Zone1 The Whole Story On What Scott Adams Said

[Lisa558]

So far, no white liberal dares answer the question. But let's wait a few more hours.

My prediction: we won't get one straight answer, either way. Of course, they would feel relief. But they're afraid to say they would.

On the other hand, if they said, "Oh no, I'd react the same way if the people behind me were Black," they know there would be a gale of laughter from everyone which might sweep them out of their chair.

So I predict we will not get one single straight answer.

I really hate that this website automatically capitalizes Black and lower-cases white, thus sending a subtle message that blacks are more deserving of an honorific and respect than whites.

 

[Lisa558]

Truth be told I did not pay them much mind at all other than the ones I had under my charge in prison....Believe me when I say the 70s/80s era black convicts were better than most of the blacks on the street today.

Yes Sir, I knew for dead certain that The Halfrican's "beer summit" was the beginning of the end of black/white relations in the US and it's gone down-hill ever since......Prove me wrong.

You worked in a prison? Yeeks.

I think Obama is behind the scenes, pulling the strings to complete the “transformation” he threatened us with, with his racist wife encouraging him every step of the way.

 

[Doug1943]

I really hate that this website automatically capitalizes Black and lower-cases white, thus sending a subtle message that blacks are more deserving of an honorific and respect than whites.

Well ... I think it's complicated. 'Whites' are, despite what Black nationalists would say, not quite the coherent, self-aware group that Blacks are.

Perhaps we should use the phrases 'European Americans' and 'African Americans'. Of course, American whites are not really 'European' and American Blacks are not really African in their cultures, but it would put everyone on an equal footing. But it would be a pain to spell out each time.

And, by the way, in my case anyway, that's just the way I spell the words, following what seems to be the national convention. And I suspect Black militants would say it's a costless concession, meant to shield whites from making any real ones.

 

[Doug1943]

Ha! I was just about to to tell the story about you-know-who about you-know-what, but I will…..to quote America’s favorite bigot….”stifle myself!”

It's a wonderful "gotcha" trap for the pious politically-correct. If any uncharacteristically-brave liberal dares to reply, I'll give the relevant link. In the meantime ... it's our secret! But I suspect I won't have to.

 

[Lisa558]

Well ... I think it's complicated. 'Whites' are, despite what Black nationalists would say, not quite the coherent, self-aware group that Blacks are.

Perhaps we should use the phrases 'European Americans' and 'African Americans'. Of course, American whites are not really 'European' and American Blacks are not really African in their cultures, but it would put everyone on an equal footing. But it would be a pain to spell out each time.

And, by the way, in my case anyway, that's just the way I spell the words, following what seems to be the national convention. And I suspect Black militants would say it's a costless concession, meant to shield whites from making any real ones.

I do like the idea of EAs and AAs, even though as you point out, it’s not accurate in either situation. It does “equitize” things, as leftists want to do.

 

[Lisa558]

It's a wonderful "gotcha" trap for the pious politically-correct. If any uncharacteristically-brave liberal dares to reply, I'll give the relevant link. In the meantime ... it's our secret! But I suspect I won't have to.

Liberals are well known for their hypocrisy.

My neighbor, a self-proclaimed bleeding heart liberal, argued with me that we should allow “undocumented immigrants” (her phrase, obviously) unfettered access to the country since, and again I quote, “they are decent people who are only seeking a better life.”

Well. All hell broke loose when the neighbor on her other side decided to move and rent out his house. She went around, door to door, trying to get a petition up to block renters from moving in - even going so far as to go before the HOA - and when I asked her what the issue was, she told me “renters lower the caliber of the neighborhood.”

The hypocrisy is surreal.

 

[JoeB131]

Generally, Blacks don't like whites, and whites fear Blacks. Scott Adams just said out loud what everyone knows.

Here's a test for the latter assertion: you're walking down a dark street at night, hear footsteps behind you, turn around, and feel a sense of relief see that the people behind you are white. [Lisa! Don't spoil this!]

Well, it would depend. If it was a big scary white biker dude with spider web tats on his elbows, I would probably still be nervous.
If it was a skinny black kid with coke-bottle glasses wearing business casual carrying a bunch of books, I probably wouldn't be.

Two questions to white liberals: would YOU feel this way? And, does feeling this way in these circumstances, make someone a racist?

Not necessarily. If the ONLY factor you were considering was their race, and not how they were dressed, what they were doing out there, their physicality, then yes, that would be racist.

I've asked this question many times in various forums, and only once has a white liberal been willing to answer. (She said 'yes' -- anyone who feels that way is a racist. She didn't answer about how she would feel though.)

and then if they say it would, you blurt out that Jesse Jackson made this comment once so that makes it okay, somehow.

 

[Flash]

 

[JoeB131]

Liberals are well known for their hypocrisy.

My neighbor, a self-proclaimed bleeding heart liberal, argued with me that we should allow “undocumented immigrants” (her phrase, obviously) unfettered access to the country since, and again I quote, “they are decent people who are only seeking a better life.”

Well. All hell broke loose when the neighbor on her other side decided to move and rent out his house. She went around, door to door, trying to get a petition up to block renters from moving in - even going so far as to go before the HOA - and when I asked her what the issue was, she told me “renters lower the caliber of the neighborhood.”

Not sure what the hypocrisy is, exactly. Renters don't care about their property. They don't own it. The whole purpose belonging to a HOA is that everyone is invested in their property and maintains the same level of upkeep.

Up until 2021, I lived in a Condo association that slowly became majority rentals. (We were eventually bought out by a property management company). You could see the quality of the complex decline as we got more and more renters. More visits by the police, more garbage being strewn, more people ignoring rules on pets before everyone declared their dog an "emotional support animal" and the lawns were filled with dog droppings.

Almost all these people were legal US Residents, as far as I knew. Immigration status wasn't the problem here.

The next place I bought into, I made sure they had a resident occupancy rule.

 

[JoeB131]

I really hate that this website automatically capitalizes Black and lower-cases white, thus sending a subtle message that blacks are more deserving of an honorific and respect than whites.

Wait. Checking.

blacks

whites

Nope, no automatic capitalization.

So is this like the scary posters at the mall or the books during black history month?

 

[JoeB131]

In promoting its poll results, which depressingly found that most Americans think Black people can be racist, Rasmussen Reports used the headline “Not ‘Woke’ Yet? Most Voters Reject Anti-White Beliefs.” Get it? To be “woke” is to be anti-white. No polling organization that would make such an assertion should be given any attention when it attempts to analyze American race relations.

I think it depends on how you define racism.

If you define racism as the institutional system of preferences for the majority, then yes, black people can't be racist because they don't have the institutional power.

If you define racism as irrationally hating people of other races, then yes, they can be. We see that every time a thug beats up an elderly Asian woman for funsies.

 

[Doug1943]

Liberals are well known for their hypocrisy.

My neighbor, a self-proclaimed bleeding heart liberal, argued with me that we should allow “undocumented immigrants” (her phrase, obviously) unfettered access to the country since, and again I quote, “they are decent people who are only seeking a better life.”

Well. All hell broke loose when the neighbor on her other side decided to move and rent out his house. She went around, door to door, trying to get a petition up to block renters from moving in - even going so far as to go before the HOA - and when I asked her what the issue was, she told me “renters lower the caliber of the neighborhood.”

The hypocrisy is surreal.

You may have heard the phrase, "Everyone is a conservative about the field in which he is an expert."

Or, more to the point, the late Joe Sobran's observation that the point of a university education in America was to teach white students how very very wonderful racial minorities are, and to allow them to earn enough money to live as far away from these minorities as possible.

And although Asian Americans are generally liberal, when it comes to their own children ... oh my ... they become, in the charming words of one liberal here, 'Christian white supremacists':
[ Wai Wah Chin Reflects on New York’s Parent Revolt | City Journal ]

 

[JoeB131]

You may have heard the phrase, "Everyone is a conservative about the field in which he is an expert."

Or, more to the point, the late Joe Sobran's observation that the point of a university education in America was to teach white students how very very wonderful racial minorities are, and to allow them to earn enough money to live as far away from these minorities as possible.

And although Asian Americans are generally liberal, when it comes to their own children ... oh my ... they become, in the charming words of one liberal here, 'Christian white supremacists':

You are using the racist City Journal as a source?

 

[Doug1943]

Well, it would depend. If it was a big scary white biker dude with spider web tats on his elbows, I would probably still be nervous.
If it was a skinny black kid with coke-bottle glasses wearing business casual carrying a bunch of books, I probably wouldn't be.



Not necessarily. If the ONLY factor you were considering was their race, and not how they were dressed, what they were doing out there, their physicality, then yes, that would be racist.


and then if they say it would, you blurt out that Jesse Jackson made this comment once so that makes it okay, somehow.

Yes. Jesse Jackson, at that point, wasn't trying to wriggle out of recognizing the reality. He didn't have to twist and turn and invent situations which went counter to what we all know is true: if all you saw were some white people, instead of some Black people -- without the time to look for tattoes, or weigh them -- just random whites as opposed to random Blacks, he said, he would feel a sense of relief.

Just like I would and just like you would. He could get away with saying it, of course. And ... he recognized that this is a real problem, and not one which is the fault of white people. He felt a sense of shame for feeling that way. He wants to do something about the Black underclass, and good for him.

You ought to ask yourself why you can't admit that.

Or maybe you have: you claim that if all you knew was their race, and that they were white instead of Black, that you -- presumably as a virtuous warrior against racism -- would not feel relieved. You apparently would feel the same way if they were Black. Uh-huh.

Oh, how I wish we had reliable polygraphs we could hook up to our computers!!!

Here's a better test, for real 'racism'. You live in a highrise apartment building in New York. You call for the elevator to take you down, it comes from a higher level, the door opens and there are three young Black men (and no one else) inside.

If they're your neighbor's sons, known to you, and you are still reluctant to get in, that's racism. If you have never seen them before, that's not.

We all know this is the case. But we are becoming like the old Soviet Union, where everyone had to repeat things that everyone knew were lies.

And: Black people KNOW that white people feel this way, whether or not they admit it's justified.

So they know that liberals lie, and, on this issue at least, us horrible old rightwingers just tell the brutal truth. And ... if someone lies to you about one thing, you should expect them to lie to you about other things.

 

[Doug1943]

You are using the racist City Journal as a source?

City Journal is not racist. You didn't even read the article. But of course to people like you, everything is racist. Or you will say it is, because you have no commitment to honesty in political debate.

For honest liberals (and for everyone, really), please have a look at City Journal. See for yourself whether what this Commissar is saying is true. And then remember: if they lie about one thing, they'll lie about others.

[ City Journal ]

Go on. Find just one article there of which a reasonable, honest person would say, "This is racist".

 

[JoeB131]

Hey, buddy, the cleaner called, they've pressed your brownshirts, but they can't get the soot stains out of your robes.

Yes. Jesse Jackson, at that point, wasn't trying to wriggle out of recognizing the reality. He didn't have to twist and turn and invent situations which went counter to what we all know is true: if all you saw were some white people, instead of some Black people -- without the time to look for tattoes, or weigh them -- just random whites as opposed to random Blacks, he said, he would feel a sense of relief.

Again, racists love to take that Jackson quote out of context. The entire speech was a call to address crime.

Just like I would and just like you would. He could get away with saying it, of course. And ... he recognized that this is a real problem, and not one which is the fault of white people. He felt a sense of shame for feeling that way. He wants to do something about the Black underclass, and good for him.

He was saying it to his own community. It's just like you can talk about how your signifigant other has gained some weight, but if someone calls her fat, I would hope you'd be man enough to do something about it.

Or maybe you have: you claim that if all you knew was their race, and that they were white instead of Black, that you -- presumably as a virtuous warrior against racism -- would not feel relieved. You apparently would feel the same way if they were Black. Uh-huh.

Um exactly who are these generic black people you speak of who have no other distinguishing characteristics other than being black?

Here's a better test, for real 'racism'. You live in a highrise apartment building in New York. You call for the elevator to take you down, it comes from a higher level, the door opens and there are three young Black men (and no one else) inside.

I wouldn't live in a high rise in New York. But to use your example.

If they were three black guys in business suits, carrying brief cases, I probably wouldn't have an issue.
If it were three teens with their pants halfway down their asses, I might wait for the next car.
If it were three white dudes with with leather jackets, long scraggly hair and tatoos on their necks, I would wait for the next car.

The point is, there are so many factors I would take into account- age, dress, actions, hair, but all you want to see is the race.

City Journal is not racist. You didn't even read the article. But of course to people like you, everything is racist. Or you will say it is, because you have no commitment to honesty in political debate.

I read the first paragraph, which is more time than I normally give the modern equivalent to "Der Sturmer"

 

[Doug1943]

Hey, buddy, the cleaner called, they've pressed your brownshirts, but they can't get the soot stains out of your robes.



Again, racists love to take that Jackson quote out of context. The entire speech was a call to address crime.


He was saying it to his own community. It's just like you can talk about how your signifigant other has gained some weight, but if someone calls her fat, I would hope you'd be man enough to do something about it.



Um exactly who are these generic black people you speak of who have no other distinguishing characteristics other than being black?



I wouldn't live in a high rise in New York. But to use your example.

If they were three black guys in business suits, carrying brief cases, I probably wouldn't have an issue.
If it were three teens with their pants halfway down their asses, I might wait for the next car.
If it were three white dudes with with leather jackets, long scraggly hair and tatoos on their necks, I would wait for the next car.

The point is, there are so many factors I would take into account- age, dress, actions, hair, but all you want to see is the race.


I read the first paragraph, which is more time than I normally give the modern equivalent to "Der Sturmer"

It's wonderful to watch liberals rationalize their 'racism', ie the statistical generalizations that every single person reading this makes about race, age, and sex.

Jesse Jackson was telling the truth: anyone with a brain has a fear reflex in that situation if they see they're being followed by Blacks. Now, he could have made it more specific: we all know he didn't mean three elderly Black women. But since everyone knew what he was talking about, he didn't have to.

But let's spell it out: age is a factor, sex is a factor, race is a factor. We cannot help but generalize on our own experiences, and the experiences of others about which we learn. Younger people are more violent than older people, men are more violent than women, Blacks are more violent than whites, who are more violent than Asians.

But here's a problem. English grammar does not require 'quantifiers' in order for a sentence to be perceived as gramatical.

So when I say "Males are more violent than females", do I mean "Every male is more violent than any female?" or ... "On average, taken at random, a male is more likely to be more violent than a female taken at random."

It's obvious what's meant, but I suppose very stupid people could be confused, and of course very dishonest people -- like our white-guilt-liberal friends in this instance-- will deliberately, knowingly confuse things.

(Logic treachers sometimes illustrate the problem of missing quantifiers with the following trap, when teaching simple syllogisms:

"All men are mortal."
"Socrates is a man."
Therefore?

but then comes the trap, referring to an American names James who lives in Paris:
"Americans live in America."
"James is an American."
Therefore .... )

What went wrong was the missing quantifier, "Some" or "Most", modifying "Americans" in the first premise.

So, when discussing men and women, young people and old people, one race and another ... you leave out your quantifiers at your peril.

So the statement "Chinese people score higher on IQ tests than Caucasians" is not true for every Chinese person and every Caucasian. It's only true "on average" -- likely to be true for the average Chinese person vs the average Caucasian (or has been true for the subsets of those populations who take IQ tests). (This is independent of the validity/predictive power of IQ tests, which is another issue.)

But our liberal friends are not interested in getting at the truths about crime in America, or the problems of the Black population. They have a religious belief -- that is, one for which there is no conceivable evidence that could refute it -- and they'll do and say anything in pursuit of that belief.

These people are the spiritual descendants of those Leftists in the 1930s who decided that a genuine, popular, truly democratic socialist state was being built in the Soviet Union -- and who engaged in every sort of mental gymnastic to justify their belief, and bat away contrary evidence.

And ... let's give them this: somewhere, at the bottom of this mental dishonesty, is an impulse which was/is not ignoble. The Stalin-apologists of 80 years ago were genuinely concerned about mass unemployment, which didn't exist in the Soviet Union; were genuinely concerned about the rise of fascism, which the Soviets opposed -- for example in Spain while the capitalist democracies stood aside.

And our liberal logic-twisters are genuinely -- we must believe -- concerned about the terrible plight of the bottom half of Black America: those without a college degree. It's just that by telling this bottom half, "There is nothing in your behavior you need to change. Whites are just racist towards you, for no reason. ", they are doing the worst possible service to the objects of their concern.

But there's no arguing with religious people about their faith. We just have to recognize that, with or without any Jesuitical rationalization, they will violate any and all rules of honest behavior, honest debate, in its pursuit.

Oh yes. As for my connection with the KKK. There acutally almost was one, nearly sixty years ago, during Freedom Summer when I was registering Blacks to vote in Fayette County, Tennessee.

I don't know if they were actually KKK members, but I was chased by some very angry whites, twice, once in a car (both of us), and once on foot (me, with them in a vehicle) ... but God looks after His idiots, and I managed to avoid any physical contact with them, once through fast driving and the other time through fast broken-field running.

So today my contempt for little liberal white boys shrieking "racist! racist!" is ... hard to verbalize. But I would help them trans themselves, if they're not already 'cut'.

 

[Lisa558]

Hey, buddy, the cleaner called, they've pressed your brownshirts, but they can't get the soot stains out of your robes.



Again, racists love to take that Jackson quote out of context. The entire speech was a call to address crime.


He was saying it to his own community. It's just like you can talk about how your signifigant other has gained some weight, but if someone calls her fat, I would hope you'd be man enough to do something about it.



Um exactly who are these generic black people you speak of who have no other distinguishing characteristics other than being black?



I wouldn't live in a high rise in New York. But to use your example.

If they were three black guys in business suits, carrying brief cases, I probably wouldn't have an issue.
If it were three teens with their pants halfway down their asses, I might wait for the next car.
If it were three white dudes with with leather jackets, long scraggly hair and tatoos on their necks, I would wait for the next car.

The point is, there are so many factors I would take into account- age, dress, actions, hair, but all you want to see is the race.


I read the first paragraph, which is more time than I normally give the modern equivalent to "Der Sturmer"

If you were walking along a city street alone at dark and a black guy were following you, your odds of becoming a victim of crime are substantially higher than if a white guy were following you.

It‘s basic statistics.

 

[Lisa558]

It's wonderful to watch liberals rationalize their 'racism', ie the statistical generalizations that every single person reading this makes about race, age, and sex.

Jesse Jackson was telling the truth: anyone with a brain has a fear reflex in that situation if they see they're being followed by Blacks. Now, he could have made it more specific: we all know he didn't mean three elderly Black women. But since everyone knew what he was talking about, he didn't have to.

But let's spell it out: age is a factor, sex is a factor, race is a factor. We cannot help but generalize on our own experiences, and the experiences of others about which we learn. Younger people are more violent than older people, men are more violent than women, Blacks are more violent than whites, who are more violent than Asians.

But here's a problem. English grammar does not require 'quantifiers' in order for a sentence to be perceived as gramatical.

So when I say "Males are more violent than females", do I mean "Every male is more violent than any female?" or ... "On average, taken at random, a male is more likely to be more violent than a female taken at random."

It's obvious what's meant, but I suppose very stupid people could be confused, and of course very dishonest people -- like our white-guilt-liberal friends in this instance-- will deliberately, knowingly confuse things.

(Logic treachers sometimes illustrate the problem of missing quantifiers with the following trap, when teaching simple syllogisms:

"All men are mortal."
"Socrates is a man."
Therefore?

but then comes the trap, referring to an American names James who lives in Paris:
"Americans live in America."
"James is an American."
Therefore .... )

What went wrong was the missing quantifier, "Some" or "Most", modifying "Americans" in the first premise.

So, when discussing men and women, young people and old people, one race and another ... you leave out your quantifiers at your peril.

So the statement "Chinese people score higher on IQ tests than Caucasians" is not true for every Chinese person and every Caucasian. It's only true "on average" -- likely to be true for the average Chinese person vs the average Caucasian (or has been true for the subsets of those populations who take IQ tests). (This is independent of the validity/predictive power of IQ tests, which is another issue.)

But our liberal friends are not interested in getting at the truths about crime in America, or the problems of the Black population. They have a religious belief -- that is, one for which there is no conceivable evidence that could refute it -- and they'll do and say anything in pursuit of that belief.

These people are the spiritual descendants of those Leftists in the 1930s who decided that a genuine, popular, truly democratic socialist state was being built in the Soviet Union -- and who engaged in every sort of mental gymnastic to justify their belief, and bat away contrary evidence.

And ... let's give them this: somewhere, at the bottom of this mental dishonesty, is an impulse which was/is not ignoble. The Stalin-apologists of 80 years ago were genuinely concerned about mass unemployment, which didn't exist in the Soviet Union; were genuinely concerned about the rise of fascism, which the Soviets opposed -- for example in Spain while the capitalist democracies stood aside.

And our liberal logic-twisters are genuinely -- we must believe -- concerned about the terrible plight of the bottom half of Black America: those without a college degree. It's just that by telling this bottom half, "There is nothing in your behavior you need to change. Whites are just racist towards you, for no reason. ", they are doing the worst possible service to the objects of their concern.

But there's no arguing with religious people about their faith. We just have to recognize that, with or without any Jesuitical rationalization, they will violate any and all rules of honest behavior, honest debate, in its pursuit.

Oh yes. As for my connection with the KKK. There acutally almost was one, nearly sixty years ago, during Freedom Summer when I was registering Blacks to vote in Fayette County, Tennessee.

I don't know if they were actually KKK members, but I was chased by some very angry whites, twice, once in a car (both of us), and once on foot (me, with them in a vehicle) ... but God looks after His idiots, and I managed to avoid any physical contact with them, once through fast driving and the other time through fast broken-field running.

So today my contempt for little liberal white boys shrieking "racist! racist!" is ... hard to verbalize. But I would help them trans themselves, if they're not already 'cut'.

My contempt for little liberal white boys shrieking “racist! racist!” is only surpassed by my contempt for antisemitic little liberal whites boys shrieking “Racist! racist!” while simultaneously spewing their disdain for Jews.

You’ve been conversing with one, in case you don’t know.

 

[Doug1943]

My contempt for little liberal white boys shrieking “racist! racist!” is only surpassed by my contempt for antisemitic little liberal whites boys shrieking “Racist! racist!” while simultaneously spewing their disdain for Jews.

You’ve been conversing with one, in case you don’t know.

I did not know. Is that really so? Usually, genuine anti-Black racism and anti-Semitism go together. On this subject, I just read something today, I think it was on a NYC website about education, which pointed out that lowering the number of whites at elite schools (state schools) by stopping merit-based admissions in favor of race-based admissions ... in practice means lowering the number of Jews. To the extent there are any white kids left in places like Bronx Science, as opposed to Asian kids, they're overwhelmingly Jewish.