Right' category for City Journal. Here's what Allsides says about its rating:
==========================================================

Community Feedback​

Feedback does not determine ratings, but may trigger deeper review.

As of March 2023, 1,219 people have voted on the AllSides Media Bias Rating for City Journal. On average, those who disagree with our rating think this source has a Lean Right bias.

Confidence Level​

Confidence is determined by how many reviews have been applied and consistency of data.

As of March 2023, AllSides has low or initial confidence in our Right rating for City Journal. If we perform more bias reviews and gather consistent data, this confidence level will increase.
=======================================================

But of course, there can be dishonest people, who consciously lie about their political opponents. This is not 'bias', it's just plain dishonesty. If I know you are on the Left, but are not a devotee of Joseph Stalin or of Communism in general, and I call you a 'Communist' ... then I'm being dishonest. If I do that, I'm not biased, I'm dishonest.

The Nation magazine is on the Left, decisively so. But it's not, to my knowledge, dishonest. They do not consciously suppress facts, or just go along with the crowd on their side. (In fact, when Roman Polanski had sex with a 13-year old girl, and liberal Hollywood rallied to his defense, Katha Pollitt, editor of the The Nation, wrote a scathing, brilliant analysis of their response. You can read it here: [ Roman Polanski Has a Lot of Friends ]

City Journal is devoted to analyzing social problems. It has many really good articles. Anyone, Left or Right, who cares about social problems -- and is not just interested in things that confirm what he/she believes already -- should read it. You may not agree with the political orientation of the writers, but you'll learn something. Any serious person wants to know what his/her political opponents really think, even if just on a know-your-enemy basis.

(If you are on the Right, you shouldn't confine your reading to Rightwing things. Read at least one serious Leftist publication regularly. I suggest Counterpunch:
[ Home ]

Serious people always look for disconfirming evidence for their beliefs about fact. If you're on the Right, and are one of those people who think that, in all encounters of the police with civilians where the police end up shooting someone, that the police are always right --- you should look closely at those situations where they're evidently NOT right.

There's a more important issue with AllSides' ratings: they are one-dimensional. All it can do is to place a journal on a Left-Right scale, -6 to +6.

Now ... that's a huge simplification of political reality. There are many currents of thought on the Left, and the same is true on the Right. If you just classify someone, or a publication, on a -6 to +6 scale, you'll miss out on some important distinctions.

For example, on the Right, one important distinction is: to what extent do you believe government intervention in social problems can be a good thing, if done correctly?

The Libertarian wing of the Right believes: never. The 'neo-con' wing believes: sometimes. And there are many on the Right who are not neo-cons who also believe that government intervention can, if done correctly, be a positive thing. (City Journal's contributors tend to be among this wing, by the way.)

So if we have two Rightwingers, one a Libertarian who opposes all government intervention, and one a non-Libertarian, who doesn't oppose all government intervention -- and they otherwise agree on everything else -- who is 'more Right'?

With a one-dimensional scale, it's impossible to answer this question.

 

[JoeB131]

He's actually an interesting personality. For a brief moment, I wondered if he might be a very clever, unscrupulous Rightwinger, running a 'False Flag' operation to discredit the Left.

They do that to us sometimes: you may remember the woman who turned up at a Trump rally with some sort of racist sign, in order to be photographed so as to provide propaganda to the Left. She got unmasked, but I'm sure there are others who succeed. (Not that we don't have a few idiots working for the enemy for free, eg people who bring Confederate battle flags to our rallies.)

And I have come across a few people on the Right whom I suspect do something like that to the Left. But probably not.

There are equivalent people on the Right. That is, people who are so extremely partisan, they literally do not care, do not think about, the truth of what they say.

So I've gotten email with supposed 'quotes' from Hillary Clinton and Obama about how we have to abolish the Constitution. Well, even if they believed that, they are not so stupid as to say it. I supose the people who circulate lies like this think, "Well, it's what they really believe. I'm just articulating their secret beliefs."

It's poisonous. It degrades our side's ability to understand political reality, a precondition for successfully changing it.

....

So here we have, in the form of this fellow, someone on the Left who literally doesn't care about the truth of what he says. It's a shame, because he's actually a smart, sophisticated proponent of his political views, when he's not lying about other people.

Or maybe I should say it's not a shame, because, to honest people, Left, Right, or Center, he discredits those views. Once someone is caught lying, they then tend to be disbelieved about everything they say.

And I'll just repeat here: this man is not typical of people on the Left. There are many decent, honest people there. Misguided, yes, but personally honest. We can reach some of them and change their minds.

Are you whining about little old me, Fake Hippy Doug? I mean, you got one thread locked for not following the rules, why not another.

Just to clarify for you, I'm not a liberal, or a Democrat, or a progressive.

I'm a pragmatist.

There were times in the past when I voted Republican, before Obama got elected and they completely lost their minds. Before the Religious Zealots, Libertarian Children and Gun Fetishists drowned out the sensible conservatives who actually had some good ideas.

Now, back to Scott Adams. The guy has been saying racist, homophobic and transphobic stuff for years. When you get right down to it, Dilbert is the personification of white fragility. He has no friends, he has no interests outside of his job which he obviously hates. He hates his boss, but he never actually mans up, sends out resumes and tries to get a better job. He thinks he is superior to his coworkers like Wally and Ted the Generic Guy, but he never rises to the occasion. Even his freaking Dog doesn't like him.

 

[Doug1943]

Who is endorsing a peaceful transition to socialism? We have a made economy. And if you don’t recall, there were right wingers at BLMrallies to try to create violence. Te left doesn’t run “false flag” operations.

The differences between the right and left right now are massive. And the left isn’t inciting violent insurrection.

And he may be interesting. But he hasn’t denied what he said. So stop pretending he didn’t say what he did. I have no doubt that a racist can also be interesting under certain conditions

Finally, the only one who has said he wanted. To get rid of the constitution was Donald

I don't understand what you're saying re 'a peaceful transition to socialism' and a 'made economy'. Please re-read what I posted.

You say

there were right wingers at BLMrallies to try to create violence. Te left doesn’t run “false flag” operations.

Yes, I recall those guys, in Milwaukee, I think. I believe they were 'Boogaloo Bois', who are an interesting phenomenon -- not really political at all, just advocates of violence against the police. Some of them claimed to sympathyze with BLM. They're a symptom of a nation undergoing slow-motion social disintegration.

Here's what USA Today has to say about the 'Boogaloo Bois':

"Even for experts in extremism, the "Boogaloo," "Boogaloo Boy" or "Boogaloo Boi" movement has always been tough to accurately describe.

Essentially, it's a leaderless, mainly online phenomenon, driven by a heavy emphasis on specific memes, iconography and in-jokes. Central to the movement is an anti-federal government ideology, an anticipation of a second civil war and an obsession with firearms. "

I believe some of them have been encouraged by Russian trolls, glavset operatives.
[ Internet Research Agency - Wikipedia ] I had a long debate on Facebook with some of these people a couple of years ago .. They weren't political at all ... one of them even posted a meme celebrating killing National Guard personnel.

For both Left and Right, we're talking about tens of millions of people. "All human life is there." The psychiatrists tell us that some significant percentage of the population (1%?) is mentally ill.

Some of these poor souls will become 'political'. Some will engage in violent acts, such as the AntiFa supporter who killed Aaron Danielson in cold blood.

It would be unfair to simply state, because of that one fact, that all AntiFa endorse the murder of people on my side -- but then, when the ranks of AntiFa in Portland heard about it, and laughed and cheered ... then, yes, we can say, these people endorse murder.

[ ]
[ BLM ‘activists’ celebrated as Trump supporter was killed: Devine ]

And some Leftist professors think killing people on the Right is fine:
[ Professor says 'nothing wrong with Antifa supporter killing a fascist' ]

You say "The Left doesn't run false flag operations". Well, I think you're over-generalizing here. How about this one: "The Left doesn't murder Trump supporters."

Now, as a general rule, that's true. But we have just seen that some Leftists do, and a much larger number support this, namely, AntiFa and their sympathyzers.

Not a majority, I'm sure. And the same goes for the Right. We've got some crazies, and a larger number who spout crazy things. But our ranks are like yours: they're not murderers.

Jill, I think I misunderstood who the person you were referring to was. I thought you meant a certain Leftist here, who is definitely not an honest person and who has a classically racist attitude to Blacks.

But evidently you meant someone on the Right. Who?

 

[Doug1943]

Are you whining about little old me, Fake Hippy Doug? I mean, you got one thread locked for not following the rules, why not another.

Just to clarify for you, I'm not a liberal, or a Democrat, or a progressive.

I'm a pragmatist.

There were times in the past when I voted Republican, before Obama got elected and they completely lost their minds. Before the Religious Zealots, Libertarian Children and Gun Fetishists drowned out the sensible conservatives who actually had some good ideas.

Now, back to Scott Adams. The guy has been saying racist, homophobic and transphobic stuff for years. When you get right down to it, Dilbert is the personification of white fragility. He has no friends, he has no interests outside of his job which he obviously hates. He hates his boss, but he never actually mans up, sends out resumes and tries to get a better job. He thinks he is superior to his coworkers like Wally and Ted the Generic Guy, but he never rises to the occasion. Even his freaking Dog doesn't like him.

Yes, Joe. It's you I'm referring to. And the key fact about you is (1) you are a liar, a conscious one, and (2) you are a coward. No doubt a 'pragmatic' one.

For those who are interested, when Joe says "fake hippy Doug" what he means is that my mention of the fact that I was active in the Civil Rights movement in the 60s is, according to him, a lie. (I was never a 'hippy' nor did I ever say I was. However, I was a member of the hard Left.)

Now, anyone can say anything on the internet. But it's easy for me to prove that what I said was true. And, being a kind and benevolent person, I want to allow Joe to make some serious money.

So I offered him a fantastic deal: together, we choose three people we both trust as honest individuals. We each put up $10 000 with a trusted holder ... perhaps a lawyer, who can draw up papers to make it iron-clad.

Then I present my evidence that what I said was true: in my case, that I was a participant in a voting rights project for Black people during Freedom Summer, in 1964, going around to Black homes in a rural area persuading them to register to vote.

The three people we both trust examine the evidence that I'll present. If they decide I'm lying, as Joe asserts, Joe gets my $10 000. If they decide I'm telling the truth, I get Joe's $10 000.

What could be fairer?

But of course, Joe already, by now, knows I must be telling the truth. He's not man enough to admit he was wrong. And of course, he doesn't want to lose his money, since he knows I'd win. So ... wiggle wiggle wiggle.

A liar and a coward. His political beliefs are superficial. It's character that counts.

And I want, once again, to make sure people on my side -- the Right -- know that this man is NOT typical of Leftists. I've known many brave and honest people on the Left. [My partner during our voter registration work was one: a brilliant mathematician and physicist (an undergraduate at the time but he went on to get his PhD and do research in radiation therapy), he remained a hard-core Marxist all his life, moving from Maoism to something more sensible (although still wrong). A good man. ]

There are many good people on the Left. This person just happens not to be one of them.

Hey, if you're on the Left, and you think Joe is to be trusted, why not urge him to take up my offer? Let's get a few dozen signatures of Leftists who think he should grab this $10 000.

Of course, if you think that, unfortunately, your side has a nasty piece of work in your ranks here, then don't do anything. (And not to worry, my side has such people as well.)

 

[Hector12]

I think Scott Adams' remarks were poorly chosen. When discussing racial differences one should avoid speaking in terms of absolute categories. To say "blacks are a hate group" states that all blacks belong to this hate group. This is obviously not true. I have known blacks who liked me even though (or even because) I am white.

When discussing racial differences one should speak in terms of tendencies, averages, and facts that can be documented.

I never suspected Scott Adams of being a Trump supporter or any kind of a Republican.

I always saw him as a kind of a leftist. The targets of his satire were not big government, high taxes, and lazy government bureaucrats. His targets were alienating environments in the private sector, imperious bosses, and over paid business executives.

By making comments that were almost certain to get him cancelled, and his career destroyed Scott Adams empowered those who want to prohibit any criticism of the black race at all.

 

[TheParser]

Mr. Adams did not have to say out loud what many wary Americans already practice whenever they are walking down the street or taking public transportation or seeking a restaurant or movie theater.

Many African Americans (really!) and Asian Americans and Caucasian Americans and Hispanic Americans already try their best to keep away from certain "dangerous" folks.

 

[Doug1943]

I think Scott Adams' remarks were poorly chosen. When discussing racial differences one should avoid speaking in terms of absolute categories. To say "blacks are a hate group" states that all blacks belong to this hate group. This is obviously not true. I have known blacks who liked me even though (or even because) I am white.

When discussing racial differences one should speak in terms of tendencies, averages, and facts that can be documented.

I never suspected Scott Adams of being a Trump supporter or any kind of a Republican.

I always saw him as a kind of a leftist. The targets of his satire were not big government, high taxes, and lazy government bureaucrats. His targets were alienating environments in the private sector imperious bosses, and over paid business executives.

By making comments that were almost certain to get him cancelled, and his career destroyed Scott Adams empowered those who want to prohibit any criticism of the black race at all.

I think you're right. (But your last words, re "criticism of the black race", were, like Adams', poorly chosen. We shouldn't see races, or tribes, as monolithic. It's the job of patriots in America to unite everyone, regardless of race, religion, whatever, in an attempt to save republican government. Criticize Black leftists, fine. But not all Blacks are leftists. Only racists think that Blacks cannot arrive at political opinions the same way that whites do -- whatever that is.)

Scott Adams is not unique. He was critical of corporate capitalism for many years. Then, corporate capitalism went 'woke'. He didn't follow. So he finds himself among a large number of people who are not 'woke', some of whom were -- and some of whom still are -- on the Left.

But the Leftist Thought Police are merciless. Just as under Stalin, it was Communist Party members who actually suffered most during the Purges, so under our 'woke' punishers, people who are otherwise on the Left are singled out for special hatred.

And we could find similar behavior among the Christians 500 years ago.

 

[JoeB131]

For those who are interested, when Joe says "fake hippy Doug" what he means is that my mention of the fact that I was active in the Civil Rights movement in the 60s is, according to him, a lie. (I was never a 'hippy' nor did I ever say I was. However, I was a member of the hard Left.)

Sure you were... and you were at Woodstock and played Ping Pong with the Chinese champion... and, no, that was Forrest Gump.

You'd have to be about 80 years old to be what you are, and it's not credible.

What could be fairer?

Uh, not getting involved with deranged stalkers, and you are definitely a deranged stalker, Fake Hippy Doug.

And I want, once again, to make sure people on my side -- the Right -- know that this man is NOT typical of Leftists. I've known many brave and honest people on the Left. [My partner during our voter registration work was one: a brilliant mathematician and physicist (an undergraduate at the time but he went on to get his PhD and do research in radiation therapy), he remained a hard-core Marxist all his life, moving from Maoism to something more sensible (although still wrong). A good man. ]

That's because I'm not a leftist, Fake Hippy Doug. I'm a pragmatist. If the right has the best solutions, I will totally get behind them. If the left has the best solutions, I'll get behind that.

But when someone tells me he was involved in the Civil Rights movement 60 years ago, but today he's totally down with what Doug Adams (The poster child for white fragility) is babbling about getting the hell away from Black people, I just have to laugh.

 

[JoeB131]

I think you're right. (But your last words, re "criticism of the black race", were, like Adams', poorly chosen. We shouldn't see races, or tribes, as monolithic. It's the job of patriots in America to unite everyone, regardless of race, religion, whatever, in an attempt to save republican government. Criticize Black leftists, fine. But not all Blacks are leftists. Only racists think that Blacks cannot arrive at political opinions the same way that whites do -- whatever that is.)

Except blacks are the problem. sure you have a few guys who go a bit too far like Farakhan.

I'm sure that there are a few Uncle Toms telling you what you want to hear, like Candace Owens babbling about how murderous other black people are.

But the reality is, we kind of need to address the underlying problems of racism, poverty, lack of treatment programs, if we are serious about solving crime.

Scott Adams is not unique. He was critical of corporate capitalism for many years. Then, corporate capitalism went 'woke'. He didn't follow. So he finds himself among a large number of people who are not 'woke', some of whom were -- and some of whom still are -- on the Left.

Yes, I remember "Woke" under it's original title, "Not being a racist douchenoodle".

But the Leftist Thought Police are merciless. Just as under Stalin, it was Communist Party members who actually suffered most during the Purges, so under our 'woke' punishers, people who are otherwise on the Left are singled out for special hatred.

And we could find similar behavior among the Christians 500 years ago.

So comparing these three things...

1) Getting burned at the stake for being a heretic.
2) Being sent the Gulag and Shot for being on the wrong side of a power struggle
3) Nobody wants to run your comic anymore because you are a racist twit and haven't been funny in years.

I don' know anyone who would put #3 on the same moral plane as 1 & 2.

The ironic thing is that papers have been discontinuing Dilbert for years, because Adams has been leaking this kind of crap into his comic for years. It's just nobody notices because nobody actually reads newspapers anymore.


Here's what I found to be the most telling thing. Nearly every political cartoonist or satirist who made fun of the issue portrayed Dilbert the way he was drawn 10 years ago, with the tie that curves upwards at the end. In fact, Adams stopped drawing his character that way about a decade ago to reflect the current state of business casual and probably because it was easier to draw.

 

[Doug1943]

Okay, great!

Sure you were... and you were at Woodstock and played Ping Pong with the Chinese champion... and, no, that was Forrest Gump.

You'd have to be about 80 years old to be what you are, and it's not credible.



Uh, not getting involved with deranged stalkers, and you are definitely a deranged stalker, Fake Hippy Doug.


That's because I'm not a leftist, Fake Hippy Doug. I'm a pragmatist. If the right has the best solutions, I will totally get behind them. If the left has the best solutions, I'll get behind that.

But when someone tells me he was involved in the Civil Rights movement 60 years ago, but today he's totally down with what Doug Adams (The poster child for white fragility) is babbling about getting the hell away from Black people, I just have to laugh.

Okay, great!!! But when you stop laughing, think about the incredible offer I'm making to you!

We choose three people that we both trust. (I'll probably come up with people on the Left, by the way.) We both put up $10 000 to a third party, making sure it's all legal and documented etc.

I submit my evidence that I was active in the Civil Rights movement 60 years ago ... in particular, in the 1964 'Freedom Summer' voter registration drive in the South.

They consider my evidence, They can interrogate me, follow up anything I've given them, whatever they need.

If I'm lying, it will be easy to show that. Then ... YOU COLLECT MY TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS!!!

Guy, what are you waiting for???????????? $10 000 dollars, taken out of the hands of a horrible old right wing racist lying Nazi (according to you). Or, if I then refuse to put my money in the hands of a trusted third party, you've really exposed me ... how humiliating it will be.

Why don't you do it?

I keep offering you this golden opportunity.

And you keep evading it. You just say over and over, "You're lying".

Really, I don't understand it. Or rather, I have two theories:

(1) You know I've caught you. You know I wouldn't dare make this offer, unless I was confident I could prove what I've said is true. I really was there. So of course you're not going to put $10 000 into my hands. And you're too much of a coward to admit you're wrong.

(2) Contrary to all appearances, you're a kind, charitable, person. You don't want to deprive even a horrible rightwinger of his money. (Okay, I admit this is a bit far-fetched. But it's the only other explanation I can come up with.)

If anyone else is reading this, could you please jump in and vote on why you think Joe won't take me up on my offer: I'll tabulate your votes as we go along.

(1) He knows he's lying. He knows I'm telling the truth.... [ ]

(2) He's kind and generous. ......................................................... [ ]

(3) Some other reason (explain here:_________________________

Liberals, progressives, socialists, communists: tell Joe to call my bluff!!! Think of it! $10 000 that could go to BLM, AntiFa, whatever deserving cause you choose! Taken away from a horrible old Rightwinger!!! The chance of a lifetime!

 

[JoeB131]

Okay, great!!! But when you stop laughing, think about the incredible offer I'm making to you!

You mean your wonderful offer to stalk me? Frankly, dude, I have more than my required number of USMB stalkers, but if there is an opening, I will truly let you know. Just leave a resume with my assistant.

You seem awfully sensitive that someone isn't buying your bullshit.