Subscribe
Notify of
guest

151 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Peter Johnson
Peter Johnson
1 year ago

I guess I don’t understand why it is obvious that he should be cancelled – but no one is calling for the cancellation of the many professional anti-white racists who routinely denigrate white people and actively call for segregated spaces. I do think that the social justice movement may have some outcomes that weren’t intended – the chief one being creating a real white nationalist movement.

Thomas K.
Thomas K.
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter Johnson

On some level I think it was intended, even if unconsciously. After all you can’t fight a war without an opposing side, and it’s very hard to stoke a race war in a society that was by-and-large the least racist on the planet.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Thomas K.

Canada has long been less racist overall, partly due to its more homogenous population. Many say the UK is less racist. When you write “was” and “by-and-large” what period are you talking about and why?
I don’t think there has ever been a time when self-congratulatory exceptionalism was warranted on US race relations, not during our best year (1865? 1965?). That said, there’s been a great deal of progress over time–though not without steps backward, like our current national mood–and there’s enough opportunity and liberty for everyone if we can find more mutual common cause across all these effin’ fault lines and largely cooked up barriers of race, class, and culture.

Thomas K.
Thomas K.
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Well I myself am Canadian, and I’m commenting on a British newspaper, but I was speaking of the West more broadly overall over the past century and half or so. For all the examples of terrible racism, one needs to put it in perspective. After all, discrimination and bigotry based on race is still very much the norm across most of the world, only in the West is it largely considered something bad. The only thing unique about Western Europe’s relationship with slavery, a concept so endemic to human civilization as to be almost inseparable, was that they were the first to find a problem with it on solely moral grounds. In fact the main reason slavery is largely relegated to being a historical concept (and great pains are taken to call the few modern examples something different) was that for much of the 1800s the British Empire strolled around the globe wielding the world’s biggest stick and politely asking everyone to do away with it, and they weren’t afraid to stick that stick where the Sun don’t shine if they got a ‘no’ in response.

Although the United States has had a bit more of a checkered history on this than Canada or Britain, I think we need to give credit where credit is do and remember just how many brave men fought and died in what is still the bloodiest war in American history specifically to end race-based chattel slavery. The very fact we’re having this conversation as a society should be proof of the progress we’ve made, and how much that progress is under threat.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Thomas K.

I agree with your follow-up remarks. But you did specify the US and say “on the planet”. I’m a Canada-born dual citizen by the way, and I know the Great White North is not free from the general human taint of bigotry, especially against First Nations Peoples, to use the latest Canadian nomenclature.
When people say the say US is racist it’s fair to reply: Yes, but not only, and compared to where?
But in my view you’re putting it a bit mildly when you say “a bit more of a checkered history”. Massive progress has been made but huge parts of whole groups feel largely excluded in America, especially black and Indigenous people. Are they just delusional? (Please don’t just say “yes!”). We haven’t had our big Conversation on Race yet: it’s been mostly a shouting/crying match and silent treatment affair.
Maybe we never will have that true reckoning or healing. But we need to try to extend the benefit of the doubt even when it is not (or doesn’t seem to be) extended to us. Golden Rule. I hope there won’t be too many people of any color or creed that claim they were “forced” into a race war, or who use their own resentment to help worsen the current “cold-shoulder war” in America. It’s not enough to insist that “they” (whoever “they” are) get over it without a more courageous effort and committed attempt at going through it.

Last edited 1 year ago by AJ Mac
Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

The various riots of the late 1960s resulted in many middle class people moving out of the city centres. The American education system compared to Switzerland, South Korea, Singapore or the top end of British, is poor. Consequently, those living within the inner cities do not achieve the grades to enter MIT, Stanford , etc to read STEM subjects
Also the vocational training is poor which means the inner city workforce cannot enter well paid advanced manufacturing. Switzerland produces high value goods such as watches because it has the skilled workforce. When one is operating at this technical level cost of land, energy, materials and even labour are of little consequence.Switzerland has ETH- Zurich. If the USA had the same standard of technical education as Switzerland it would have 35 MITs.
In 1953 South Korea was poorer than Ghana. Look at it now. Singapore, South Korea and Japan have few natural resources and land is expensive. However, 70 years of unrelenting education in science and technology means they have a workforce who can produce high value technically advanced goods. Detroit was very wealthy in 1953, look at it now.
Booker T Washington said the progress of the coloured people depended upon education and entrepreneurship.

Kat L
Kat L
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

I’m old and can never remember a time since the 70’s where there hasn’t been a constant ‘conversation’ about our past, a wholly one sided conversation.

Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

The various riots of the late 1960s resulted in many middle class people moving out of the city centres. The American education system compared to Switzerland, South Korea, Singapore or the top end of British, is poor. Consequently, those living within the inner cities do not achieve the grades to enter MIT, Stanford , etc to read STEM subjects
Also the vocational training is poor which means the inner city workforce cannot enter well paid advanced manufacturing. Switzerland produces high value goods such as watches because it has the skilled workforce. When one is operating at this technical level cost of land, energy, materials and even labour are of little consequence.Switzerland has ETH- Zurich. If the USA had the same standard of technical education as Switzerland it would have 35 MITs.
In 1953 South Korea was poorer than Ghana. Look at it now. Singapore, South Korea and Japan have few natural resources and land is expensive. However, 70 years of unrelenting education in science and technology means they have a workforce who can produce high value technically advanced goods. Detroit was very wealthy in 1953, look at it now.
Booker T Washington said the progress of the coloured people depended upon education and entrepreneurship.

Kat L
Kat L
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

I’m old and can never remember a time since the 70’s where there hasn’t been a constant ‘conversation’ about our past, a wholly one sided conversation.

Kat L
Kat L
1 year ago
Reply to  Thomas K.

Good comment but the soldiers fought for union not to end slavery. Why do you think Lincoln waited two years on emancipation? You have to think in 1859 terms and attitudes not 2023.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Thomas K.

I agree with your follow-up remarks. But you did specify the US and say “on the planet”. I’m a Canada-born dual citizen by the way, and I know the Great White North is not free from the general human taint of bigotry, especially against First Nations Peoples, to use the latest Canadian nomenclature.
When people say the say US is racist it’s fair to reply: Yes, but not only, and compared to where?
But in my view you’re putting it a bit mildly when you say “a bit more of a checkered history”. Massive progress has been made but huge parts of whole groups feel largely excluded in America, especially black and Indigenous people. Are they just delusional? (Please don’t just say “yes!”). We haven’t had our big Conversation on Race yet: it’s been mostly a shouting/crying match and silent treatment affair.
Maybe we never will have that true reckoning or healing. But we need to try to extend the benefit of the doubt even when it is not (or doesn’t seem to be) extended to us. Golden Rule. I hope there won’t be too many people of any color or creed that claim they were “forced” into a race war, or who use their own resentment to help worsen the current “cold-shoulder war” in America. It’s not enough to insist that “they” (whoever “they” are) get over it without a more courageous effort and committed attempt at going through it.

Last edited 1 year ago by AJ Mac
Kat L
Kat L
1 year ago
Reply to  Thomas K.

Good comment but the soldiers fought for union not to end slavery. Why do you think Lincoln waited two years on emancipation? You have to think in 1859 terms and attitudes not 2023.

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

If America was so bloody racist, why do people of all colors and creeds risk life and limb to get here? You would think it would be the other way round?

Peter Johnson
Peter Johnson
1 year ago
Reply to  Warren Trees

I do think the ‘compared to where?’ question is legitimate to ask. Especially when we are told our country (Canada in my case) is now claiming to be systematically racist – to have committed genocide, etc. China is committing actual genocide right now, Brazil has actual atrocities being committed against indigenous peoples, slavery exists in many places in the world. Our obsession with self flagellation and fake narratives takes focus off of these problems – which may in fact be the entire point of it.

Jeff Hansen
Jeff Hansen
1 year ago
Reply to  Warren Trees

Well said. More black people have voluntarily emigrated to America than were brought here as slaves. What is missing often in discourse is comparisons of the real world. What countries are less racist and more attractive for someone who is black?

Peter Johnson
Peter Johnson
1 year ago
Reply to  Warren Trees

I do think the ‘compared to where?’ question is legitimate to ask. Especially when we are told our country (Canada in my case) is now claiming to be systematically racist – to have committed genocide, etc. China is committing actual genocide right now, Brazil has actual atrocities being committed against indigenous peoples, slavery exists in many places in the world. Our obsession with self flagellation and fake narratives takes focus off of these problems – which may in fact be the entire point of it.

Jeff Hansen
Jeff Hansen
1 year ago
Reply to  Warren Trees

Well said. More black people have voluntarily emigrated to America than were brought here as slaves. What is missing often in discourse is comparisons of the real world. What countries are less racist and more attractive for someone who is black?

T M
T M
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

I’ve never heard anyone claim that the US’s best year for race relations was 1965, let alone the 1800s.
In the post civil-rights era, racism was condemned throughout mainstream culture. The current backsliding, which seemed to begin around 2014 or so, stems from the progressives deciding to unravel the core principle that led to the success of the civil rights movement — equal treatment at the level of the individual. The progressive establishment is now implementing anti-white racism in all aspects of public life. They seek to obscure this with word games and other tactics because they fear voters would disapprove (a majority of all races do) and because they know their actions are illegal and unconstitutional. The Supreme Court is the only institution that could, at least partially and temporarily, stem the tide. Even if the Court garners the courage to speak forcefully in favor of equality (doubtful), the progressive establishment has no respect for the law. The law is what they think it is. They can always find new ways to lie about and obscure what they are doing, and they are so confident of their moral purity and righteousness that no democratic, legal, or moral principles will stand in their way.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  T M

You don’t think the year the Civil War ended (1865, for those in doubt) was a benchmark against racism in America? 1965 represents the passing of the second Civil Rights Act, ending legal discrimination according to race and Southern segregation. (There was also a 1964 Civil Rights Act, and I’m not gonna pretend I know more than I do by bothering to check which is which, but voting rights were involved too–think that was ’64).
I don’t know how old you are or who you’ve listened to but I would have thought you could relate to and identify both of those dates, whether in agreement or not.
I agree that the (worst subset of) progressives have inflamed racial backsliding, especially since about ten years ago, as you stated. But your complete vilification, even demonization of those you disagree with is too convenient, and a major mistake. Don’t believe everything you think, especially when you are not even thinking it on your own, man. Good luck.

Last edited 1 year ago by AJ Mac
AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  T M

You don’t think the year the Civil War ended (1865, for those in doubt) was a benchmark against racism in America? 1965 represents the passing of the second Civil Rights Act, ending legal discrimination according to race and Southern segregation. (There was also a 1964 Civil Rights Act, and I’m not gonna pretend I know more than I do by bothering to check which is which, but voting rights were involved too–think that was ’64).
I don’t know how old you are or who you’ve listened to but I would have thought you could relate to and identify both of those dates, whether in agreement or not.
I agree that the (worst subset of) progressives have inflamed racial backsliding, especially since about ten years ago, as you stated. But your complete vilification, even demonization of those you disagree with is too convenient, and a major mistake. Don’t believe everything you think, especially when you are not even thinking it on your own, man. Good luck.

Last edited 1 year ago by AJ Mac
Thomas K.
Thomas K.
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Well I myself am Canadian, and I’m commenting on a British newspaper, but I was speaking of the West more broadly overall over the past century and half or so. For all the examples of terrible racism, one needs to put it in perspective. After all, discrimination and bigotry based on race is still very much the norm across most of the world, only in the West is it largely considered something bad. The only thing unique about Western Europe’s relationship with slavery, a concept so endemic to human civilization as to be almost inseparable, was that they were the first to find a problem with it on solely moral grounds. In fact the main reason slavery is largely relegated to being a historical concept (and great pains are taken to call the few modern examples something different) was that for much of the 1800s the British Empire strolled around the globe wielding the world’s biggest stick and politely asking everyone to do away with it, and they weren’t afraid to stick that stick where the Sun don’t shine if they got a ‘no’ in response.

Although the United States has had a bit more of a checkered history on this than Canada or Britain, I think we need to give credit where credit is do and remember just how many brave men fought and died in what is still the bloodiest war in American history specifically to end race-based chattel slavery. The very fact we’re having this conversation as a society should be proof of the progress we’ve made, and how much that progress is under threat.

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

If America was so bloody racist, why do people of all colors and creeds risk life and limb to get here? You would think it would be the other way round?

T M
T M
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

I’ve never heard anyone claim that the US’s best year for race relations was 1965, let alone the 1800s.
In the post civil-rights era, racism was condemned throughout mainstream culture. The current backsliding, which seemed to begin around 2014 or so, stems from the progressives deciding to unravel the core principle that led to the success of the civil rights movement — equal treatment at the level of the individual. The progressive establishment is now implementing anti-white racism in all aspects of public life. They seek to obscure this with word games and other tactics because they fear voters would disapprove (a majority of all races do) and because they know their actions are illegal and unconstitutional. The Supreme Court is the only institution that could, at least partially and temporarily, stem the tide. Even if the Court garners the courage to speak forcefully in favor of equality (doubtful), the progressive establishment has no respect for the law. The law is what they think it is. They can always find new ways to lie about and obscure what they are doing, and they are so confident of their moral purity and righteousness that no democratic, legal, or moral principles will stand in their way.

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
1 year ago
Reply to  Thomas K.

Well said! It’s like those in Chicago who claim racism, yet everyone in elected office from the Mayor to the dog catcher is black and after America elected a mixed race president, twice! This, in an America where the population is still only 13% black.

Zeph Smith
Zeph Smith
1 year ago
Reply to  Warren Trees

Not “still” 13% Black as if that is growing (or shrinking). That proportion seems fairly stable; Black and white women both have a reproduction rate of about 1.5 (compared to the 2.1 needed for stable population). Both populations comprise slowly shrinking portions of the total population. The nation is closer to steady population only because of massive immigration and other population groups with higher reproduction rates.
Latinos were a tiny portion of the US when I was young, but now outnumber Blacks by 50% and rising. They and Asians get less publicity, but are quietly increasing influence.
I think that’s a good thing, by the way. I live in a state in which Latinos are the largest population group, and I do not see them as being the major drivers of the problems of this state; I think their votes and their values will help the state and the nation, on balance.
My main point is that Blacks in the US are not becoming a larger portion of the population, but are slowly shrinking just like whites. And that’s OK; the US is more of an idea than a genetic lineage.
Many of the immigrants understand the value proposition of the US better than many of the native born, who take too much for granted due to their insular experiences. If those who understand the idea take up the torch, that’s fine with me.

Kat L
Kat L
1 year ago
Reply to  Zeph Smith

America is not just an idea, that is nonsense. Our ancestors who settled the country and instilled the laws and culture were English. And no, many immigrants are here for economic purposes. They care little about our history or culture and their descendants have a habit of glomming onto grievances that they themselves have not suffered. No surprise because we don’t require assimilation. No one is going to fight and die for an idea.

Kat L
Kat L
1 year ago
Reply to  Zeph Smith

America is not just an idea, that is nonsense. Our ancestors who settled the country and instilled the laws and culture were English. And no, many immigrants are here for economic purposes. They care little about our history or culture and their descendants have a habit of glomming onto grievances that they themselves have not suffered. No surprise because we don’t require assimilation. No one is going to fight and die for an idea.

Zeph Smith
Zeph Smith
1 year ago
Reply to  Warren Trees

Not “still” 13% Black as if that is growing (or shrinking). That proportion seems fairly stable; Black and white women both have a reproduction rate of about 1.5 (compared to the 2.1 needed for stable population). Both populations comprise slowly shrinking portions of the total population. The nation is closer to steady population only because of massive immigration and other population groups with higher reproduction rates.
Latinos were a tiny portion of the US when I was young, but now outnumber Blacks by 50% and rising. They and Asians get less publicity, but are quietly increasing influence.
I think that’s a good thing, by the way. I live in a state in which Latinos are the largest population group, and I do not see them as being the major drivers of the problems of this state; I think their votes and their values will help the state and the nation, on balance.
My main point is that Blacks in the US are not becoming a larger portion of the population, but are slowly shrinking just like whites. And that’s OK; the US is more of an idea than a genetic lineage.
Many of the immigrants understand the value proposition of the US better than many of the native born, who take too much for granted due to their insular experiences. If those who understand the idea take up the torch, that’s fine with me.

Robbie K
Robbie K
1 year ago
Reply to  Thomas K.

Of course. The underlying goal of wokeness is not solving equality or equity, it’s more wokeness, and what better to feed that than more division and hatred?

Zeph Smith
Zeph Smith
1 year ago
Reply to  Robbie K

I was struck by one of those “ask people on both sides a question” videos, which asked something along the lines of what’s your most positive vision for the future, what we should be striving to create? Moderates and conservatives tended to emphasize peace, freedom, prosperity and cooperation (whatever their differences on the best path to get there). Progressive activists tended to dream of a world of conflict in which they hold all the winning cards and almost always win.
That’s when I grokked that for many progressive activists, their reward centers are wired for perpetual moral conflict, white hats against black hats, with one’s own side winning and crushing their evil opponents – rather than envisioning a world of relative peace and cooperation. They might occassionally mention that in passing, but imagining it doesn’t get their juices going. It’s the conflict they live for, which gives meaning to their lives. The humdrum work of forging win/win compromises in order to govern “for everyone” is boring, compared to owing your enemies in righteous battle.
The term “social justice warriors” is more salient than I had originally realized.
I also observe that these progressives tend to be bad at dealing constructively with internal conflict. All fangs, no fur. Well, there is some degree of intra-tribal empathy, but the tribal unit keeps getting subdivided. Their toolset is much better at deconstructing, than at constructing. If they were to win and destroy the whitecisheteropatriarchy, I predict immediate warfare between the victors, unable to de-escalate their internal fractures. That’s predictable from having their reward centers wired to eternal conflict and to motivated reasoning as to why their tribe always has the moral high ground in any conflict. There is no legitimate different perspective in their minds.
And of course these are generalized trends at best, and there will be exceptions. Or perhaps something will happen to bring the progressives back to planet earth in coming decades. I am not greatly optimistic tho.

Last edited 1 year ago by Zeph Smith
Zeph Smith
Zeph Smith
1 year ago
Reply to  Robbie K

I was struck by one of those “ask people on both sides a question” videos, which asked something along the lines of what’s your most positive vision for the future, what we should be striving to create? Moderates and conservatives tended to emphasize peace, freedom, prosperity and cooperation (whatever their differences on the best path to get there). Progressive activists tended to dream of a world of conflict in which they hold all the winning cards and almost always win.
That’s when I grokked that for many progressive activists, their reward centers are wired for perpetual moral conflict, white hats against black hats, with one’s own side winning and crushing their evil opponents – rather than envisioning a world of relative peace and cooperation. They might occassionally mention that in passing, but imagining it doesn’t get their juices going. It’s the conflict they live for, which gives meaning to their lives. The humdrum work of forging win/win compromises in order to govern “for everyone” is boring, compared to owing your enemies in righteous battle.
The term “social justice warriors” is more salient than I had originally realized.
I also observe that these progressives tend to be bad at dealing constructively with internal conflict. All fangs, no fur. Well, there is some degree of intra-tribal empathy, but the tribal unit keeps getting subdivided. Their toolset is much better at deconstructing, than at constructing. If they were to win and destroy the whitecisheteropatriarchy, I predict immediate warfare between the victors, unable to de-escalate their internal fractures. That’s predictable from having their reward centers wired to eternal conflict and to motivated reasoning as to why their tribe always has the moral high ground in any conflict. There is no legitimate different perspective in their minds.
And of course these are generalized trends at best, and there will be exceptions. Or perhaps something will happen to bring the progressives back to planet earth in coming decades. I am not greatly optimistic tho.

Last edited 1 year ago by Zeph Smith
AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Thomas K.

Canada has long been less racist overall, partly due to its more homogenous population. Many say the UK is less racist. When you write “was” and “by-and-large” what period are you talking about and why?
I don’t think there has ever been a time when self-congratulatory exceptionalism was warranted on US race relations, not during our best year (1865? 1965?). That said, there’s been a great deal of progress over time–though not without steps backward, like our current national mood–and there’s enough opportunity and liberty for everyone if we can find more mutual common cause across all these effin’ fault lines and largely cooked up barriers of race, class, and culture.

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
1 year ago
Reply to  Thomas K.

Well said! It’s like those in Chicago who claim racism, yet everyone in elected office from the Mayor to the dog catcher is black and after America elected a mixed race president, twice! This, in an America where the population is still only 13% black.

Robbie K
Robbie K
1 year ago
Reply to  Thomas K.

Of course. The underlying goal of wokeness is not solving equality or equity, it’s more wokeness, and what better to feed that than more division and hatred?

Cathy Carron
Cathy Carron
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter Johnson

The current ‘race moment’ is not so much about racism and not so much about power, but rather about money. We’re experiencing The Second Official National Shakedown for Reparations, the first being the 1960’s Civil Rights Movement which concluded with Democrat President LBJ signing legislation to hand over billions of dollars of welfare and advantages (affirmative action) to the black community. However, as time moves on – we’re now 158 years out from the end of the American Civil War – it is getting increasingly difficult to convince a population that never owned slaves to hand over money to people who never were slaves. Of course, this craven idea is totally ludicrous, however in order for the Democrats to retain power, it is imperative that they sacrifice the national cohesion in order to cater to the black population, 90% of which vote for Democrats.

Last edited 1 year ago by Cathy Carron
Thomas K.
Thomas K.
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter Johnson

On some level I think it was intended, even if unconsciously. After all you can’t fight a war without an opposing side, and it’s very hard to stoke a race war in a society that was by-and-large the least racist on the planet.

Cathy Carron
Cathy Carron
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter Johnson

The current ‘race moment’ is not so much about racism and not so much about power, but rather about money. We’re experiencing The Second Official National Shakedown for Reparations, the first being the 1960’s Civil Rights Movement which concluded with Democrat President LBJ signing legislation to hand over billions of dollars of welfare and advantages (affirmative action) to the black community. However, as time moves on – we’re now 158 years out from the end of the American Civil War – it is getting increasingly difficult to convince a population that never owned slaves to hand over money to people who never were slaves. Of course, this craven idea is totally ludicrous, however in order for the Democrats to retain power, it is imperative that they sacrifice the national cohesion in order to cater to the black population, 90% of which vote for Democrats.

Last edited 1 year ago by Cathy Carron
Peter Johnson
Peter Johnson
1 year ago

I guess I don’t understand why it is obvious that he should be cancelled – but no one is calling for the cancellation of the many professional anti-white racists who routinely denigrate white people and actively call for segregated spaces. I do think that the social justice movement may have some outcomes that weren’t intended – the chief one being creating a real white nationalist movement.

hayden eastwood
hayden eastwood
1 year ago

This whole episode has irritated me for the following reasons:
— The real story here is that almost 50% of black Americans surveyed are openly racist and believe that it is not acceptable to possess an immutable characteristic that people are born with. Yet the media has focussed on the reaction to this reality rather than the reality itself.
— The survey contains a question asking whether a whole ethnic group is acceptable. What would the reaction be if a questionnaire asked, “Is it okay to be deaf”, or “is it okay to be short”, or is it “okay to be gay”? That such a question has become legitimate to ask at all (at least when concerning having white skin) shows the extent to which double-standards have become so enforced, and so taken for granted, that debate about the double standard itself is now not even considered acceptable.
— Adams’ chief crime was not to couch his beliefs in the right words. His claims are in substance indistinguishable from those made by Social Justice Warriors. Had he talked of “Whites not disturbing black people in their safe spaces” or some other such nonsense, rather than, “White people need to get the hell away”, his statement would have been so banal and commonplace that it wouldn’t have garnered so much as a single retweet.
— The fact that the points above have escaped the media and the chattering classes at large shows that this group are now so infected by this double-think mind virus that their brains have almost entirely turned to porridge.

Post-note:
I have listened to Adams’ alleged crimes now. In my view he does go a little too far when he says that people ought to “get the hell away from blacks”. It would have been, in my view, entirely reasonable had he simply added the caveat that he was referring to that proportion of them who are hostile to him.
Perhaps this meaning can be assumed from the context of the video, but, in a world of lazy thinking and openly hostile offence takers, it is always better to be as exact as you can be when expressing yourself.
Still, that no such nuance, or caveats, or context, was remotely considered by any of the media establishments who cancelled him, does not reflect well on them, particularly as those same outlets all too often enforce the very racial thinking they then bemoan.

Last edited 1 year ago by hayden eastwood
Derek Smith
Derek Smith
1 year ago

Which is one of the reasons the 4chan-ers chose ‘It’s OK to be white’ as the phrase to draw out the progressive crazies, and why the response of the progressive crazies is to associate that phrase with the ‘far right’ in order to hide the fact that they think it’s not OK to be white.

Andrew Stuart
Andrew Stuart
1 year ago
Reply to  Derek Smith

There has never been nor will ever be a more scalpel-like troll than ‘It’s OK to be white’. On the face of it it is utterly banal and inoffensive. It is the bare minimum you’d expect for ‘common humanity’ folk. But because the progressives didn’t invent it themselves, because it came from an suspicious source, it forces the progressive to either deny a basic truth or agree with the enemy on at least one basic thing. Agreement is anathema – only an ocean can separate the pure from the damned – so explicit white self hatred is the only play.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew Stuart

You identity it as a trolling ploy then claim it as a revelatory litmus test. Of course many US blacks are racist; so are many US whites.
Asking if it is OK to be white in a generalized way is not the same as: Do you dislike white people as a group? That would tell you far more about who is openly racist. The fact that nearly half of those polled said “whiteness” is not OK ain’t a great sign, granted. But even a more openhearted black person in America will have some experience with individual or institutional racism, like family members serving long sentences for crimes that white criminals are less likely to go down hard for a long time on. So white people considered in the broad abstract may not seem OK, or at least “A-OK” even to blacks who have very little racism in their hearts. Right?
Why not ask the implied question point blank: Do you hate white folks as a group or because of their whiteness alone? The claim that the other question reveals the same thing via its insinuating trick is bullshit.

Last edited 1 year ago by AJ Mac
Julian Farrows
Julian Farrows
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

You’re overthinking it.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Julian Farrows

You’re underthinking it, in front of a favorably disposed digital crowd. The whole thing is an absurdity from the way the question was posed, to the histrionic outburst of Scott Adams, to those geared-up reactionaries and militia types who now claim their racist or segregationist stances have been forced upon them.
It’s definitely a tempest in a teapot, but it’s part of a poisonous brew and I didn’t stir it up myself. I only made the error of wading into a lost cause board that is heavy with self-congratulatory loud-agreement from extreme, far right or lunatic fringe commenters–that’s not directed at you in particular, as I see more balance and thoughtfulness in your remarks overall.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Julian Farrows

You’re underthinking it, in front of a favorably disposed digital crowd. The whole thing is an absurdity from the way the question was posed, to the histrionic outburst of Scott Adams, to those geared-up reactionaries and militia types who now claim their racist or segregationist stances have been forced upon them.
It’s definitely a tempest in a teapot, but it’s part of a poisonous brew and I didn’t stir it up myself. I only made the error of wading into a lost cause board that is heavy with self-congratulatory loud-agreement from extreme, far right or lunatic fringe commenters–that’s not directed at you in particular, as I see more balance and thoughtfulness in your remarks overall.

Julian Farrows
Julian Farrows
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

You’re overthinking it.

Alan Girling
Alan Girling
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew Stuart

That’s what I think may have motivated some or many of the blacks who disagreed. They don’t actually believe it’s not okay to be white. They believe it’s not okay to say so, given the loaded white supremacy subtext.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Alan Girling

Excellent point.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Silent downvoters: What would the percentage be if the insinuated question were posed directly?
You only admit implied or guilty-until-proven-innocent racism when it’s used against nonwhites?

Michael Coleman
Michael Coleman
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

You keep missing the point. In our supposedly anti-black racist society it’s Ok to be openly anti-white racist but not the opposite. You can try all you want to explain it away but it’s proof that if we have systemic racism it is not the direction claimed

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago

It is so far from proof of what you want it to prove, but you won’t entertain anything approaching a balanced view. Yes, it is considered more ok to to be openly anti-white by some–and that’s wrong, I agree. But the question is tainted. If 1,000 random whites were asked to agree or disagree with the statement “Black Lives Matter” would the results be a true tally of anti-black racism among whites?

Aidan Trimble
Aidan Trimble
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

No, but it would get an accurate figure of the number of people that see BLM for exactly what it is.

Zeph Smith
Zeph Smith
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

“Black Lives Matter” is a highly covered topic, known to virtually the entire English speaking world and beyond, and with multiple well known interpretations – as a simple statement that nobody much disagrees with, as an organization which has had public problems, and as a vague movement. With that much exposure, controversy, and known complexity, it’s not a simple question.
“It’s OK to be White” by contrast has far less confusion. I read and view a lot on the internet, but had no association of that phrase with white supremacy. I suspect that those with that association comprise a very small portion of the overall population. Most would interpret it plainly read (like whether the lives of Black people matter, as that other question would have been interpreted before the organization).
Have you seen the video of Black people answering the question “what are white people good at?”. Look for it if you haven’t.
I think that’s more what the plain reading of “is it ok to be white?” would be looking for, and how it would be read by most people without any association with white supremacy.
Scott interpreting the answer as indication “hate” is unjustified. Actual hatred is a stronger antipathy then just not ratifying something being “OK”. Interpreting the poll as indicating some kind(s) of widespread negativity towards white people may be a more reasonable question.
A more nuanced poll would be much more informative.

Aidan Trimble
Aidan Trimble
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

No, but it would get an accurate figure of the number of people that see BLM for exactly what it is.

Zeph Smith
Zeph Smith
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

“Black Lives Matter” is a highly covered topic, known to virtually the entire English speaking world and beyond, and with multiple well known interpretations – as a simple statement that nobody much disagrees with, as an organization which has had public problems, and as a vague movement. With that much exposure, controversy, and known complexity, it’s not a simple question.
“It’s OK to be White” by contrast has far less confusion. I read and view a lot on the internet, but had no association of that phrase with white supremacy. I suspect that those with that association comprise a very small portion of the overall population. Most would interpret it plainly read (like whether the lives of Black people matter, as that other question would have been interpreted before the organization).
Have you seen the video of Black people answering the question “what are white people good at?”. Look for it if you haven’t.
I think that’s more what the plain reading of “is it ok to be white?” would be looking for, and how it would be read by most people without any association with white supremacy.
Scott interpreting the answer as indication “hate” is unjustified. Actual hatred is a stronger antipathy then just not ratifying something being “OK”. Interpreting the poll as indicating some kind(s) of widespread negativity towards white people may be a more reasonable question.
A more nuanced poll would be much more informative.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago

It is so far from proof of what you want it to prove, but you won’t entertain anything approaching a balanced view. Yes, it is considered more ok to to be openly anti-white by some–and that’s wrong, I agree. But the question is tainted. If 1,000 random whites were asked to agree or disagree with the statement “Black Lives Matter” would the results be a true tally of anti-black racism among whites?

Michael Coleman
Michael Coleman
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

You keep missing the point. In our supposedly anti-black racist society it’s Ok to be openly anti-white racist but not the opposite. You can try all you want to explain it away but it’s proof that if we have systemic racism it is not the direction claimed

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Silent downvoters: What would the percentage be if the insinuated question were posed directly?
You only admit implied or guilty-until-proven-innocent racism when it’s used against nonwhites?

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Alan Girling

Excellent point.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew Stuart

You identity it as a trolling ploy then claim it as a revelatory litmus test. Of course many US blacks are racist; so are many US whites.
Asking if it is OK to be white in a generalized way is not the same as: Do you dislike white people as a group? That would tell you far more about who is openly racist. The fact that nearly half of those polled said “whiteness” is not OK ain’t a great sign, granted. But even a more openhearted black person in America will have some experience with individual or institutional racism, like family members serving long sentences for crimes that white criminals are less likely to go down hard for a long time on. So white people considered in the broad abstract may not seem OK, or at least “A-OK” even to blacks who have very little racism in their hearts. Right?
Why not ask the implied question point blank: Do you hate white folks as a group or because of their whiteness alone? The claim that the other question reveals the same thing via its insinuating trick is bullshit.

Last edited 1 year ago by AJ Mac
Alan Girling
Alan Girling
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew Stuart

That’s what I think may have motivated some or many of the blacks who disagreed. They don’t actually believe it’s not okay to be white. They believe it’s not okay to say so, given the loaded white supremacy subtext.

Andrew Stuart
Andrew Stuart
1 year ago
Reply to  Derek Smith

There has never been nor will ever be a more scalpel-like troll than ‘It’s OK to be white’. On the face of it it is utterly banal and inoffensive. It is the bare minimum you’d expect for ‘common humanity’ folk. But because the progressives didn’t invent it themselves, because it came from an suspicious source, it forces the progressive to either deny a basic truth or agree with the enemy on at least one basic thing. Agreement is anathema – only an ocean can separate the pure from the damned – so explicit white self hatred is the only play.

Lorna Dobson
Lorna Dobson
1 year ago

When 13% of a population wields so much power as to displace the right to free speech for the other 87%, we can no longer call ourselves a “democracy”. Apparently the First Amendment is just a joke.

Jim M
Jim M
1 year ago
Reply to  Lorna Dobson

The multi-racial society is a disaster and not just in the United States. Groups of people can get along together until they can’t. That’s when some race-baiter comes along and tries to get power for themselves by pitting one groups against another. Multi-racial societies are artificial constructs that our ancestors were not evolved to deal with.

Zeph Smith
Zeph Smith
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim M

I don’t think the problem is with multi-racial societies; I think it’s with the ideology of anti-integrationist multi-culturalism. In practice, many people already inhabit a local multi-racial subset of society where people get along fairly well – being for example middle class folks with similar values, who have a lot of common ground. For example, in some areas I see Black and white parents standing shoulder to shoulder against problems in schools.
But when we talk about racial tensions, many of them are really cultural tensions – cultures with different values and lenses failing to find enough common ground. “Race” is often a proxy for culture. A lot of educated middle class Black people have real conflict with, say, inner city Black culture as well. And a lot of middle class white people are far from comfortable with Appalachian back country culture.
When a Black kid is being shamed for “acting white”, it’s really about acting middle class – which their peers associate with white people. It’s not about them acting in a way typical of white rednecks. And the way they are acting is similar to successful middle class Black folks – study, work hard, get ahead. “Acting white” is not about becoming white, it’s about moving into the middle class, and leaving some others behind thereby.
The US was founded as a pluralistic society, and welcomed more people from around the world who had similar values, than much of any other nation. A nation of immigrants. But that worked relatively better (with some real problems to be sure), when the goal was to integrate with the mainstream, shed their former allegiances and historic feuds, and identify instead primarily as an American. Along with the cancerous overgrowth of anti-ethnocentricism and self-criticism in today’s society, came the idea that everybody who is not white should disdain mainstream American culture in favor of their own conflicting culture, which would be insulted if asked to adapt. And quite a few Black Americans embraced that “separate and not equal but superior” framework as the path to empowerment.
The problem is, by de-emphasizing anything about commonalities and shared humanity and instead highlighting differnces and struggles between cultural walled gardens of tribal identity, the incentives to cooperate and collaborate on a shared project of society have greatly diminished. It’s every tribe for themselves. Well, that’s the bottom line, but progressive activist want to forge a coalition of all non-white people versus all white people, intermittantly replacing the latter with “all white people – except some especially woke white people whom we’ll allow to be sorta on our side, tho never fully accepted”. POC, BIPOC, BAME – all ways of trying to pretend that non-white people have more in common with each other, and should ally to bring down white culture. But that movement would tear itself to shreds if it did gain power, if it abolished white people. It’s all fangs and claws, not much fur and purrs. It deconstructs, but is bad at constructing functioning systems. Organization which try to embrace that ideology run into massive internal conflict with no end in sight.
Anyway, none of this is inherent in “race”. It’s inherent in anti-assimilationist multiculturalism (with or without race). And it also shows up along racial lines to significant degree – but not entirely.

Zeph Smith
Zeph Smith
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim M

I don’t think the problem is with multi-racial societies; I think it’s with the ideology of anti-integrationist multi-culturalism. In practice, many people already inhabit a local multi-racial subset of society where people get along fairly well – being for example middle class folks with similar values, who have a lot of common ground. For example, in some areas I see Black and white parents standing shoulder to shoulder against problems in schools.
But when we talk about racial tensions, many of them are really cultural tensions – cultures with different values and lenses failing to find enough common ground. “Race” is often a proxy for culture. A lot of educated middle class Black people have real conflict with, say, inner city Black culture as well. And a lot of middle class white people are far from comfortable with Appalachian back country culture.
When a Black kid is being shamed for “acting white”, it’s really about acting middle class – which their peers associate with white people. It’s not about them acting in a way typical of white rednecks. And the way they are acting is similar to successful middle class Black folks – study, work hard, get ahead. “Acting white” is not about becoming white, it’s about moving into the middle class, and leaving some others behind thereby.
The US was founded as a pluralistic society, and welcomed more people from around the world who had similar values, than much of any other nation. A nation of immigrants. But that worked relatively better (with some real problems to be sure), when the goal was to integrate with the mainstream, shed their former allegiances and historic feuds, and identify instead primarily as an American. Along with the cancerous overgrowth of anti-ethnocentricism and self-criticism in today’s society, came the idea that everybody who is not white should disdain mainstream American culture in favor of their own conflicting culture, which would be insulted if asked to adapt. And quite a few Black Americans embraced that “separate and not equal but superior” framework as the path to empowerment.
The problem is, by de-emphasizing anything about commonalities and shared humanity and instead highlighting differnces and struggles between cultural walled gardens of tribal identity, the incentives to cooperate and collaborate on a shared project of society have greatly diminished. It’s every tribe for themselves. Well, that’s the bottom line, but progressive activist want to forge a coalition of all non-white people versus all white people, intermittantly replacing the latter with “all white people – except some especially woke white people whom we’ll allow to be sorta on our side, tho never fully accepted”. POC, BIPOC, BAME – all ways of trying to pretend that non-white people have more in common with each other, and should ally to bring down white culture. But that movement would tear itself to shreds if it did gain power, if it abolished white people. It’s all fangs and claws, not much fur and purrs. It deconstructs, but is bad at constructing functioning systems. Organization which try to embrace that ideology run into massive internal conflict with no end in sight.
Anyway, none of this is inherent in “race”. It’s inherent in anti-assimilationist multiculturalism (with or without race). And it also shows up along racial lines to significant degree – but not entirely.

Jim M
Jim M
1 year ago
Reply to  Lorna Dobson

The multi-racial society is a disaster and not just in the United States. Groups of people can get along together until they can’t. That’s when some race-baiter comes along and tries to get power for themselves by pitting one groups against another. Multi-racial societies are artificial constructs that our ancestors were not evolved to deal with.

Alan Girling
Alan Girling
1 year ago

Did he go ‘too far’? With nearly 50% of a group declaring themselves hostile, it does seem prudent to avoid 100%. For how is one supposed to distinguish friend from foe? By his logic, no nuance is required.

Jim M
Jim M
1 year ago
Reply to  Alan Girling

It’s as plain as the race on your face. Stay away from non-kin groups.

Jim M
Jim M
1 year ago
Reply to  Alan Girling

It’s as plain as the race on your face. Stay away from non-kin groups.

Richard Craven
Richard Craven
1 year ago

“in a world of lazy thinking and openly hostile offence takers, it is always better to be as exact as you can be when expressing yourself.”
I think it’s better to be openly hostile towards offence takers.

chris sullivan
chris sullivan
1 year ago
Reply to  Richard Craven

no need to be hostile – just point out truths that are inconvenient to their attitude – which of course they would describe as hostile thereby underlying the irrational (and therefore immature) stance they have taken. IE ‘we’ have to analyse ‘their’ points of view for veracity – but usually not reciprocated……Again just best to sit back in a safe and pleasant spot, watch the endless foolishness – and wait till 5pm !

chris sullivan
chris sullivan
1 year ago
Reply to  Richard Craven

no need to be hostile – just point out truths that are inconvenient to their attitude – which of course they would describe as hostile thereby underlying the irrational (and therefore immature) stance they have taken. IE ‘we’ have to analyse ‘their’ points of view for veracity – but usually not reciprocated……Again just best to sit back in a safe and pleasant spot, watch the endless foolishness – and wait till 5pm !

Derek Smith
Derek Smith
1 year ago

Which is one of the reasons the 4chan-ers chose ‘It’s OK to be white’ as the phrase to draw out the progressive crazies, and why the response of the progressive crazies is to associate that phrase with the ‘far right’ in order to hide the fact that they think it’s not OK to be white.

Lorna Dobson
Lorna Dobson
1 year ago

When 13% of a population wields so much power as to displace the right to free speech for the other 87%, we can no longer call ourselves a “democracy”. Apparently the First Amendment is just a joke.

Alan Girling
Alan Girling
1 year ago

Did he go ‘too far’? With nearly 50% of a group declaring themselves hostile, it does seem prudent to avoid 100%. For how is one supposed to distinguish friend from foe? By his logic, no nuance is required.

Richard Craven
Richard Craven
1 year ago

“in a world of lazy thinking and openly hostile offence takers, it is always better to be as exact as you can be when expressing yourself.”
I think it’s better to be openly hostile towards offence takers.

hayden eastwood
hayden eastwood
1 year ago

This whole episode has irritated me for the following reasons:
— The real story here is that almost 50% of black Americans surveyed are openly racist and believe that it is not acceptable to possess an immutable characteristic that people are born with. Yet the media has focussed on the reaction to this reality rather than the reality itself.
— The survey contains a question asking whether a whole ethnic group is acceptable. What would the reaction be if a questionnaire asked, “Is it okay to be deaf”, or “is it okay to be short”, or is it “okay to be gay”? That such a question has become legitimate to ask at all (at least when concerning having white skin) shows the extent to which double-standards have become so enforced, and so taken for granted, that debate about the double standard itself is now not even considered acceptable.
— Adams’ chief crime was not to couch his beliefs in the right words. His claims are in substance indistinguishable from those made by Social Justice Warriors. Had he talked of “Whites not disturbing black people in their safe spaces” or some other such nonsense, rather than, “White people need to get the hell away”, his statement would have been so banal and commonplace that it wouldn’t have garnered so much as a single retweet.
— The fact that the points above have escaped the media and the chattering classes at large shows that this group are now so infected by this double-think mind virus that their brains have almost entirely turned to porridge.

Post-note:
I have listened to Adams’ alleged crimes now. In my view he does go a little too far when he says that people ought to “get the hell away from blacks”. It would have been, in my view, entirely reasonable had he simply added the caveat that he was referring to that proportion of them who are hostile to him.
Perhaps this meaning can be assumed from the context of the video, but, in a world of lazy thinking and openly hostile offence takers, it is always better to be as exact as you can be when expressing yourself.
Still, that no such nuance, or caveats, or context, was remotely considered by any of the media establishments who cancelled him, does not reflect well on them, particularly as those same outlets all too often enforce the very racial thinking they then bemoan.

Last edited 1 year ago by hayden eastwood
Gary Cruse
Gary Cruse
1 year ago

The author overlooks the possibility that Scott is right and that the pendulum may start swinging back away from anti-white sentiment and towards what is forming in the mist … Segregation 2.0.

Last edited 1 year ago by Gary Cruse
Will Longfield
Will Longfield
1 year ago
Reply to  Gary Cruse

Wow

Will Longfield
Will Longfield
1 year ago
Reply to  Gary Cruse

Well, Segregation 2.0 is already happening here in many colleges and universities. One place for Whites and one place for “POC’s”.
As one wag pointed out – it’s the Hispanics and Asians you should feel sorry for. They are desperately trying to get into the White Spaces so they don’t have to spend time locked in rooms with the with the you-know-who’s … .

Madison Bagley
Madison Bagley
1 year ago
Reply to  Will Longfield

I believe you are only half right. At a university it is still forbidden to have a “white” dorm but perfectly acceptable to have a “black” or “persons of color” dorm with no whites allowed. If blacks want to segregate it is okay, but not if whites want to. Roberts, like him or not, was correct when he said that the best way to stop racial discrimination is to stop discriminating by race. It is a two way street, like it or not.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Madison Bagley

Indeed. And I do like Roberts, though his politics fall to the right of mine, on average. He’s a consensus builder and an incrementalist on a near runaway reverse-activist court.

Last edited 1 year ago by AJ Mac
Warren Trees
Warren Trees
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

The term “activist court” refers to how the left decided to change things outside the democratic process. If you can’t get your way via the ballot box, use the courts. The knife cuts both ways. Yet, Conservatives are labeled as anti-democratic when they employ the left’s strategies. But the left are merely activist.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Warren Trees

Yeah “me and my people mostly good, other side bad!”
If the Supreme Court successfully enacts a “radical conservative” agenda, are you still against using the lever of judicial activism? No. But when your gang does it, the tactics are attributed to the Left. Convenient. The Right played an impressive long game and then got over-rewarded with three justices under one bad president, one unethically seized by stonewalling.
I’d still not be thrilled with a 6-3 conservative court, but I’d rather there were more sensible conservatives like Roberts than “barbarians at the gate!” types like Alito and Thomas or the late Scalia. I don’t think the justices I like less are bad people just a dangerous norm for the court. I wish more true conservatives would see the value in balance and moderation, in conservation and preservation of institutions and sometimes inconvenient values, like Roberts does.

Paul Hendricks
Paul Hendricks
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

If only the depth of thought represented by Justices Alito, Thomas and Coney Barret, and the late Justice Scalia, were the norm!

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul Hendricks

Give me examples of depth of thought from any of those, except Scalia–whose intellectual brilliance I acknowledge. Help me learn.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul Hendricks

Give me examples of depth of thought from any of those, except Scalia–whose intellectual brilliance I acknowledge. Help me learn.

Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

You mean like Herbert Marcuse?

Paul Hendricks
Paul Hendricks
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

If only the depth of thought represented by Justices Alito, Thomas and Coney Barret, and the late Justice Scalia, were the norm!

Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

You mean like Herbert Marcuse?

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Warren Trees

Yeah “me and my people mostly good, other side bad!”
If the Supreme Court successfully enacts a “radical conservative” agenda, are you still against using the lever of judicial activism? No. But when your gang does it, the tactics are attributed to the Left. Convenient. The Right played an impressive long game and then got over-rewarded with three justices under one bad president, one unethically seized by stonewalling.
I’d still not be thrilled with a 6-3 conservative court, but I’d rather there were more sensible conservatives like Roberts than “barbarians at the gate!” types like Alito and Thomas or the late Scalia. I don’t think the justices I like less are bad people just a dangerous norm for the court. I wish more true conservatives would see the value in balance and moderation, in conservation and preservation of institutions and sometimes inconvenient values, like Roberts does.

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

The term “activist court” refers to how the left decided to change things outside the democratic process. If you can’t get your way via the ballot box, use the courts. The knife cuts both ways. Yet, Conservatives are labeled as anti-democratic when they employ the left’s strategies. But the left are merely activist.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Madison Bagley

Indeed. And I do like Roberts, though his politics fall to the right of mine, on average. He’s a consensus builder and an incrementalist on a near runaway reverse-activist court.

Last edited 1 year ago by AJ Mac
Madison Bagley
Madison Bagley
1 year ago
Reply to  Will Longfield

I believe you are only half right. At a university it is still forbidden to have a “white” dorm but perfectly acceptable to have a “black” or “persons of color” dorm with no whites allowed. If blacks want to segregate it is okay, but not if whites want to. Roberts, like him or not, was correct when he said that the best way to stop racial discrimination is to stop discriminating by race. It is a two way street, like it or not.

R Wright
R Wright
1 year ago
Reply to  Gary Cruse

People seemed to have dodged the question he raised. If, assuming the poll reflects reality, a large proportion of black people actively dislike white people, why do they stay around them and not self-segregate? If it isnt them pushing diversity, school bussing etc. then who is?

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
1 year ago
Reply to  R Wright

The funny thing is that after being in a large public setting, I wind up also disliking most white people. 🙂

Last edited 1 year ago by Warren Trees
AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Warren Trees

Dislike is fine. Hatred is corrosive. At least that’s what I tell myself when my “white on white” dislike acts up.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Warren Trees

Dislike is fine. Hatred is corrosive. At least that’s what I tell myself when my “white on white” dislike acts up.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  R Wright

The question is more indirect than that. It does not ask “Do you dislike/hate white people”. I think there would be a much lower percentage that felt that (and even fewer that admitted to it).
Asking, for example, “Is it ok to be a multi-billionaire?” is not identical to “Do you hate the very rich?”

Zeph Smith
Zeph Smith
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

All true. The questions were not well formed, alas. I agree with every criticism of the questions.
But do you think that better formed questions would substantially reverse the conclusion, or just modify it around the edges? That is, did the bad questions just cause some fuzziness around the exact numbers in a basically correctly indicated trend, or did they cause a completely false interpretation which is the opposite of the truth?
I think Adams reframing “not ok” to “hate group” was an unjustified leap.
But if the question was better framed, would it be revealed as true or false to say that there is considerably more antipathy, distrust, hostility, stereotyping, prejudice and negativity from Black Americans towards White Americans, than vice versa (or equal)? And is there a trend towards that division increasing or decreasing?
Those questions cannot be swept under the rug by criticizing the quality of the questions in the poll. We can say that the poll was far from definitive, at best only suggestive. But we cannot conclude that it’s not pointing to anything at all to be concerned about.

Last edited 1 year ago by Zeph Smith
Zeph Smith
Zeph Smith
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

All true. The questions were not well formed, alas. I agree with every criticism of the questions.
But do you think that better formed questions would substantially reverse the conclusion, or just modify it around the edges? That is, did the bad questions just cause some fuzziness around the exact numbers in a basically correctly indicated trend, or did they cause a completely false interpretation which is the opposite of the truth?
I think Adams reframing “not ok” to “hate group” was an unjustified leap.
But if the question was better framed, would it be revealed as true or false to say that there is considerably more antipathy, distrust, hostility, stereotyping, prejudice and negativity from Black Americans towards White Americans, than vice versa (or equal)? And is there a trend towards that division increasing or decreasing?
Those questions cannot be swept under the rug by criticizing the quality of the questions in the poll. We can say that the poll was far from definitive, at best only suggestive. But we cannot conclude that it’s not pointing to anything at all to be concerned about.

Last edited 1 year ago by Zeph Smith
Warren Trees
Warren Trees
1 year ago
Reply to  R Wright

The funny thing is that after being in a large public setting, I wind up also disliking most white people. 🙂

Last edited 1 year ago by Warren Trees
AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  R Wright

The question is more indirect than that. It does not ask “Do you dislike/hate white people”. I think there would be a much lower percentage that felt that (and even fewer that admitted to it).
Asking, for example, “Is it ok to be a multi-billionaire?” is not identical to “Do you hate the very rich?”

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
1 year ago
Reply to  Gary Cruse

It already has. Colleges and corporations all have student groups and employee groups set up by race and sexual preference. Blacks now have their own American flag and their own “history”. Conservatives deplore this development, yet the left embraces it. It’s simply ludicrous in my humble opinion. Especially as a product of the ’60’s and 70’s, where we were taught to integrate. Toss that out the window now.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Warren Trees

I’m mostly in agreement with you. However, I had never noticed or heard of a Black American flag until you mentioned it. I’ve seen a lot of Confederate flags and Lost Cause romanticism. Are you against standing public display of the Confederate flag too?

William Hickey
William Hickey
1 year ago
Reply to  Warren Trees

You got rolled, just admit it.

The same people who told you integration is good now openly discriminate against white men.

The same people who told you that they were Voltairean defenders of free speech and ran campus “teach-ins” now enforce campus speech codes.

Those same people told you that McCarthy was terrible and blacklisting was unAmerican. That we had nothing to fear from a free exchange of ideas. Now they happily ruin you if you profess the wrong ideas.

Those same people told you that the US was a “nation of immigrants.” Now they don’t enforce the borders and bring in more immigrants than ever.

They told you that tariffs and “protectionism” were bad and that free trade was the key to eternal prosperity. Now they kowtow to China and tell you to buy a U-Haul if your job disappears to Asia.

They told you isolationism led to war and was bad, but interventionism was the way to a peaceful world. Now they drain both the treasury and the armories to escalate a European border conflict.

You got rolled. Admit it.

And start fighting back.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  William Hickey

Resurrecting McCarthy? Bad look dude. And so is all your white-nationalist, secessionist-adjacent talk. I guess you can belong to the rabble and still be a rabble rouser. Admit it.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

No denial. Noted.

Paul Hendricks
Paul Hendricks
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

What is “secessionist-adjacent talk” supposed to mean? It sounds like one of those vague but scary-sounding terms you hear on NPR, that can mean whatever the speaker disagrees with or wishes to discredit.

Zeph Smith
Zeph Smith
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Not one of your more laudable responses, AJ.
I’ve noticed that the large majority of arguments that begin with “the same people who…” – by any side – are bogus.
But I’d rather hear you address the flaws in that thinking, than go into playground behavior – name calling and then pretending that lack of response means that you “won”. No it doesn’t.
We can all get triggered. The big divide today is whether we consider getting triggered as a pitfall to take responsibility for and learn to overcome, or a sacred source of power through victimhood.
Try again. Or ignore them. Keep your own reputation. You make some well considered posts which emphasize reasoning; they do you credit.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Zeph Smith

Thanks, Zeph. Can’t argue with you. I appreciate your time and reasonable advice. My subscription ends tomorrow and I’ve decided not to renew it. I’m taking a break after getting overinvolved too often and sometimes as you say triggered, which for me doesn’t usually mean what I’d call self-victimhood, but plenty of outrage and fixation that can be very petty or childish (I wouldn’t say infantile), as shown above.

Last edited 1 year ago by AJ Mac
AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Zeph Smith

Thanks, Zeph. Can’t argue with you. I appreciate your time and reasonable advice. My subscription ends tomorrow and I’ve decided not to renew it. I’m taking a break after getting overinvolved too often and sometimes as you say triggered, which for me doesn’t usually mean what I’d call self-victimhood, but plenty of outrage and fixation that can be very petty or childish (I wouldn’t say infantile), as shown above.

Last edited 1 year ago by AJ Mac
AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

No denial. Noted.

Paul Hendricks
Paul Hendricks
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

What is “secessionist-adjacent talk” supposed to mean? It sounds like one of those vague but scary-sounding terms you hear on NPR, that can mean whatever the speaker disagrees with or wishes to discredit.

Zeph Smith
Zeph Smith
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Not one of your more laudable responses, AJ.
I’ve noticed that the large majority of arguments that begin with “the same people who…” – by any side – are bogus.
But I’d rather hear you address the flaws in that thinking, than go into playground behavior – name calling and then pretending that lack of response means that you “won”. No it doesn’t.
We can all get triggered. The big divide today is whether we consider getting triggered as a pitfall to take responsibility for and learn to overcome, or a sacred source of power through victimhood.
Try again. Or ignore them. Keep your own reputation. You make some well considered posts which emphasize reasoning; they do you credit.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  William Hickey

Resurrecting McCarthy? Bad look dude. And so is all your white-nationalist, secessionist-adjacent talk. I guess you can belong to the rabble and still be a rabble rouser. Admit it.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Warren Trees

I’m mostly in agreement with you. However, I had never noticed or heard of a Black American flag until you mentioned it. I’ve seen a lot of Confederate flags and Lost Cause romanticism. Are you against standing public display of the Confederate flag too?

William Hickey
William Hickey
1 year ago
Reply to  Warren Trees

You got rolled, just admit it.

The same people who told you integration is good now openly discriminate against white men.

The same people who told you that they were Voltairean defenders of free speech and ran campus “teach-ins” now enforce campus speech codes.

Those same people told you that McCarthy was terrible and blacklisting was unAmerican. That we had nothing to fear from a free exchange of ideas. Now they happily ruin you if you profess the wrong ideas.

Those same people told you that the US was a “nation of immigrants.” Now they don’t enforce the borders and bring in more immigrants than ever.

They told you that tariffs and “protectionism” were bad and that free trade was the key to eternal prosperity. Now they kowtow to China and tell you to buy a U-Haul if your job disappears to Asia.

They told you isolationism led to war and was bad, but interventionism was the way to a peaceful world. Now they drain both the treasury and the armories to escalate a European border conflict.

You got rolled. Admit it.

And start fighting back.

Jim M
Jim M
1 year ago
Reply to  Gary Cruse

Good! It’s about time that the euphoria of the ’60’s died a well-deserved death.

Will Longfield
Will Longfield
1 year ago
Reply to  Gary Cruse

Wow

Will Longfield
Will Longfield
1 year ago
Reply to  Gary Cruse

Well, Segregation 2.0 is already happening here in many colleges and universities. One place for Whites and one place for “POC’s”.
As one wag pointed out – it’s the Hispanics and Asians you should feel sorry for. They are desperately trying to get into the White Spaces so they don’t have to spend time locked in rooms with the with the you-know-who’s … .

R Wright
R Wright
1 year ago
Reply to  Gary Cruse

People seemed to have dodged the question he raised. If, assuming the poll reflects reality, a large proportion of black people actively dislike white people, why do they stay around them and not self-segregate? If it isnt them pushing diversity, school bussing etc. then who is?

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
1 year ago
Reply to  Gary Cruse

It already has. Colleges and corporations all have student groups and employee groups set up by race and sexual preference. Blacks now have their own American flag and their own “history”. Conservatives deplore this development, yet the left embraces it. It’s simply ludicrous in my humble opinion. Especially as a product of the ’60’s and 70’s, where we were taught to integrate. Toss that out the window now.

Jim M
Jim M
1 year ago
Reply to  Gary Cruse

Good! It’s about time that the euphoria of the ’60’s died a well-deserved death.

Gary Cruse
Gary Cruse
1 year ago

The author overlooks the possibility that Scott is right and that the pendulum may start swinging back away from anti-white sentiment and towards what is forming in the mist … Segregation 2.0.

Last edited 1 year ago by Gary Cruse
Elliott Bjorn
Elliott Bjorn
1 year ago

The article was sort of like fallowing the track a snail made wandering around on a wall – Seemed to me to just be wanderings…..Maybe the snail meant something by it. Too many allegories stacked on each other gets chaotic I suppose…

But here is it in a nut shell: Some vast Power, lets call it the ‘Elites’, have decided to destroy America, and thus the West, and thus the world as we know it.

As always, first they set out to destroy the family as that is the source of all which is healthy in human society. Now most children are in broken homes or single parents. That Box they can check.

Then you destroy Morality – check that box. (dismantling religion was a key part, the entertainment, Social Media, and education industries – the fatal stroke)

Then you destroy Patriotism so people feel no unity, or duty for their land.

Then you divide the people with hatred. This is the intensely successful process Obama begun; the Created Race Hatred process, that Biden has now fully achieved. You can check that box.

Adams is pointing this last one out – He is a professional at pointing out social flaws. This huge gesture was merely that, because smaller ones were meaningless this late in the game.

This is the End Game for destruction of the West, for Classic Liberalism of the Enlightenment – the kind who built all this which is good, the kind who were writers of the USA Constitution – those values are now, always and everywhere, being destroyed.

Adams made his gesture to point that out.

Stop the endlessly rambling and pondering – it is so Obvious. So easy to see.

Jon Barrow
Jon Barrow
1 year ago
Reply to  Elliott Bjorn

You might see it as the end point or an over-reach of the Enlightenment, which has always carried the idea of blank slate humans (without built-in biological limits), first principles thinking (scrapping whatever exists and starting afresh) and the sovereign individual (shorn of wider family and social obligations). All fine while the general society was stable and conservative, but those principles now dominate. In a sense progressives (the general ‘progressive’ culture) are Enlightenment figures who believe that humans can re-cast themselves, progress equates to improvement and problems are fixable. I believe Chesterton wrote something like ‘the last thing man will make war on is his own nature’ – that nature being a problem-solving hence problem-creating one, therefore a perpetual block in the progressive vision.

AC Harper
AC Harper
1 year ago
Reply to  Jon Barrow

You could have a really good debate about whether today’s ‘progressives’ favour the Enlightenment or not. I suspect that if the Classic Liberals (in the UK) supported the Enlightenment ideas then the Progressives are a resurgence of contra Enlightenment dark Romanticism.
Wikipedia: “Romanticism was characterized by its emphasis on emotion and individualism, clandestine literature, paganism, idealization of nature, suspicion of science and industrialization, as well as glorification of the past with a strong preference for the medieval rather than the classical. It was partly a reaction to the Industrial Revolution, the social and political norms of the Age of Enlightenment, but also the scientific rationalization of nature.”

Paul Nathanson
Paul Nathanson
1 year ago
Reply to  AC Harper

Yes, AC, yes! I’m so glad that someone else has recognized the current cultural civil war as one more battle in an enduring war between the Enlightenment and Romanticism.
Even though I’m very, very fond of the latter as expressed in music, painting, architecture, gardens and literature, I must admit that Romanticism has had a dark side. So has the Enlightenment, of course, when you consider the glorification of reason to the exclusion of anything else that makes us fully human, a flaw that has led not only to repeated rebellions against cultural aridity but also, recently, to the kind of scientism that supports technocracy and bureaucracy more firmly than it supports democracy.
The dark side of Romanticism, at any rate, has led directly to nationalism (as distinct, usually, from ancient notion of patriotism). Worse, it has led by extension to racism and also to other forms of identity politics. These rely on the belief that identity rests on a foundation of innate (genetic and immutable) characteristics, not what Martin Luther King called “the content of one’s character.” In the Romantic context of our time, identity is reducible not only to race or ethnicity but also to sex or “gender” (although trans definitions of the latter are not merely genetic but metaphysical). These new identities have replaced the Marxist notion of “class,” not surprisingly, on the Left.

Paul Nathanson
Paul Nathanson
1 year ago
Reply to  AC Harper

Yes, AC, yes! I’m so glad that someone else has recognized the current cultural civil war as one more battle in an enduring war between the Enlightenment and Romanticism.
Even though I’m very, very fond of the latter as expressed in music, painting, architecture, gardens and literature, I must admit that Romanticism has had a dark side. So has the Enlightenment, of course, when you consider the glorification of reason to the exclusion of anything else that makes us fully human, a flaw that has led not only to repeated rebellions against cultural aridity but also, recently, to the kind of scientism that supports technocracy and bureaucracy more firmly than it supports democracy.
The dark side of Romanticism, at any rate, has led directly to nationalism (as distinct, usually, from ancient notion of patriotism). Worse, it has led by extension to racism and also to other forms of identity politics. These rely on the belief that identity rests on a foundation of innate (genetic and immutable) characteristics, not what Martin Luther King called “the content of one’s character.” In the Romantic context of our time, identity is reducible not only to race or ethnicity but also to sex or “gender” (although trans definitions of the latter are not merely genetic but metaphysical). These new identities have replaced the Marxist notion of “class,” not surprisingly, on the Left.

Jim M
Jim M
1 year ago
Reply to  Jon Barrow

I think your analysis is brilliant. Marxism came out of the Enlightenment and it assumes a blank slate nature for humans in order to work. Creating paradise on Earth is somewhat blasphemous and naive. I would hope most Christians would reject paradise on earth.

Zeph Smith
Zeph Smith
1 year ago
Reply to  Jon Barrow

You touch on one of the questions that I grapple with (somewhat).
Is today’s neo-progressivism a natural and likely outcome of earlier liberalism, or is there a healthy alternative which we failed to take? Is the over-reach something that was nearly inevitable, or a pitfall that could have been reasonably avoided.
I really don’t know. I see a lot of slippery slopes leading here, but how greased were they? For example, a thoughtful reduction in ethnocentricism slides into self hate for one’s own culture. Recognition of emotional abuse as a problem akin to physical abuse slides into “words are violence” and “silence is violence” and the discarding of free speech if it offends somebody (offending == causing unjustified emotional harm). Seeking equal access for the sexes leads into an agenda of destroying the patriarchy, broadly defined. The government prohibiting racial discrimination not just in it’s own realm, but in private businesses and organizations, leads to trying to use government power to fix all perceived unfairness between people, no matter how deeply one must infringe. (Eg: mandated pronouns with criminal penalties)
In these cases I have endorsed & supported the earlier starting point, but I am very concerned about where it wound up going in the decades since. Was I missing the implication from the start, or did our society lose the common sense that could have prevented sliding down every slippery slope into excesses and malignancies?
Any thoughts?

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Zeph Smith

Well-framed reflections. I think what often gets missed, or insufficiently prepared for, is the intrinsic over-corrective potential of corrective efforts. You’ve laid out several examples that I’m in sympathy with: first stage good or even necessary; second stage too extreme. Another wide pendulum swing (simplified): 1) A community rootedness or inherited tradition which led many to follow the views and trades of their fathers, sometimes with little choice 2) A near-default rejection of everything Dad stands for, as not only limiting or not-for-me, but stupid and wrong.
The pendulum needs to and will swing back, but maybe not quickly, and not for every extremist. Your point concerning government involvement is key. We can never simply fix or legislate an end to human conflict, so robust one-to-one engagement with allies and opponents is unavoidable, or only avoided with worse long-term results than ignoring conflict. And passing laws in an effort to forestall nearly every possible human injustice can deny due consideration to individual cases, as well as complexities that may be unforeseen.
Not everyone is as opinionated or disputatious I can be, and I’ve learned (plus am still learning) to accept that. But I’d agree that top-down or legally encoded solutions to human problems should be minimal, because they don’t really work on their own, and they tend to block pathways to resolving problems as they manifest in real life, rather than in social or political theory.
I’d much rather live in this free-for-all (if not Free) American mess than Chinese or Russian society as I perceive it from a distance. (With Canada, my birthplace, I’m more on the fence/border). But maybe that’s because I’m an opinionated and argumentative Westerner.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Zeph Smith

Well-framed reflections. I think what often gets missed, or insufficiently prepared for, is the intrinsic over-corrective potential of corrective efforts. You’ve laid out several examples that I’m in sympathy with: first stage good or even necessary; second stage too extreme. Another wide pendulum swing (simplified): 1) A community rootedness or inherited tradition which led many to follow the views and trades of their fathers, sometimes with little choice 2) A near-default rejection of everything Dad stands for, as not only limiting or not-for-me, but stupid and wrong.
The pendulum needs to and will swing back, but maybe not quickly, and not for every extremist. Your point concerning government involvement is key. We can never simply fix or legislate an end to human conflict, so robust one-to-one engagement with allies and opponents is unavoidable, or only avoided with worse long-term results than ignoring conflict. And passing laws in an effort to forestall nearly every possible human injustice can deny due consideration to individual cases, as well as complexities that may be unforeseen.
Not everyone is as opinionated or disputatious I can be, and I’ve learned (plus am still learning) to accept that. But I’d agree that top-down or legally encoded solutions to human problems should be minimal, because they don’t really work on their own, and they tend to block pathways to resolving problems as they manifest in real life, rather than in social or political theory.
I’d much rather live in this free-for-all (if not Free) American mess than Chinese or Russian society as I perceive it from a distance. (With Canada, my birthplace, I’m more on the fence/border). But maybe that’s because I’m an opinionated and argumentative Westerner.

Zeph Smith
Zeph Smith
1 year ago
Reply to  Jon Barrow

I am finding various characterizations of “individualism” to be rather confusing. It’s very common on the progressive left to hear disdainful dismissal of “individualism” as a toxic imposition of racist colonizers, contrasted with the communitarianism of good cultures.
We see that change in the focus on “fairness” to population groups (measured by equal outcomes) rather than fairness to individuals (each person being judged on their individual merits, highly compatible with seeing equal opportunities). In the new progressivism, if you have to make life unfair to all individuals to created the desired group level outcome statistics, so be it. The neo-progressives often reject other Enlightenment values like reason, reciprocal rights, objectivity, universal principles applied equally to everyone.
Now I see you associating the progressive left with Enlightenment values, rather than as a “successor ideology” seeking to overthrow the oppression of such values.
Any thoughts on how to reconcile these framings?
I am also reminded of Thomas Sowell’s constrained and unconstrained visions…

Last edited 1 year ago by Zeph Smith
AC Harper
AC Harper
1 year ago
Reply to  Jon Barrow

You could have a really good debate about whether today’s ‘progressives’ favour the Enlightenment or not. I suspect that if the Classic Liberals (in the UK) supported the Enlightenment ideas then the Progressives are a resurgence of contra Enlightenment dark Romanticism.
Wikipedia: “Romanticism was characterized by its emphasis on emotion and individualism, clandestine literature, paganism, idealization of nature, suspicion of science and industrialization, as well as glorification of the past with a strong preference for the medieval rather than the classical. It was partly a reaction to the Industrial Revolution, the social and political norms of the Age of Enlightenment, but also the scientific rationalization of nature.”

Jim M
Jim M
1 year ago
Reply to  Jon Barrow

I think your analysis is brilliant. Marxism came out of the Enlightenment and it assumes a blank slate nature for humans in order to work. Creating paradise on Earth is somewhat blasphemous and naive. I would hope most Christians would reject paradise on earth.

Zeph Smith
Zeph Smith
1 year ago
Reply to  Jon Barrow

You touch on one of the questions that I grapple with (somewhat).
Is today’s neo-progressivism a natural and likely outcome of earlier liberalism, or is there a healthy alternative which we failed to take? Is the over-reach something that was nearly inevitable, or a pitfall that could have been reasonably avoided.
I really don’t know. I see a lot of slippery slopes leading here, but how greased were they? For example, a thoughtful reduction in ethnocentricism slides into self hate for one’s own culture. Recognition of emotional abuse as a problem akin to physical abuse slides into “words are violence” and “silence is violence” and the discarding of free speech if it offends somebody (offending == causing unjustified emotional harm). Seeking equal access for the sexes leads into an agenda of destroying the patriarchy, broadly defined. The government prohibiting racial discrimination not just in it’s own realm, but in private businesses and organizations, leads to trying to use government power to fix all perceived unfairness between people, no matter how deeply one must infringe. (Eg: mandated pronouns with criminal penalties)
In these cases I have endorsed & supported the earlier starting point, but I am very concerned about where it wound up going in the decades since. Was I missing the implication from the start, or did our society lose the common sense that could have prevented sliding down every slippery slope into excesses and malignancies?
Any thoughts?

Zeph Smith
Zeph Smith
1 year ago
Reply to  Jon Barrow

I am finding various characterizations of “individualism” to be rather confusing. It’s very common on the progressive left to hear disdainful dismissal of “individualism” as a toxic imposition of racist colonizers, contrasted with the communitarianism of good cultures.
We see that change in the focus on “fairness” to population groups (measured by equal outcomes) rather than fairness to individuals (each person being judged on their individual merits, highly compatible with seeing equal opportunities). In the new progressivism, if you have to make life unfair to all individuals to created the desired group level outcome statistics, so be it. The neo-progressives often reject other Enlightenment values like reason, reciprocal rights, objectivity, universal principles applied equally to everyone.
Now I see you associating the progressive left with Enlightenment values, rather than as a “successor ideology” seeking to overthrow the oppression of such values.
Any thoughts on how to reconcile these framings?
I am also reminded of Thomas Sowell’s constrained and unconstrained visions…

Last edited 1 year ago by Zeph Smith
Cymru Wales
Cymru Wales
1 year ago
Reply to  Elliott Bjorn

It is obvious.
It is Critical (Race) Theory —- Critical (Gender) Theory — Critical (Colonisation) Theory. In fact, Critical Theory.
It was invented in the 1960s because Marxism had failed – it had failed because the ‘Working Class’ was ceasing to exist. It is Race Marxism, Gender Marxism, Colonisation Marxism.
The most successful is Critical Climate Theory or Climate Marxism.
It is a revolution. A small number of people can demonstrate on the M25 (London ring road) and stop the capital for a day. The old Marxism could never have done that.

Last edited 1 year ago by Cymru Wales
Jon Barrow
Jon Barrow
1 year ago
Reply to  Elliott Bjorn

You might see it as the end point or an over-reach of the Enlightenment, which has always carried the idea of blank slate humans (without built-in biological limits), first principles thinking (scrapping whatever exists and starting afresh) and the sovereign individual (shorn of wider family and social obligations). All fine while the general society was stable and conservative, but those principles now dominate. In a sense progressives (the general ‘progressive’ culture) are Enlightenment figures who believe that humans can re-cast themselves, progress equates to improvement and problems are fixable. I believe Chesterton wrote something like ‘the last thing man will make war on is his own nature’ – that nature being a problem-solving hence problem-creating one, therefore a perpetual block in the progressive vision.

Cymru Wales
Cymru Wales
1 year ago
Reply to  Elliott Bjorn

It is obvious.
It is Critical (Race) Theory —- Critical (Gender) Theory — Critical (Colonisation) Theory. In fact, Critical Theory.
It was invented in the 1960s because Marxism had failed – it had failed because the ‘Working Class’ was ceasing to exist. It is Race Marxism, Gender Marxism, Colonisation Marxism.
The most successful is Critical Climate Theory or Climate Marxism.
It is a revolution. A small number of people can demonstrate on the M25 (London ring road) and stop the capital for a day. The old Marxism could never have done that.

Last edited 1 year ago by Cymru Wales
Elliott Bjorn
Elliott Bjorn
1 year ago

The article was sort of like fallowing the track a snail made wandering around on a wall – Seemed to me to just be wanderings…..Maybe the snail meant something by it. Too many allegories stacked on each other gets chaotic I suppose…

But here is it in a nut shell: Some vast Power, lets call it the ‘Elites’, have decided to destroy America, and thus the West, and thus the world as we know it.

As always, first they set out to destroy the family as that is the source of all which is healthy in human society. Now most children are in broken homes or single parents. That Box they can check.

Then you destroy Morality – check that box. (dismantling religion was a key part, the entertainment, Social Media, and education industries – the fatal stroke)

Then you destroy Patriotism so people feel no unity, or duty for their land.

Then you divide the people with hatred. This is the intensely successful process Obama begun; the Created Race Hatred process, that Biden has now fully achieved. You can check that box.

Adams is pointing this last one out – He is a professional at pointing out social flaws. This huge gesture was merely that, because smaller ones were meaningless this late in the game.

This is the End Game for destruction of the West, for Classic Liberalism of the Enlightenment – the kind who built all this which is good, the kind who were writers of the USA Constitution – those values are now, always and everywhere, being destroyed.

Adams made his gesture to point that out.

Stop the endlessly rambling and pondering – it is so Obvious. So easy to see.

Thomas K.
Thomas K.
1 year ago

I know that this is almost entirely tangential to the above article but I feel I should point out that, if my memory serves, only 7 people were hung for witchcraft during the Salem Witch Trials (at least in Salem proper, not the whole of Massachusetts); 4 of them were men and all of them middle and upper class ‘pillars of the community’ types, most of whom had come out and spoken *against* the witchhunt craze.
At the time ‘witch’ was not as much of a gendered term. The modern narrative of a bunch of stuffy old white men drowning teenage girls in a lake is just that; a modern narrative. The roles were actually quite reversed in many cases, with many of those doing the accusing being young women reveling in the empathy and attention being ensorcelled victims got them. This is not to say women weren’t suffering at the hands of the witchfinder generals and their purity-obsessed cronies, just that the distinction between accused and accuser was not quite as split along sex lines as contemporary culture suggests.
Aside from that, decent article, just wanted to add that little nugget of nuance.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Thomas K.

Not that your whole point is hereby invalidated, but it was 14 women and 5 men.
(Since you stipulated Salem itself: The numbers I’ve given are for witchcraft executions in the whole of Massachusetts–white population about 50,000–during 1692, the normal usage of Salem Witch Trials).

Last edited 1 year ago by AJ Mac
CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Wasn’t a dog also executed?

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago

I forget. Was he called Barksworth Goodmutt?

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

I’ve no idea but apparently it was TWO dogs!

Where was God when all this nonsense was going on?

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago

The god of vengeance and spite–in other words a sort of antique, anthropomorphic god, or devil–seems to have prevailed. As you said elsewhere: Jesus wept.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

(not a proud online moment)

Last edited 1 year ago by AJ Mac
Matt Sylvestre
Matt Sylvestre
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

AJ Mac – You make some sense and some points but perhaps you need a hobby away from screens…

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt Sylvestre

Effin’ A right you are. Of late especially, I’ve really overdone it here on several occasions and that’s why I’m letting my subscription lapse and going for a walk in my neighborhood: guitar, book, and journal in tow.
I apologize for my tendency to overshare and near inability let certain things go. Cheers.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt Sylvestre

Effin’ A right you are. Of late especially, I’ve really overdone it here on several occasions and that’s why I’m letting my subscription lapse and going for a walk in my neighborhood: guitar, book, and journal in tow.
I apologize for my tendency to overshare and near inability let certain things go. Cheers.

Matt Sylvestre
Matt Sylvestre
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

AJ Mac – You make some sense and some points but perhaps you need a hobby away from screens…

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

(not a proud online moment)

Last edited 1 year ago by AJ Mac
AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago

The god of vengeance and spite–in other words a sort of antique, anthropomorphic god, or devil–seems to have prevailed. As you said elsewhere: Jesus wept.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

I’ve no idea but apparently it was TWO dogs!

Where was God when all this nonsense was going on?

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago

I forget. Was he called Barksworth Goodmutt?

Thomas K.
Thomas K.
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Ah, my mistake. Thank you for providing the broader numbers. Still my point still largely stands as it is.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Wasn’t a dog also executed?

Thomas K.
Thomas K.
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Ah, my mistake. Thank you for providing the broader numbers. Still my point still largely stands as it is.

Jonathan Nash
Jonathan Nash
1 year ago
Reply to  Thomas K.

“Ensorcelled” – congratulations! I have never, ever, heard that word before.

Thomas K.
Thomas K.
1 year ago
Reply to  Jonathan Nash

You’re welcome! English is full of fun little words like that that rarely get used. My personal favourite is ‘squamous’, meaning something scaley and moist like a fish.

Josie Bowen
Josie Bowen
1 year ago
Reply to  Jonathan Nash

Never heard it either.

Thomas K.
Thomas K.
1 year ago
Reply to  Jonathan Nash

You’re welcome! English is full of fun little words like that that rarely get used. My personal favourite is ‘squamous’, meaning something scaley and moist like a fish.

Josie Bowen
Josie Bowen
1 year ago
Reply to  Jonathan Nash

Never heard it either.

hayden eastwood
hayden eastwood
1 year ago
Reply to  Thomas K.

The other point is that the witch hunts were based on something that the author hasn’t mentioned: lived experience.
The accuser only had to “feel” that a spell was cast on them for this to be taken as evidence that the accused had cast a spell on them.
I believe the term of the time was “spectral analysis” – ie the perception of spirits as described by the accuser.
Thus people who imagine themselves to be progressing to the future on the notion of “lived experience” are in fact returning to the 1700s.

Last edited 1 year ago by hayden eastwood
Matt Sylvestre
Matt Sylvestre
1 year ago
Reply to  Thomas K.

Very correct that the 1692 Histeria was in many ways, much less gendered than modern audiences wish to assume/ use. It was actually 19 people who were executed in Salem proper (Town and Village) while others died from indirect mal-treatment (consider Dorothy Good, who was imprisoned at 4 and was basically destroyed by the SOB’s responsible)…
Also, there was no official “witchfinder” in Salem. Just bands of young women drunk on power and excitement “we must have our sport” and pathetic grown men (Cotten Mather, founder of Harvard) who used the accusations against both innocent women and men…

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt Sylvestre

Last petty quibble before you’re free of me for a while: Cotton Mather was born decades after Harvard was founded in 1636. His father, Increase Mather, born in 1638, was an early president of Harvard. (I only knew a fraction of that before I checked Wikipedia a few days ago).

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt Sylvestre

Last petty quibble before you’re free of me for a while: Cotton Mather was born decades after Harvard was founded in 1636. His father, Increase Mather, born in 1638, was an early president of Harvard. (I only knew a fraction of that before I checked Wikipedia a few days ago).

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Thomas K.

Not that your whole point is hereby invalidated, but it was 14 women and 5 men.
(Since you stipulated Salem itself: The numbers I’ve given are for witchcraft executions in the whole of Massachusetts–white population about 50,000–during 1692, the normal usage of Salem Witch Trials).

Last edited 1 year ago by AJ Mac
Jonathan Nash
Jonathan Nash
1 year ago
Reply to  Thomas K.

“Ensorcelled” – congratulations! I have never, ever, heard that word before.

hayden eastwood
hayden eastwood
1 year ago
Reply to  Thomas K.

The other point is that the witch hunts were based on something that the author hasn’t mentioned: lived experience.
The accuser only had to “feel” that a spell was cast on them for this to be taken as evidence that the accused had cast a spell on them.
I believe the term of the time was “spectral analysis” – ie the perception of spirits as described by the accuser.
Thus people who imagine themselves to be progressing to the future on the notion of “lived experience” are in fact returning to the 1700s.

Last edited 1 year ago by hayden eastwood
Matt Sylvestre
Matt Sylvestre
1 year ago
Reply to  Thomas K.

Very correct that the 1692 Histeria was in many ways, much less gendered than modern audiences wish to assume/ use. It was actually 19 people who were executed in Salem proper (Town and Village) while others died from indirect mal-treatment (consider Dorothy Good, who was imprisoned at 4 and was basically destroyed by the SOB’s responsible)…
Also, there was no official “witchfinder” in Salem. Just bands of young women drunk on power and excitement “we must have our sport” and pathetic grown men (Cotten Mather, founder of Harvard) who used the accusations against both innocent women and men…

Thomas K.
Thomas K.
1 year ago

I know that this is almost entirely tangential to the above article but I feel I should point out that, if my memory serves, only 7 people were hung for witchcraft during the Salem Witch Trials (at least in Salem proper, not the whole of Massachusetts); 4 of them were men and all of them middle and upper class ‘pillars of the community’ types, most of whom had come out and spoken *against* the witchhunt craze.
At the time ‘witch’ was not as much of a gendered term. The modern narrative of a bunch of stuffy old white men drowning teenage girls in a lake is just that; a modern narrative. The roles were actually quite reversed in many cases, with many of those doing the accusing being young women reveling in the empathy and attention being ensorcelled victims got them. This is not to say women weren’t suffering at the hands of the witchfinder generals and their purity-obsessed cronies, just that the distinction between accused and accuser was not quite as split along sex lines as contemporary culture suggests.
Aside from that, decent article, just wanted to add that little nugget of nuance.

Jim R
Jim R
1 year ago

I’m sorry but there’s a serious problem with the whole analogy of Scott Adams dressing up as a witch and sacrificing animals. Does anyone actually think he’s a racist? Did he say anything to suggest that he believes that one race is better than another? Not that I can see. And everyone knows it. His crime was dissenting from the narrative and calling out the racism of anti-racism and the hate of anti-hate.

Jim R
Jim R
1 year ago

I’m sorry but there’s a serious problem with the whole analogy of Scott Adams dressing up as a witch and sacrificing animals. Does anyone actually think he’s a racist? Did he say anything to suggest that he believes that one race is better than another? Not that I can see. And everyone knows it. His crime was dissenting from the narrative and calling out the racism of anti-racism and the hate of anti-hate.

Jeremy Bray
Jeremy Bray
1 year ago

Scott Adam’s is an ironist and humorist. He is not going to take a conventional view of something. Of course, he could have earnestly asked what the hell someone was doing asking the question as to whether it was OK to be white in the first place – you can’t imagine a poll asking whites whether it is OK to be black. In addition is it really true that nearly half the sample of blacks thought it not ok to be white? Is that not truly bizarre and indicative of an astonishing level of racism that has been whipped up among blacks.
The obvious solution to concerns of sensitive whites to cancel their whiteness by blacking up is considered reprehensible. In some ways the only sane response to this absurdly shocking poll can be a piece of absurdist irony by suggesting such a group must be a hate group that should be avoided. What response to a poll suggesting 47% of blacks thought it not OK to be white would be appropriate? If it is a true representation of the attitude of a substantial proportion of blacks what is the appropriate solution to this astonishing level of hatred among a significant section of the black population against those born with pale skins? Is anyone asking such a question in the US or providing an answer or are they intent on the displacement activity of cancelling an ironist and humorist thus demonstrating a desire to avoid discussing the elephant in the room?

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
1 year ago
Reply to  Jeremy Bray

It’s all about clicks. We are merely the gerbils on the wheel.

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
1 year ago
Reply to  Jeremy Bray

It’s all about clicks. We are merely the gerbils on the wheel.

Jeremy Bray
Jeremy Bray
1 year ago

Scott Adam’s is an ironist and humorist. He is not going to take a conventional view of something. Of course, he could have earnestly asked what the hell someone was doing asking the question as to whether it was OK to be white in the first place – you can’t imagine a poll asking whites whether it is OK to be black. In addition is it really true that nearly half the sample of blacks thought it not ok to be white? Is that not truly bizarre and indicative of an astonishing level of racism that has been whipped up among blacks.
The obvious solution to concerns of sensitive whites to cancel their whiteness by blacking up is considered reprehensible. In some ways the only sane response to this absurdly shocking poll can be a piece of absurdist irony by suggesting such a group must be a hate group that should be avoided. What response to a poll suggesting 47% of blacks thought it not OK to be white would be appropriate? If it is a true representation of the attitude of a substantial proportion of blacks what is the appropriate solution to this astonishing level of hatred among a significant section of the black population against those born with pale skins? Is anyone asking such a question in the US or providing an answer or are they intent on the displacement activity of cancelling an ironist and humorist thus demonstrating a desire to avoid discussing the elephant in the room?

AC Harper
AC Harper
1 year ago

I have liked the Dilbert comic strip for years, and still do. The general thrust of the strips is to be disruptive of the corporate bullsh**t, an example of the humour we are meant to deploy against loony assertions by The Powers That Be.
I rarely read Scott Adam’s blog although I have found it mildly provocative and worth considering, even when I don’t agree.
So in a sense the latest furore is quite in keeping with his public discourse. The jester who stands beside the King puncturing his excessive pride with a quip.
One can only observe that some people are excessively prideful. I shall continue to read the comic strip.

Jeff Cunningham
Jeff Cunningham
1 year ago
Reply to  AC Harper

If you can find it.

Jeff Cunningham
Jeff Cunningham
1 year ago
Reply to  AC Harper

If you can find it.

AC Harper
AC Harper
1 year ago

I have liked the Dilbert comic strip for years, and still do. The general thrust of the strips is to be disruptive of the corporate bullsh**t, an example of the humour we are meant to deploy against loony assertions by The Powers That Be.
I rarely read Scott Adam’s blog although I have found it mildly provocative and worth considering, even when I don’t agree.
So in a sense the latest furore is quite in keeping with his public discourse. The jester who stands beside the King puncturing his excessive pride with a quip.
One can only observe that some people are excessively prideful. I shall continue to read the comic strip.

John Dellingby
John Dellingby
1 year ago

I remember Douglas Murray raising this point in the aftermath of the George Floyd murder, that the constant race-baiting, guilt tripping and general anti-Western (and white) sentiments being expressed would lead to de facto segregation. While we are a ways off that for now, views held by 47% of the black population in America are going to be extremely damaging in the long run.

I haven’t been to America in about 10 years in fairness so it might have changed, but I do remember encountering racism towards blacks when I was there. However, it didn’t mainly come from white people, but people from the Hispanic demographic. Given the latter are increasing as a share of America’s population, it’ll be interesting to see where this goes.

Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
1 year ago
Reply to  John Dellingby

I’m an American and there have been race hustlers since the Civil War. The Democrats, who lost that war, have been reliably using race to divide us all into identity groups for “oppressor” demonization or “victim” virtue. It’s their second-favored strategy for winning elections. The first, of course, is to simply steal them.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago

Yeah but I guess no race hustlers before the Civil War, except Frederick Douglass, Sojourner Truth and those those pesky Abolitionists?

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago

Steal them. Like George W. Bush with the help of his brother, Governor of Florida, in 2000. Like Trump would have gladly done, even if it meant the death of Mike Pence and many members of Congress, if he could have. Pretty bold try though.

You conveniently ignore that just about every KKK member was a Democrat until well after WWII, and that the Republican party was once radical, not conservative or ethno-populist.

Last edited 1 year ago by AJ Mac
AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago

Yeah but I guess no race hustlers before the Civil War, except Frederick Douglass, Sojourner Truth and those those pesky Abolitionists?

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago

Steal them. Like George W. Bush with the help of his brother, Governor of Florida, in 2000. Like Trump would have gladly done, even if it meant the death of Mike Pence and many members of Congress, if he could have. Pretty bold try though.

You conveniently ignore that just about every KKK member was a Democrat until well after WWII, and that the Republican party was once radical, not conservative or ethno-populist.

Last edited 1 year ago by AJ Mac
Caty Gonzales
Caty Gonzales
1 year ago
Reply to  John Dellingby

And you’ll hear or read the term ‘white adjacent’ or ‘acting white’ or ‘white Hispanic’ to cover the Hispanic crowd who don’t fall in line with the DEI agenda. George Zimmerman, white Hispanic. See also, Suparna Dutta who was removed from the Virginia Board of Education by the Virginia Democrats amid claims she is a ‘white supremacist’.
Those Hispanics who voted Trump in 2020? Actually white people.

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
1 year ago
Reply to  Caty Gonzales

I guess all the Hispanics in Miami/Dade counties, who voted for DeSantis, are also white?

Caty Gonzales
Caty Gonzales
1 year ago
Reply to  Warren Trees

I can’t think what else they’d be, given that voting record!

Caty Gonzales
Caty Gonzales
1 year ago
Reply to  Warren Trees

I can’t think what else they’d be, given that voting record!

Jeremy Bray
Jeremy Bray
1 year ago
Reply to  Caty Gonzales

Interesting language development. Soon I suppose skin colour will become totally irrelevant and racism will become prejudice agains black adjacent whites who are Democrats and white supremacists will simply be black Republicans. Welcome to an Alice through the looking glass world where words will mean whatever you want them to mean representing simply your political tribe.

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
1 year ago
Reply to  Caty Gonzales

I guess all the Hispanics in Miami/Dade counties, who voted for DeSantis, are also white?

Jeremy Bray
Jeremy Bray
1 year ago
Reply to  Caty Gonzales

Interesting language development. Soon I suppose skin colour will become totally irrelevant and racism will become prejudice agains black adjacent whites who are Democrats and white supremacists will simply be black Republicans. Welcome to an Alice through the looking glass world where words will mean whatever you want them to mean representing simply your political tribe.

Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
1 year ago
Reply to  John Dellingby

I’m an American and there have been race hustlers since the Civil War. The Democrats, who lost that war, have been reliably using race to divide us all into identity groups for “oppressor” demonization or “victim” virtue. It’s their second-favored strategy for winning elections. The first, of course, is to simply steal them.

Caty Gonzales
Caty Gonzales
1 year ago
Reply to  John Dellingby

And you’ll hear or read the term ‘white adjacent’ or ‘acting white’ or ‘white Hispanic’ to cover the Hispanic crowd who don’t fall in line with the DEI agenda. George Zimmerman, white Hispanic. See also, Suparna Dutta who was removed from the Virginia Board of Education by the Virginia Democrats amid claims she is a ‘white supremacist’.
Those Hispanics who voted Trump in 2020? Actually white people.

John Dellingby
John Dellingby
1 year ago

I remember Douglas Murray raising this point in the aftermath of the George Floyd murder, that the constant race-baiting, guilt tripping and general anti-Western (and white) sentiments being expressed would lead to de facto segregation. While we are a ways off that for now, views held by 47% of the black population in America are going to be extremely damaging in the long run.

I haven’t been to America in about 10 years in fairness so it might have changed, but I do remember encountering racism towards blacks when I was there. However, it didn’t mainly come from white people, but people from the Hispanic demographic. Given the latter are increasing as a share of America’s population, it’ll be interesting to see where this goes.

Dominic Murray
Dominic Murray
1 year ago

“I’m less perturbed by the few dozen respondents to the Rasmussen poll who weren’t sure if it’s “okay to be white”

A “few dozen”? I think you are misunderstanding how a poll is supposed to work.

Dominic Murray
Dominic Murray
1 year ago

“I’m less perturbed by the few dozen respondents to the Rasmussen poll who weren’t sure if it’s “okay to be white”

A “few dozen”? I think you are misunderstanding how a poll is supposed to work.

Martin Bollis
Martin Bollis
1 year ago

“I didn’t, for what I assume are obvious reasons, respond to it directly”

For which read “I daren’t so I thought I’d write a dancing on the head of a pin article to justify myself.”

Hopefully Adams has just got fed up of cartoons and is generating huge publicity for a new, more overly political, Substack or podcast or something.

Last edited 1 year ago by Martin Bollis
Martin Bollis
Martin Bollis
1 year ago

“I didn’t, for what I assume are obvious reasons, respond to it directly”

For which read “I daren’t so I thought I’d write a dancing on the head of a pin article to justify myself.”

Hopefully Adams has just got fed up of cartoons and is generating huge publicity for a new, more overly political, Substack or podcast or something.

Last edited 1 year ago by Martin Bollis
Adam K
Adam K
1 year ago

Blacks are allowed to self-segregate, whites without the financial means struggle to do so.
Try host an all white event on Eventbrite and see what happens. Black only events on that platform abound. This article made some good points but ignored the issue of black anti-white aggression.
The Heritage Site | Adam McDermont | Substack

Adam K
Adam K
1 year ago

Blacks are allowed to self-segregate, whites without the financial means struggle to do so.
Try host an all white event on Eventbrite and see what happens. Black only events on that platform abound. This article made some good points but ignored the issue of black anti-white aggression.
The Heritage Site | Adam McDermont | Substack

Russell Sharpe
Russell Sharpe
1 year ago

The only people who think (or claim to think) that Scott Adams is a racist and that eg Ibram X Kendi or Robin diAngelo are not are (on the one hand) white racists and (on the other) black grifters. The kind of people so immured in of their own unassailable saintliness that they can propagate the most disgusting racist slogans (displaying at once hatred of white people as a class and contempt for black people as a class) as long as they take care beforehand to rebrand them as ‘anti-racism’.
Meanwhile Adams, who casually yet very deliberately tossed his bomb among the frantic virtue-signalling, luxury-belief-promoting shibboleth exchange, surely needs no defenders who think he might be being misunderstood and traduced. Being misunderstood and traduced – the absolute necessity that he be misunderstood and traduced – is an essential part of his point. The risible furore was baked in from the start.

Last edited 1 year ago by Russell Sharpe
Russell Sharpe
Russell Sharpe
1 year ago

The only people who think (or claim to think) that Scott Adams is a racist and that eg Ibram X Kendi or Robin diAngelo are not are (on the one hand) white racists and (on the other) black grifters. The kind of people so immured in of their own unassailable saintliness that they can propagate the most disgusting racist slogans (displaying at once hatred of white people as a class and contempt for black people as a class) as long as they take care beforehand to rebrand them as ‘anti-racism’.
Meanwhile Adams, who casually yet very deliberately tossed his bomb among the frantic virtue-signalling, luxury-belief-promoting shibboleth exchange, surely needs no defenders who think he might be being misunderstood and traduced. Being misunderstood and traduced – the absolute necessity that he be misunderstood and traduced – is an essential part of his point. The risible furore was baked in from the start.

Last edited 1 year ago by Russell Sharpe
Bryan Dale
Bryan Dale
1 year ago

None of the coverage has been favourable to Adams? You need to get your head out of the leftist echo chamber. Addams reputation has been enhanced by his parodying of the racist left.

Bryan Dale
Bryan Dale
1 year ago

None of the coverage has been favourable to Adams? You need to get your head out of the leftist echo chamber. Addams reputation has been enhanced by his parodying of the racist left.

Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
1 year ago

Witch burning reached fever pitch in Europe after the introduction of the printing press with 500 immolations in the diocese of Geneva in a single year.

It’s just how traditional gatekeepers respond to the arrival of new technologies that threaten their control of the narrative.

Adam’s mistake was to attack the manipulated, not the manipulators – the oligarchs and their sycophants in the corporate media.

Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
1 year ago

Witch burning reached fever pitch in Europe after the introduction of the printing press with 500 immolations in the diocese of Geneva in a single year.

It’s just how traditional gatekeepers respond to the arrival of new technologies that threaten their control of the narrative.

Adam’s mistake was to attack the manipulated, not the manipulators – the oligarchs and their sycophants in the corporate media.

Jeff Cunningham
Jeff Cunningham
1 year ago

Well, I liked this essay. One thing not mentioned – here, at least – is that on numerous occasions recently Adams has said he’s been thinking about retiring and various ways to do it, most of which involved blowing up the Dilbert strip somehow. One possibility he mentioned was having Dilbert go trans. Looked to me like he blew it up deliberately. As Kat said, he had to know where this would go. He’s certainly got the f*ck you money to do that.
Would have been maybe classier to go out the way Gary Larson did though. I occasionally ran across some of his writing since he started his blog and he certainly seemed to be slowly headed toward an extreme pH as a political agent.

Last edited 1 year ago by Jeff Cunningham
Tony Taylor
Tony Taylor
1 year ago