Main Edition
US
FR
What are we talking about when we talk about "cancel culture"? Credit: Lea Suzuki/The San Francisco Chronicle via Getty Images
Picture this: it is 1692 in Salem, Massachusetts, and the Witchfinder General is patrolling the area in search of accused witches. The bodies of the women most recently found guilty are still hanging by their necks from the gallows; tensions are high, suspicions running wild. And suddenly, onto the town green, strides a middle-aged woman in a long cloak and tall, tapered hat. She scratches a pentagram into the dirt. She mutters incantations. She sacrifices a goat and eats its heart and declares eternal fealty to the Devil himself. And when someone points and shrieks, “Witch!”, she cheerfully replies, “Heck yes, I am!”
Within minutes, she’s been arrested. Within a day, her lifeless body is swinging alongside the others. And for the rest of the week, the townspeople find themselves at a loss to describe precisely what just happened. When a witch presents herself, admits her guilt, and all but throws herself on the pyre, can you even really call it a witch hunt?
As ridiculous a line of debate as this is, it has dominated the discourse about the recent cancellation (ah, or is it?) of Dilbert creator, Scott Adams, after he made comments during a YouTube livestream that were widely derided as a “racist rant”. Citing a recent Rasmussen Reports poll, which found that 47% of black Americans disagreed with the statement “It’s okay to be white”, Adams urged white viewers to “get the hell away” from black people, who he described as a “hate group”; within days, multiple newspaper syndicates announced that his long-running cartoon about the absurdities of corporate office life would no longer run in their pages. (According to Adams, the widespread shunning of Dilbert has cost him 80% of his income, although given his estimated $75 million net worth, one might surmise that this is not the financial catastrophe it would represent for a normal person.)
Yet as salacious a topic as Adams’s apparent support for the re-segregation of American society is, some media figures have chosen not to examine it but to use it as a cudgel. Within days of this incident, a certain cohort of writers, artists and public intellectuals received the following, bizarre request for comment from a reporter at the newsletter Popular Information:
In July 2020, you were among a group of writers that signed a letter saying that “it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought.” My questions are:
Do you object to Adams being dropped by major papers and his syndicate? If not, why not?
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeI 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You’re overthinking it.
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.
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.
You’re overthinking it.
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.
Excellent point.
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?
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
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?
No, but it would get an accurate figure of the number of people that see BLM for exactly what it is.
“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.
No, but it would get an accurate figure of the number of people that see BLM for exactly what it is.
“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.
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?
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
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?
Excellent point.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It’s as plain as the race on your face. Stay away from non-kin groups.
It’s as plain as the race on your face. Stay away from non-kin groups.
“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.
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 !
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 !
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
Wow
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 … .
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.
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.
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.
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.
If only the depth of thought represented by Justices Alito, Thomas and Coney Barret, and the late Justice Scalia, were the norm!
Give me examples of depth of thought from any of those, except Scalia–whose intellectual brilliance I acknowledge. Help me learn.
Give me examples of depth of thought from any of those, except Scalia–whose intellectual brilliance I acknowledge. Help me learn.
You mean like Herbert Marcuse?
If only the depth of thought represented by Justices Alito, Thomas and Coney Barret, and the late Justice Scalia, were the norm!
You mean like Herbert Marcuse?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
The funny thing is that after being in a large public setting, I wind up also disliking most white people. 🙂
Dislike is fine. Hatred is corrosive. At least that’s what I tell myself when my “white on white” dislike acts up.
Dislike is fine. Hatred is corrosive. At least that’s what I tell myself when my “white on white” dislike acts up.
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?”
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.
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.
The funny thing is that after being in a large public setting, I wind up also disliking most white people. 🙂
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?”
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.
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?
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.
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.
No denial. Noted.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No denial. Noted.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Good! It’s about time that the euphoria of the ’60’s died a well-deserved death.
Wow
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 … .
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?
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.
Good! It’s about time that the euphoria of the ’60’s died a well-deserved death.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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…
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.”
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.
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?
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…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
Wasn’t a dog also executed?
I forget. Was he called Barksworth Goodmutt?
I’ve no idea but apparently it was TWO dogs!
Where was God when all this nonsense was going on?
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.
(not a proud online moment)
AJ Mac – You make some sense and some points but perhaps you need a hobby away from screens…
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.
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 – You make some sense and some points but perhaps you need a hobby away from screens…
(not a proud online moment)
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.
I’ve no idea but apparently it was TWO dogs!
Where was God when all this nonsense was going on?
I forget. Was he called Barksworth Goodmutt?
Ah, my mistake. Thank you for providing the broader numbers. Still my point still largely stands as it is.
Wasn’t a dog also executed?
Ah, my mistake. Thank you for providing the broader numbers. Still my point still largely stands as it is.
“Ensorcelled” – congratulations! I have never, ever, heard that word before.
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.
Never heard it either.
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.
Never heard it either.
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.
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…
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).
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).
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).
“Ensorcelled” – congratulations! I have never, ever, heard that word before.
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.
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…
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.
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.
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.
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?
It’s all about clicks. We are merely the gerbils on the wheel.
It’s all about clicks. We are merely the gerbils on the wheel.
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?
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.
If you can find it.
If you can find it.
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.
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.
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.
Yeah but I guess no race hustlers before the Civil War, except Frederick Douglass, Sojourner Truth and those those pesky Abolitionists?
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.
Yeah but I guess no race hustlers before the Civil War, except Frederick Douglass, Sojourner Truth and those those pesky Abolitionists?
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.
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.
I guess all the Hispanics in Miami/Dade counties, who voted for DeSantis, are also white?
I can’t think what else they’d be, given that voting record!
I can’t think what else they’d be, given that voting record!
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.
I guess all the Hispanics in Miami/Dade counties, who voted for DeSantis, are also white?
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
“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.
“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.
“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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I googled Steve Larson, but I’m none the wiser. Is he the band member, the COO, or the thesp?
My bad. I meant Gary Larson – the cartoonist of the Far Side. Sorry – I fixed it. He was afraid of getting stale so he just decided to quit. Gary Larson had tons of money at that point. When he retired he bought the old Moonie mansion in Laurelhurst – a lakeside neighborhood in Seattle after they vacated it. The wife of a friend of mine knew his wife.
Presumably you struggle with googling?
I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest that Jeff Cunningham’s post, prior to his edit, referenced Steve Larson rather than Gary Larson. That seems the more likely explanation for Tony Taylor’s question.
Good point – Tony Taylor is probably being ironic!
Cheers, Dominic. Probably too much information, but recently I queried a glaring error in an article on the BBC football website. They amended it without acknowledging it, and I was soon subjected to numerous enquiries as to why I’d asked such a stupid/irrelevant question! Oh, the injustice! :¬D
Oh, don’t get me started on the lack of change marking on articles. Lots of sites can’t even manage dates these days.
Oh, don’t get me started on the lack of change marking on articles. Lots of sites can’t even manage dates these days.
Cheers, Dominic. Probably too much information, but recently I queried a glaring error in an article on the BBC football website. They amended it without acknowledging it, and I was soon subjected to numerous enquiries as to why I’d asked such a stupid/irrelevant question! Oh, the injustice! :¬D
Good point – Tony Taylor is probably being ironic!
I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest that Jeff Cunningham’s post, prior to his edit, referenced Steve Larson rather than Gary Larson. That seems the more likely explanation for Tony Taylor’s question.
My bad. I meant Gary Larson – the cartoonist of the Far Side. Sorry – I fixed it. He was afraid of getting stale so he just decided to quit. Gary Larson had tons of money at that point. When he retired he bought the old Moonie mansion in Laurelhurst – a lakeside neighborhood in Seattle after they vacated it. The wife of a friend of mine knew his wife.
Presumably you struggle with googling?
I googled Steve Larson, but I’m none the wiser. Is he the band member, the COO, or the thesp?
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.
“I, too, rolled my eyes at Adams’s comments when they first surfaced — because they were ridiculous”
Were they? Supposing we rediscovered freedom of association? Blacks and wokies who hate white people should welcome the all-white city, where whitey has no one to Oppress but himself. Think of it as self-quarantine. Let’s have Nigropolis, where, the 100% black citizens will thrive since freed from whitey’s toxic presence. And let’s let those who prefer to live in mixed cities do just that. Let people who hate each other live apart. For 60 years or more the government has been forcing people to live together when they’d rather not. Seems to me it hasn’t helped.
“I, too, rolled my eyes at Adams’s comments when they first surfaced — because they were ridiculous”
Were they? Supposing we rediscovered freedom of association? Blacks and wokies who hate white people should welcome the all-white city, where whitey has no one to Oppress but himself. Think of it as self-quarantine. Let’s have Nigropolis, where, the 100% black citizens will thrive since freed from whitey’s toxic presence. And let’s let those who prefer to live in mixed cities do just that. Let people who hate each other live apart. For 60 years or more the government has been forcing people to live together when they’d rather not. Seems to me it hasn’t helped.
I realize that for elite upper class journalists the cancelation of Scott Adams is the interesting part of the story. But try to understand that for normal, everyday, working White Americans it is the poll results that are so important. Not only that half of black America thinks it’s not OK for us to exist but that (other than Adams) no one cares or thinks it is worth commenting on. Anti-White racism is the air we breathe. And we need to shut up about that. Or else.
I realize that for elite upper class journalists the cancelation of Scott Adams is the interesting part of the story. But try to understand that for normal, everyday, working White Americans it is the poll results that are so important. Not only that half of black America thinks it’s not OK for us to exist but that (other than Adams) no one cares or thinks it is worth commenting on. Anti-White racism is the air we breathe. And we need to shut up about that. Or else.
“Cancelling the cartoonist hasn’t helped race relations”
It’s not about improving race relations. It’s about demonstrating who has power and who doesn’t. Have you ever read Darkness at Noon? This is straight out of Stalinist communism. Being forced to say obviously absurd things (such as men can give birth) is “confessing your crimes”. Confessing renders you safe to re-enter society. If you will not confess, you are dangerous and must be “given a show trial” and cancelled (excommunicated).
“it is a good thing that old school martyrdom is no longer available”
Wait a while. The difference between bankrupting your political opponents and imprisoning them is merely a matter of degree, and it’s mostly a function of whether you have the power to imprison them yet.
Once you decide that your political opponents are no longer fully human (as the Left now has), it’s only a matter of time before you start killing them (as the Left has done many times before).
“Cancelling the cartoonist hasn’t helped race relations”
It’s not about improving race relations. It’s about demonstrating who has power and who doesn’t. Have you ever read Darkness at Noon? This is straight out of Stalinist communism. Being forced to say obviously absurd things (such as men can give birth) is “confessing your crimes”. Confessing renders you safe to re-enter society. If you will not confess, you are dangerous and must be “given a show trial” and cancelled (excommunicated).
“it is a good thing that old school martyrdom is no longer available”
Wait a while. The difference between bankrupting your political opponents and imprisoning them is merely a matter of degree, and it’s mostly a function of whether you have the power to imprison them yet.
Once you decide that your political opponents are no longer fully human (as the Left now has), it’s only a matter of time before you start killing them (as the Left has done many times before).
Adams is too aware of modes of thinking on the Internet and social media not to have done it deliberately, and with a mind to provoke (consider the inverted statement – it would sound like CRT). It’s certainly drawn racists into the open on both sides, as neither of being anti-white or anti-black are acceptable – treat people as people, not as lumpen stereotypes or categories.
What was surprising was how widespread the coverage has been in the media. Adams has a following but I’m surprised that he’s now notable /infamous enough for UK media to run the story, which suggests his influence is now bigger than that of the media that’s covering him.
I think that this story reaching the UK media is more a story of how the UK takes its cultural cues from US progressives. The George Floyd killing was, after all, strictly a local news item that someone recorded and uploaded to Twitter.
Pretty dismissive take. Wasn’t it also an unjust and needless death, intentional or not?
Pretty dismissive take. Wasn’t it also an unjust and needless death, intentional or not?
I think that this story reaching the UK media is more a story of how the UK takes its cultural cues from US progressives. The George Floyd killing was, after all, strictly a local news item that someone recorded and uploaded to Twitter.
Adams is too aware of modes of thinking on the Internet and social media not to have done it deliberately, and with a mind to provoke (consider the inverted statement – it would sound like CRT). It’s certainly drawn racists into the open on both sides, as neither of being anti-white or anti-black are acceptable – treat people as people, not as lumpen stereotypes or categories.
What was surprising was how widespread the coverage has been in the media. Adams has a following but I’m surprised that he’s now notable /infamous enough for UK media to run the story, which suggests his influence is now bigger than that of the media that’s covering him.
Maybe after it’s all over the president will award medals of freedom to JK Rowling and Scott Adams and other martyrs to the cause.
Maybe after it’s all over the president will award medals of freedom to JK Rowling and Scott Adams and other martyrs to the cause.
“bizarre request for comment from a reporter at the newsletter Popular Information”
I think the 2-part request was completely reasonable, but the tone of this article makes clear that the author received it defensively rather than objectively. Furthermore, the dimissal of Rasmussen’s poll undermines her apparent resistance to wokeism.
“bizarre request for comment from a reporter at the newsletter Popular Information”
I think the 2-part request was completely reasonable, but the tone of this article makes clear that the author received it defensively rather than objectively. Furthermore, the dimissal of Rasmussen’s poll undermines her apparent resistance to wokeism.
This was a deliberate move by Scott Adams to grab as much publicity as possible for his new book and to launch a campaign for reform of education, especially in Black America. It is working.
This was a deliberate move by Scott Adams to grab as much publicity as possible for his new book and to launch a campaign for reform of education, especially in Black America. It is working.
I don’t think the right question is whether his comments made race relations better or worse; it’s whether they accurately capture what the author describes as “the bizarre mainstreaming in rarefied academic and cultural spaces of explicit (and often self-loathing) anti-white rhetoric; about a media class that flogs false narratives of ubiquitous racial hatred for clicks; about the multi-billion-dollar DEI economy built on convincing ordinary Americans that they can neither understand nor trust each other.”
They absolutely did, in an inflammatory way, and if they prompt discussion (even outraged discussion) or airing of that situation, that’s something that needs to be done. And A) given that except for a few, newspapers are a nearly irrelevant form of communication now and B) Adams has made enough money to not care about them, it seems like he was the perfect person to light this fire.
I don’t think the right question is whether his comments made race relations better or worse; it’s whether they accurately capture what the author describes as “the bizarre mainstreaming in rarefied academic and cultural spaces of explicit (and often self-loathing) anti-white rhetoric; about a media class that flogs false narratives of ubiquitous racial hatred for clicks; about the multi-billion-dollar DEI economy built on convincing ordinary Americans that they can neither understand nor trust each other.”
They absolutely did, in an inflammatory way, and if they prompt discussion (even outraged discussion) or airing of that situation, that’s something that needs to be done. And A) given that except for a few, newspapers are a nearly irrelevant form of communication now and B) Adams has made enough money to not care about them, it seems like he was the perfect person to light this fire.
As far as I can see Adams is quite happy. He has loads of money and doesn’t care. He broke through the tone policing by being deliberately offensive (and he was) – and initiated a very large scale conversation. And he raised a point which none of his detractors have been able to respond to in any serious way. Does a large minority of black people in America not like whites? Anecdotally and in terms of surveys, this seems to be true. Has woke race politics and CRT driven this? Undoubtedly. The fact that you can call whiteness problematic, or call for whiteness to be eliminated (genocide) or even just retweet ‘kill all white memes’ – and not only keep your university/corporate/DEI job but be lauded sets a very clear standard in public discourse: Anti white racism is fine. The double standard is clear as day. It is of course only blacks and white CRT activists that have been calling for resegregation. It is black CRT activists who have made the new truism that colour blind civic nationalism of the MLK variety amounts to a confession of deep seated racism And finally, it is incredible that thus far, most whites have held true to that colour blind ideal – thus far. All the survey data backs this up. However, will this last for ever? Again almost certainly not. If the norm becomes agonistic race-bashing and the idea of an unbridgeable divide, how long before a large minority – and perhaps a silent majority of whites simply embrace the binary and reverse the valance. The greatest fans of Ibram X Kendi and the DEI bureaucracy are actual white supremacists – the kind who dress up in Nazi uniforms and not just on Halloween (like Harry). The strange thing is that people routinely called Nazi’s by the left (which is everyone) such as Steve Bannon – if you listen closely, are actually very careful to adhere to the shibboleths of colour blind civic nationalism. Trump shoots from the hip. And I would much rather he didn’t stand in the next election. But it’s very hard to make the case that he is a convinced, ideological racist. Ilhan Omar on the other hand is clearly an ideological anti-semite. So here we are… And Adams is right. If this carries on…the racial re-sorting of America that has been advocated and advanced by the left…..quite hypocritically because none of these organic intellectuals live in poor black neighbourhoods once they have hustled a wedge of money. Literally none of them
So what it amounts to is this. Moderate class politics framed in terms of colour blind civic nationalism, will deliver mutual identification and is more likely to create the basis for an integrated social democratic society….or a version of market capitalism with some other form of safety net ( I would prefer a communitarian, distributist, family based society with maximum private property for families….LIbertarianism for households. )….Race politics will deliver open borders, mass migration, low to zero levels of mutual identification, racial/ethnic tensions, communal conflict, defacto segregation, low wages and eventually a civil war.
And finally, by far the most reasonable response in America to Adams was that of Candace Owens on her podcast with the Daily Wire. I like her more each day
As far as I can see Adams is quite happy. He has loads of money and doesn’t care. He broke through the tone policing by being deliberately offensive (and he was) – and initiated a very large scale conversation. And he raised a point which none of his detractors have been able to respond to in any serious way. Does a large minority of black people in America not like whites? Anecdotally and in terms of surveys, this seems to be true. Has woke race politics and CRT driven this? Undoubtedly. The fact that you can call whiteness problematic, or call for whiteness to be eliminated (genocide) or even just retweet ‘kill all white memes’ – and not only keep your university/corporate/DEI job but be lauded sets a very clear standard in public discourse: Anti white racism is fine. The double standard is clear as day. It is of course only blacks and white CRT activists that have been calling for resegregation. It is black CRT activists who have made the new truism that colour blind civic nationalism of the MLK variety amounts to a confession of deep seated racism And finally, it is incredible that thus far, most whites have held true to that colour blind ideal – thus far. All the survey data backs this up. However, will this last for ever? Again almost certainly not. If the norm becomes agonistic race-bashing and the idea of an unbridgeable divide, how long before a large minority – and perhaps a silent majority of whites simply embrace the binary and reverse the valance. The greatest fans of Ibram X Kendi and the DEI bureaucracy are actual white supremacists – the kind who dress up in Nazi uniforms and not just on Halloween (like Harry). The strange thing is that people routinely called Nazi’s by the left (which is everyone) such as Steve Bannon – if you listen closely, are actually very careful to adhere to the shibboleths of colour blind civic nationalism. Trump shoots from the hip. And I would much rather he didn’t stand in the next election. But it’s very hard to make the case that he is a convinced, ideological racist. Ilhan Omar on the other hand is clearly an ideological anti-semite. So here we are… And Adams is right. If this carries on…the racial re-sorting of America that has been advocated and advanced by the left…..quite hypocritically because none of these organic intellectuals live in poor black neighbourhoods once they have hustled a wedge of money. Literally none of them
So what it amounts to is this. Moderate class politics framed in terms of colour blind civic nationalism, will deliver mutual identification and is more likely to create the basis for an integrated social democratic society….or a version of market capitalism with some other form of safety net ( I would prefer a communitarian, distributist, family based society with maximum private property for families….LIbertarianism for households. )….Race politics will deliver open borders, mass migration, low to zero levels of mutual identification, racial/ethnic tensions, communal conflict, defacto segregation, low wages and eventually a civil war.
And finally, by far the most reasonable response in America to Adams was that of Candace Owens on her podcast with the Daily Wire. I like her more each day
Another good essay from Ms. Rosenfield.
But there’s a point that everyone misses about polling results. There are few innocent responders left, almost no one who will answer a dumb question with real sincerity. Nearly every answer is spin and personal branding/signaling, as much as an actual opinion. (Just like talking to ourselves or our dogs, people keep spinning even when there’s no one to hear it.) So the Black people who said it was not okay to be white, as well as the ones who said it was alright, might or might not be telling the “truth”.
In short, polling is nonsense! The pollsters are gullible enough to believe; that’s not a good reason that we should.
Another good essay from Ms. Rosenfield.
But there’s a point that everyone misses about polling results. There are few innocent responders left, almost no one who will answer a dumb question with real sincerity. Nearly every answer is spin and personal branding/signaling, as much as an actual opinion. (Just like talking to ourselves or our dogs, people keep spinning even when there’s no one to hear it.) So the Black people who said it was not okay to be white, as well as the ones who said it was alright, might or might not be telling the “truth”.
In short, polling is nonsense! The pollsters are gullible enough to believe; that’s not a good reason that we should.
If one wants diversity of peoples, what practices are acceptable and what are not?
If one wants diversity of peoples, what practices are acceptable and what are not?
Does Adams really believe that white people living in segregated communities have a better quality of life than white people living in diverse communities?
It is noticeable that whites move to avoid blacks, not vice versa. Maybe they are so prejudiced they prefer it that way..
How does one ‘notice’ such a thing? Does it say “I’m moving to avoid blacks” on the side of the moving van? Or do you read their minds?
How does one ‘notice’ such a thing? Does it say “I’m moving to avoid blacks” on the side of the moving van? Or do you read their minds?
It is noticeable that whites move to avoid blacks, not vice versa. Maybe they are so prejudiced they prefer it that way..
Does Adams really believe that white people living in segregated communities have a better quality of life than white people living in diverse communities?
The answer to the two questions from Popular Information is Yes and Yes. So don’t beat about the bush, just answer them.
To me Adams’ big error is taking decisive meaning from one oddly framed poll question. What does it mean to ask someone if it’s “Ok” to be a given race? I can see people interpreting the question in many strange ways. It is inherently weird and ambiguous.
Interview with Hotep Jesus https://www.youtube.com/live/oeFA-n3SMRw?feature=share
Do you understand what is even happening here? Look at the crime stats and get back with us.
I don’t believe your insights will stand the test of time. A year after your article Adams, freed from the constraints of the dying corporate media, has reportedly replaced all his income as well as become far more relevant. Oft quoted by Elon Musk, gaining a substantial following on X and SubStack, publishing a successful book, and appeared on multiple new media shows. The “disgraced cartoonist Scott Adams” is not disappearing into that good night but into the spotlight.
So now the term cancellation is too restrained and we need to invoke martyrdom? I hope the the next term du jour won’t involve reference to a wooden cross.
Rosenfield makes a solid point concerning that divisive poll question. Sure, it should be less divisive but seems to have been posed with disingenuous intent and has a far-right online history. We need some version of a truth and reconciliation or say-what-you-need-to-say season in America, People call for a Conversation on Race but will not listen to one another; there is very little between on-edge silence and shouting right now.
What is divisive about the phrase “It’s OK to be white”. It seems only you and the ADL have an issue with the phrase (and one assumes, its premise).
Would you ask whether it OK to be Asian or black or anything else? It comes from a disruptive place.
It was also used in connection with online rants in a #ok tobewhite manner alongside outright racist bile, like Pepe the Frog. So the phrase has become a bit loaded.
If you think a cartoon of a peeing frog is racist you’re clearly beyond any help I can render. You have my sympathies.
It’s a favorite of the openly racist far-far right and you know it. Get help immediately if you continue to feel the need to pretend otherwise.
Is Black Lives Matter an uncontroversial statement that is taken by everyone to mean “black lives also matter, just as much as every other human life”?
As admitted by Andrew Stuart above, the poll question “It’s OK to be white” is in fact a gotcha troll question used to falsely equate a no vote with “I hate all white people”. (that part he doesn’t admit, just the trolling).
The leaders of BLM ran off with all the cash given to them from donations. How is a cartoon-frog more controversial than that?
I’m not defending the excesses or the terrible sloganeering of BLM. My point is that these sayings, including “It’s OK to be white”, have loaded histories and fraught associations that some are unaware of, but which many disingenuously deny.
Since we seem to back in a free-for-all whataboutist online kulturkampf: Does it bother you that Trump pocketed everything he got from his Stop the Steal cash grab campaign?
Perhaps the architects of this trolling poll can next ask “Do White Lives Matter?”, claiming that to be a straightforward question, without contextual baggage, as most among the BLM crowd claim for their slogan–also falsely.
I’m not defending the excesses or the terrible sloganeering of BLM. My point is that these sayings, including “It’s OK to be white”, have loaded histories and fraught associations that some are unaware of, but which many disingenuously deny.
Since we seem to back in a free-for-all whataboutist online kulturkampf: Does it bother you that Trump pocketed everything he got from his Stop the Steal cash grab campaign?
Perhaps the architects of this trolling poll can next ask “Do White Lives Matter?”, claiming that to be a straightforward question, without contextual baggage, as most among the BLM crowd claim for their slogan–also falsely.
The leaders of BLM ran off with all the cash given to them from donations. How is a cartoon-frog more controversial than that?
It’s a favorite of the openly racist far-far right and you know it. Get help immediately if you continue to feel the need to pretend otherwise.
Is Black Lives Matter an uncontroversial statement that is taken by everyone to mean “black lives also matter, just as much as every other human life”?
As admitted by Andrew Stuart above, the poll question “It’s OK to be white” is in fact a gotcha troll question used to falsely equate a no vote with “I hate all white people”. (that part he doesn’t admit, just the trolling).
If you think a cartoon of a peeing frog is racist you’re clearly beyond any help I can render. You have my sympathies.
Would you ask whether it OK to be Asian or black or anything else? It comes from a disruptive place.
It was also used in connection with online rants in a #ok tobewhite manner alongside outright racist bile, like Pepe the Frog. So the phrase has become a bit loaded.
What is divisive about the phrase “It’s OK to be white”. It seems only you and the ADL have an issue with the phrase (and one assumes, its premise).
So now the term cancellation is too restrained and we need to invoke martyrdom? I hope the the next term du jour won’t involve reference to a wooden cross.
Rosenfield makes a solid point concerning that divisive poll question. Sure, it should be less divisive but seems to have been posed with disingenuous intent and has a far-right online history. We need some version of a truth and reconciliation or say-what-you-need-to-say season in America, People call for a Conversation on Race but will not listen to one another; there is very little between on-edge silence and shouting right now.