This is honestly one of the dumbest things I have ever seen someone do in public. If Scott Adams actually knew any black people, he would know that poll is basically worthless, but since he doesn't, he relied on it. If he knew black people, he could have asked himself, "hmmmm, do I believe this poll? Or may it be flawed?"
I had heard about that poll before Scott immolated himself and thought it was ridiculous. It certainly didn't match up with my life experience.
Who was the sample? How many people were asked? You can go into a race studies class in some woke college and maybe get those numbers, maybe, but do a cross section of the black population and see what you get. It won't look anything like this stupid inaccurate poll that this self absorbed "thinker" relied on to make some point, of which still eludes me.
One thing though, white people often do move into black neighborhoods. I lived in West Oakland for quite some time and I enjoyed it and never once, ever, was I accosted by a black person, approached angrily by a black person or have any other negative encounters.
The problem though is, when white people move into prominently black communities, they get accused of "gentrification". I never was personally by anyone, but I know that criticism is out there.
I would advise everyone to not listen to Scott Adams. There is little more dangerous in this world than someone half as smart as they think they are. Usually, that is called "adolescence", but in this case, bizarre hubris backed up by misinterpreted information.
"The problem though is, when white people move into prominently black communities, they get accused of 'gentrification'. I never was personally by anyone, but I know that criticism is out there."
Yeah this seems to come mostly from those who live outside of such neighborhoods. The opinions of actual residents are more nuanced but typically they express openness to new neighbors and investment but simply want to be respected as members of a pre-existing community with its own cherished traditions and such. Certainly there is involuntary displacement but I don't think it's as excessive as it is usually portrayed to be (except in the outliers, like Austin).
To be fair: Black Americans DO experience racism and prejudice. Especially low-income urban areas. They generally get roughed up more often, physically assaulted, etc. But not murdered by cops. Rarely. Roland Fryer’s work here is interesting. The police murder of black men is much more complex and is largely a myth. Plenty of poor whites are killed by cops we just never hear it on MSM. Think how many black Americans got away with murder in the past few years. Remember that guy who drive his car through the parade in Wisconsin? Yeah. Exactly. Media barely touched it. Killed a little white boy.
I actually think the abuse of authority by police in their dealings with civilians they perceive as not having a political voice is more egregious over the long run. And when that is norm for too many residents of a particular community, those cumulative acts will function as the gunpowder that explodes in response to a more serious incident resulting in civilian death or serious injury, which would act as the lit fuse. The worst incidents of civil unrest in response to such a tragedy are never about the tragedy itself but rather a history that outsiders know nothing about.
"Think how many black Americans got away with murder in the past few years."
Thousands got away with murder, but it was almost always when they murdered another poor black person. It's absolutely true that mainstream media has no real interest in covering a black on white murder, but the cops sure are interested. Those murders get investigated thoroughly and the perpetrator is brought to justice quite often.
I feel like we are in a terrible catch 22 with police and poor black communities. If you are a cop working an area where the vast majority of crime is committed by young black males, how can you not build up a negative bias? It is the human response to the pattern you are seeing daily. Which is why black cops show the same patterns of bias against young black men in these areas. And if you are an innocent young black man how can you not view the system as broken if you are always treated with suspicion and have experiences of being roughed up by police.
Unfortunately, this is ultimately why I believe the American experiment is doomed to fail. Our rather primitive human cognitive processes, ideally suited for a hunter-gatherer lifestyle, haven't yet adapted to the realities of contemporary life within interconnected pluralistic societies. The modern regressive notion of race exploits this deficiency with a vengeance and represents a substantial setback for our species given America's cultural dominance on a global scale IMO.
All this talk about blacks, but no one is talking about the "other" group. 41% of them think its not ok or aren't sure if its ok to be white. Maybe we should stay away from "others" as well. Or maybe we should just lump everyone who doesn't look like us together, consider them all "others" and then treat them with suspicion and contempt. I wonder if thats been tried before.
But there are also some whites in our midst who think its not ok to be white or aren't sure. And if I do the math, there are actually more whites who believe that then blacks! 20% of 63% of the population is almost 13%. So as many white people believe that as there are total black people in the country! We cant trust the whites either. Maybe we should just lock ourselves inside to be safe.
But what if one of the whites who believes this is in our family?! The hate could be coming from inside the house! I might have to build a safe room
What is this—numerology? What do you consider to be the significance of the same absolute number of blacks and whites believing one thing or another or nothing or everything? Only percentages, percentiles, and the like are meaningful in the statistical analysis of groups. Absolutes are meaningless—data points without context or import.
My point is that this whole thing is silly. It was a stupid way to phrase the question and there were a total of 1000 people polled. So there was a total of 34 black people who didn't agree that it was ok to be white. Making a decision to get away from black people because they are a hate group is a ridiculous conclusion to draw from this. Its comical to me that the crowd least convinced by polls is putting so much faith in this one.
I did not say the same absolute number of whites and blacks aren't sure or believe its not ok to be white. I said as many white people believe that as there are total black people in the country. There are 40 million black people in the country and (if we really trust this poll) we can say there are 40 million white people who aren't sure or believe its not ok to be white. So if you are trying to draw practical conclusions from this data then absolute numbers do matter. We are talking about safety right? We want to get away from people who hate white people. Ok, then you are far more likely to run into a white person who hates white people than a black person. And I think its worse because you won't know if they are a white-hating white person or a regular white person. Their skin tone will allow them to blend in. So we are all in danger all the time.
My mistake, I didn't pick up on the white vs total black comparison. In that case, the portion believing (or not) one thing is directly compared against the totality of the other group—a useful and thought-provoking comparison. Thanks for pointing it out in the first place and then going to the trouble to explain it to me (it sometimes takes me a while...) and sorry again for my original misinterpretation of your comment.
No worries. I reread my original post and it wasn't clear. I started by saying "there are actually more whites who believe that then blacks". I see how that confused the point.
I disagree with Scott Adams on many if not most things, but he’s no racist. Like many of us, he has black friends with a sense of humor and who aren’t into wokeness, and sometimes this can lead one to say hyperbolic things with them in private (or on a private blog) that one would not say in public.
A person can have friends of other races and still harbor racial prejudice or resentment. In fact, I'd argue those friends know as much but tolerate or ignore it for the sake of maintaining their mutually beneficial relationship. There's a lot of daylight between humorously opposing wokeness with your Black friends and designating all Black folks as members of a hate group.
Whether Adams is a flat-out racist or not isn't something I can say with full certainty, but that whole screed was definitely racist.
So it’s racist to say you should probably avoid groups where a lot of them think you may not be ok because of your skin color. In other words, it’s racist to avoid racists if they’re black.
He did not say "avoid racists". He said that whites should stay away from Blacks. He also said that he chose to live in a neighbourhood with a very small Black population.
The sheer irrationality that drives one to declare an ethnic group of 40M people a hate group because of how 34 persons which identify as belonging to said ethnic group (which strangely includes Adams himself by his own admission) answered a poll question, along with other content contained in that screed, places such a person cheek to jowl with racism.
Of course I'm getting it secondhand, just like everyone else here who read about it on their favorite media sites/platforms. You must know Adams personally and he relayed his thoughts to you directly or something.
According to the same poll 66% of Black people agree with the statement that Black people can be racist: http://twitter.com/Rasmussen_Poll/status/1629886078298603520/photo/1 . Interestingly, Scott Adams did not mention it, probably because it does not fit his narrative on these hateful Blacks whites should get away from...
If most Black people think that their own group can be racist, it means that they are self-critical enough to realize that Black people can hold prejudice towards other racial groups and that this prejudice can be described as racist.
This actually directly contradicts one of the current "woke" dogmas - the idea that Black people can't be racist. Scott Adams has portrayed Blacks as a group filled with racial hatred. If most Black people think that their own group can be racist, it means that they are much more rational and self-critical than Adams has implied and that they don't enthusiastically embrace the "woke" theory of race relations.
That still leaves a lot of Blacks who are not self-critical, are racist, and having animosity toward whites (and other POC). Adams did not portray all Blacks as such, but suggested that if even 20% of them are antagonistic, it makes wholesale interaction with them untenable. Very few white people disagree with him on the merits of the case -certainly not the ones who cancelled him, if you judge by how they live their lives - but many can’t allow it to be said or they will be deemed racist themselves - which they are in a sense.
But Adams emphasized that no individual Black person should be judged by the hypothetical 20% and interaction on an individual level is a good thing. I think he should have used a more measured tone to present his ideas, but his heart seems to be in more or less the right place. He wanted to bring this issue out in the open to be useful to Blacks most of all, and we’ll see if he succeeded or got cancelled to no effect.
"That still leaves a lot of Blacks who are not self-critical, are racist, and having animosity toward whites (and other POC)."
That's quite the conclusion to jump to based on one poll. I guarantee you'd see a notable uptick in that 66% figure if the word "racist" was replaced with "prejudiced." Personally I find the assertion that Black Americans can't be racist to be logically incoherent and inconsistent, but I do recognize what others who believe differently are getting at when they say as much.
It’s not just based on one flawed poll. You can find black racists all over the internet, specially seemingly well educated ones. That does not bode well for race relations or public policy.
But Adams based his advice on the results of this one flawed poll. And it is not logical to conclude that one should stay away from a group only because some of its members are prejudiced towards one's group.
The idea that interaction with Black people is "untenable" because SOME Blacks don't like whites is completely unconvincing. In the same way one could say that Blacks should avoid interactions with whites because SOME whites are racist.
"White flight" does not prove that most whites want to "keep away" from Blacks. Most whites would probably have no problem living in a peaceful middle-class neighbourhood with a large Black population. Most people of all skin colours don't want to live in poor and dangerous neighbourhoods.
Adams said that interaction on an individual level is a good thing, but he also advised whites to keep away from Blacks. I wouldn't personally want to have any interaction with a person who publicly encourages people to keep away from my racial or ethnic group.
Of course Adams had the right to comment on the results of this poll, he had the right to express his bitterness, but he had no right to jump to the conclusion that whites should keep away from Blacks. He has jumped to this conclusion on the basis of the way 47% of Black respondents have responded to a question in a poll.
I don't think that he wanted his words to be useful to Black people. How could they be useful to them? Probably most of them have simply dismissed Adams as yet another white racist. And Black people who don't hold any prejudice towards whites will find it very difficult to change the attitudes of other Blacks if even someone like Scott Adams is openly encouraging racial segregation...
Valid comments, except this one: “Probably most of them have simply dismissed Adams as yet another white racist.” How do you presume to say what they do? You don’t give them much credit for open-mindedness. You should see his talk with Hotep Jesus.
Having read through the comments sections in several media outlets that covered the story as well as some social media posts by folks I know, it would seem that Adams wasn't really a known quantity for most Americans regardless of race. Knowledge of a person's words or actions with respect to racial matters in the past would serve as the basis for most Black folks in determining whether said person is even worth the extra consideration or effort to regard with some nuance, and Adams doesn't appear to fit the bill.
I am going to look for this talk. Let me emphasize that I said "probably". I don't think that many Black people would be ready to defend someone who claims that whites should stay away from Blacks - well, unless these Black people also support racial segregation.
I found this Adams controversy interesting, in the sense that every survey I've seen on UK or America shows white people prefer white-majority neighborhoods, and they leave as neighborhoods diversify in droves. Its not about crime, because it happens where you had Asian and Hispanic influx in Atlanta without rising crime. Everyone is upset about what Adams said, but no one wants to talk about the fact that what Adams said is what white people actually do. Its as if there is some silent agreement that no one will notice white people moving away so long as white people don't state why they are doing so.
I disagree that Adams is going to set off some chain reaction. Its already happening. Further, its not clear that its really a political problem, more diversity, more white flight, so what. It would only be a problem if the whites suddenly decided to stay and fight, but even that would be manageable if whites were a distinct minority, just give them their own reservation at that point, and make sure they were well supplied with mayonnaise to prevent riots.
I don't know why anyone would be surprised by this. Do you believe this to be a white desire only? Yes, no matter how cosmopolitan we aspire to be, we are all still very much tribal given the choice. We prefer to live next to people who look and act like us. It holds for race, class and culture (and I might even argue that in 2023 it's stronger for class). Do you think white people flee blacks, hispanics and asians but all other minorities happily form mixed BIPOC neighborhoods? People with the means, move next to people like them. And the only real difference is that white people have more choices for majority white neighborhoods because there are more white people. White people aren't uniquely tribal.
Eric Kaufmann looked at the sociology in his book White Shift, and in the UK, whites will move if its tips more than 80/20 and non-whites not so much. Just because you have a racial housing preference doesn't necessarily make you "tribal". The broader point I was making is so what. People are afraid of some political push for re-segregation, but I don't see it. The staunchest segregationist areas of the South were Black-majority areas, and the drive was political, to keep Blacks out of control of political decision-making, the rest was window dressing. That is the will to power, which is different from the drive to live in an ethnic Polish neighborhood.
When I say tribal I just mean showing an in-group bias. Tribal can sometimes have a harsher connotation, but thats not how I meant it.
So in 2023, if you have a racial housing preference, meaning you prefer to live next to members of your own race, what does that make you? Does it make you something different if you’re white than if you’re a minority? Or should we assume different motivations for whites having in-group bias vs minorities having in-group bias?
Adams is frequently insincere in his comments. Apologizing for example one day to unvaxxed people, then hours later, mocking them with satire, saying they're always right on everything, and that he's always wrong. The guy is a trained hypnotist. He's written books on persuasion. He has a nihilistic bent. He also asked his followers how he should quit and gave them a poll choice between something quiet vs him saying more and more "uncomfortably true things" until he gets cancelled. The latter won. He maybe trying to create the reaction so he can then later make a point out of it.
What happened, broadly speaking, is the Clinton/DNC machine sold out to the corporate class. And then traded middle class values (votes) for identity politics, etc, which was/is WAYYY cheaper, and easy to do by aligning with Academia (at least in the soft sciences), which gave the illusion of Liberalism (the JS Mill type) while actually folding to the critical theory BS we see now. And, for the most part, both Blacks and Whites both bought that garbage with enthusiasm. Blacks got a sense of empowerment/entitlement, resulting in a 'dont criticize my behavior/choices...I am OPPRESSED!'; and 'liberal' Whites got to agree while doing nothing to actually help anyone but themselves. Real Leftists saw this coming a long time ago. Now our political process is a fucking trainwreck, we have been at constant war for 2+ decades, we are bleeding $$$ while increasing debt exponentially, and we are weak, desperate and ungovernable, so will do ANYTHING to look the other way while the whole thing crumbles.
Well this one got a lot of engagement! I think there are 2 interesting points (3 if we count the comments). The first is the idea that speech such as Adams must be shut down lest it influences others in that direction. That is not, in and of itself, an obviously invalid argument. However it is principally the same argument as "violent video games cause violence" or "lyrics glorifying gang culture influence kids towards crime". To make the argument in one direction and dismiss it in the other is some discordant thinking and a subtle hypocrisy that I don't think should be allowed to go unchallenged. Not that woke ideology is starved for hypocrisies, but it should be addressed.
The second point is one that I feel like I bring up in every comment I make, but that is that much of the animus surrounding race comes from equating "black" with "poor and urban" in the context of culture. I don't want to stay away from black people, I want to stay away from urban poor. I would - and do - happily pay money to be exposed to John and Glenn. I would cross the street to avoid a white guy from the south side of Chicago. Using "black" as shorthand for a culture derived from street gangs is inaccurate because that culture tracks better with class than skin color. And that's an inaccurate shorthand that spans both sides of the political aisle.
Finally, third point, I was struggling with how to objectively categorize Scott's comments until I was reading the comments here and saw one that pointed out it's the mirror of Kendi's beliefs. That resonated and helped me firmly categorize them as racist, not just lacking the nuance of point 2.
Thomas Sowell has suggested that the violence of poor black culture is the violent culture of whites in the South that the Blacks brought with them as they migrated north and elsewhere. Even today, Southern states tend to have the highest rates of violent crime.
Although Sowell's description of "redneck" culture is plausible and rather informative, I find his central argument wholly unconvincing primarily because it rests on the implication that cultural influence and exchange in the antebellum and early postbellum South only went in one direction which is obviously asinine on its face. Even more astonishingly, Sowell even claimed that the religious practices of the enslaved were nothing more than imitations of the animated and emotional low church style of worship characteristic of British "cracker" culture.
The longstanding answer is the correct one here: the legacy of slavery in the American South.
Scott actually states his belief in many Kendi'st arguments. Although, not saying Kendi believes this and so do I. Such as all disparities are due to systemic racism. So, it's only natural his arguments and beliefs would be categorized as racist. He actually states he knows that what he is saying is racist.
"there's also a history of that whole issue of “Is it okay to be white?” that he's completely ignoring. It's a set phrase."
A set phrase for whom?
As I walk the highways and byways of ordinary America, I interact with many people. I am routinely surprised at how few everyday working folks are aware of the myriad "set pieces" the chattering classes consider definitive.
It is well to remember that the hoi polloi tend to be literalist, unable to hear what a few strident agitators term "dog whistles."
Being obsessively online, Adams can reasonably be expected to understand that, for certain cohorts, it is indeed a "set piece," but he is also of an age that remembers the rising majority of people who condemned stereotyping people on the basis of skin color.
Academics that arrogate a prerogative to superimpose their own peculiar definition of common words and phrases, are not the arbiters of the common man's thought. A sense of intellectual superiority induces the self-conceptualized "thought leaders" to incite group coercion, and the results are unsurprising. Those with weak arguments reinforce them with threats of violence or penury. Their status as mere proxy does not alter this fact.
Having observed the incrementalism of the last half-century; the steady injection of radicalism into mainstream discourse, the current impasse is hardly unexpected.
Adams can be quite a jerk. That said, his entire statement, including the portion that has not been openly discussed, mirrors what is being said by a growing minority of those with different complexions from his.
I fail to apprehend how this can be a "good" thing, but no American should be forced, by any means, to seek association with, or to live in proximity to any other if they do not wish it.
"Maybe we should just forgive all dead people and move on without them."
Which sounds like a form of sunk cost analysis. Adams is a economist by training (BA from Berkeley).
A voice from the 1990's echos an ancient warning.
"No peace without justice, no justice without forgiveness: I shall not tire of repeating this warning to those who, for one reason or another, nourish feelings of hatred, a desire for revenge or the will to destroy." Pope John Paul II
So nearly half of black people surveyed in that poll are basically questioning whether an entire group's existence is acceptable, but Adams having noticed that is the problem? Really? If only someone could have predicted that the perpetual racialization of every aspect of life would end badly.
This a sowing of the roots planted when some people lost their minds over the concept that ALL lives matter. The black ones, the white ones, and the ones in other hues. If the idea that they all matter is too frightening for people to grasp, then the great American experiment is over. The belief that a pluralistic, multicultural society could find common ground and function turned into a Frankenstein's monster that is now devouring its host.
I'm trying to understand John's dismissive view of the poll results. Would he be so cavalier if that many whites said it's not okay to be black? That would be headline news for a week and it suck the oxygen out of every other topic, from Ukraine to East Palestine, OH to the J6 footage being released. Maybe his view of nuance is that we should not get worked up in either case, which is a nice-sounding sentiment but is not grounded in reality. An adult society would pause for a moment and consider what Adams said, dissecting the words AND the poll results, and questioning if the endless drumbeat of race, race, and more race is not creating a new problem. An easily foreseeable problem, which would make the problem's creators far more of an issue than one guy speaking out.
McWhorter was nothing but daft here. He said nothing of substance whatsoever. And he's not a moron...he's the opposite. Begs a coupla questions, doesnt it?
This is honestly one of the dumbest things I have ever seen someone do in public. If Scott Adams actually knew any black people, he would know that poll is basically worthless, but since he doesn't, he relied on it. If he knew black people, he could have asked himself, "hmmmm, do I believe this poll? Or may it be flawed?"
I had heard about that poll before Scott immolated himself and thought it was ridiculous. It certainly didn't match up with my life experience.
Who was the sample? How many people were asked? You can go into a race studies class in some woke college and maybe get those numbers, maybe, but do a cross section of the black population and see what you get. It won't look anything like this stupid inaccurate poll that this self absorbed "thinker" relied on to make some point, of which still eludes me.
One thing though, white people often do move into black neighborhoods. I lived in West Oakland for quite some time and I enjoyed it and never once, ever, was I accosted by a black person, approached angrily by a black person or have any other negative encounters.
The problem though is, when white people move into prominently black communities, they get accused of "gentrification". I never was personally by anyone, but I know that criticism is out there.
I would advise everyone to not listen to Scott Adams. There is little more dangerous in this world than someone half as smart as they think they are. Usually, that is called "adolescence", but in this case, bizarre hubris backed up by misinterpreted information.
"The problem though is, when white people move into prominently black communities, they get accused of 'gentrification'. I never was personally by anyone, but I know that criticism is out there."
Yeah this seems to come mostly from those who live outside of such neighborhoods. The opinions of actual residents are more nuanced but typically they express openness to new neighbors and investment but simply want to be respected as members of a pre-existing community with its own cherished traditions and such. Certainly there is involuntary displacement but I don't think it's as excessive as it is usually portrayed to be (except in the outliers, like Austin).
Full disclosure, I subscribe to his video podcast and viewed the original video live.
To be fair: Black Americans DO experience racism and prejudice. Especially low-income urban areas. They generally get roughed up more often, physically assaulted, etc. But not murdered by cops. Rarely. Roland Fryer’s work here is interesting. The police murder of black men is much more complex and is largely a myth. Plenty of poor whites are killed by cops we just never hear it on MSM. Think how many black Americans got away with murder in the past few years. Remember that guy who drive his car through the parade in Wisconsin? Yeah. Exactly. Media barely touched it. Killed a little white boy.
This might intrigue you: https://blacksnakeofvanity.substack.com/p/white-supremacy
I actually think the abuse of authority by police in their dealings with civilians they perceive as not having a political voice is more egregious over the long run. And when that is norm for too many residents of a particular community, those cumulative acts will function as the gunpowder that explodes in response to a more serious incident resulting in civilian death or serious injury, which would act as the lit fuse. The worst incidents of civil unrest in response to such a tragedy are never about the tragedy itself but rather a history that outsiders know nothing about.
"Think how many black Americans got away with murder in the past few years."
How many exactly?
Thousands got away with murder, but it was almost always when they murdered another poor black person. It's absolutely true that mainstream media has no real interest in covering a black on white murder, but the cops sure are interested. Those murders get investigated thoroughly and the perpetrator is brought to justice quite often.
I feel like we are in a terrible catch 22 with police and poor black communities. If you are a cop working an area where the vast majority of crime is committed by young black males, how can you not build up a negative bias? It is the human response to the pattern you are seeing daily. Which is why black cops show the same patterns of bias against young black men in these areas. And if you are an innocent young black man how can you not view the system as broken if you are always treated with suspicion and have experiences of being roughed up by police.
Unfortunately, this is ultimately why I believe the American experiment is doomed to fail. Our rather primitive human cognitive processes, ideally suited for a hunter-gatherer lifestyle, haven't yet adapted to the realities of contemporary life within interconnected pluralistic societies. The modern regressive notion of race exploits this deficiency with a vengeance and represents a substantial setback for our species given America's cultural dominance on a global scale IMO.
The Wisconsin killer is sentenced (NBC News):
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/darrell-brooks-wisconsin-christmas-parade-sentenced-rcna57411
Good. That story disappeared fast.
All this talk about blacks, but no one is talking about the "other" group. 41% of them think its not ok or aren't sure if its ok to be white. Maybe we should stay away from "others" as well. Or maybe we should just lump everyone who doesn't look like us together, consider them all "others" and then treat them with suspicion and contempt. I wonder if thats been tried before.
But there are also some whites in our midst who think its not ok to be white or aren't sure. And if I do the math, there are actually more whites who believe that then blacks! 20% of 63% of the population is almost 13%. So as many white people believe that as there are total black people in the country! We cant trust the whites either. Maybe we should just lock ourselves inside to be safe.
But what if one of the whites who believes this is in our family?! The hate could be coming from inside the house! I might have to build a safe room
What is this—numerology? What do you consider to be the significance of the same absolute number of blacks and whites believing one thing or another or nothing or everything? Only percentages, percentiles, and the like are meaningful in the statistical analysis of groups. Absolutes are meaningless—data points without context or import.
But aren't a lot more unarmed White people killed by cops every year than Black people? I heard that's important to note.
My point is that this whole thing is silly. It was a stupid way to phrase the question and there were a total of 1000 people polled. So there was a total of 34 black people who didn't agree that it was ok to be white. Making a decision to get away from black people because they are a hate group is a ridiculous conclusion to draw from this. Its comical to me that the crowd least convinced by polls is putting so much faith in this one.
I did not say the same absolute number of whites and blacks aren't sure or believe its not ok to be white. I said as many white people believe that as there are total black people in the country. There are 40 million black people in the country and (if we really trust this poll) we can say there are 40 million white people who aren't sure or believe its not ok to be white. So if you are trying to draw practical conclusions from this data then absolute numbers do matter. We are talking about safety right? We want to get away from people who hate white people. Ok, then you are far more likely to run into a white person who hates white people than a black person. And I think its worse because you won't know if they are a white-hating white person or a regular white person. Their skin tone will allow them to blend in. So we are all in danger all the time.
My mistake, I didn't pick up on the white vs total black comparison. In that case, the portion believing (or not) one thing is directly compared against the totality of the other group—a useful and thought-provoking comparison. Thanks for pointing it out in the first place and then going to the trouble to explain it to me (it sometimes takes me a while...) and sorry again for my original misinterpretation of your comment.
No worries. I reread my original post and it wasn't clear. I started by saying "there are actually more whites who believe that then blacks". I see how that confused the point.
This might intrigue you: https://blacksnakeofvanity.substack.com/p/white-supremacy
With Ibram X Kendi's Marxist nonsense entering the education system, it should be no surprise that people think everything is racist.
https://unskool.substack.com/p/ibram-x-kendis-antiracist-path-to
I disagree with Scott Adams on many if not most things, but he’s no racist. Like many of us, he has black friends with a sense of humor and who aren’t into wokeness, and sometimes this can lead one to say hyperbolic things with them in private (or on a private blog) that one would not say in public.
A person can have friends of other races and still harbor racial prejudice or resentment. In fact, I'd argue those friends know as much but tolerate or ignore it for the sake of maintaining their mutually beneficial relationship. There's a lot of daylight between humorously opposing wokeness with your Black friends and designating all Black folks as members of a hate group.
Whether Adams is a flat-out racist or not isn't something I can say with full certainty, but that whole screed was definitely racist.
So it’s racist to say you should probably avoid groups where a lot of them think you may not be ok because of your skin color. In other words, it’s racist to avoid racists if they’re black.
He did not say "avoid racists". He said that whites should stay away from Blacks. He also said that he chose to live in a neighbourhood with a very small Black population.
The sheer irrationality that drives one to declare an ethnic group of 40M people a hate group because of how 34 persons which identify as belonging to said ethnic group (which strangely includes Adams himself by his own admission) answered a poll question, along with other content contained in that screed, places such a person cheek to jowl with racism.
You’re obviously getting your information second hand if you think that’s how it went down.
Of course I'm getting it secondhand, just like everyone else here who read about it on their favorite media sites/platforms. You must know Adams personally and he relayed his thoughts to you directly or something.
YAWN YAWN YAWN
AND fough all y'all playaz tryna cast aspersions: my hotline is RED 3195123295
Then part of the problem is the poll is being presented inaccurately in the press.
According to the same poll 66% of Black people agree with the statement that Black people can be racist: http://twitter.com/Rasmussen_Poll/status/1629886078298603520/photo/1 . Interestingly, Scott Adams did not mention it, probably because it does not fit his narrative on these hateful Blacks whites should get away from...
It doesn’t fit? Seems to me it does, actually.
If most Black people think that their own group can be racist, it means that they are self-critical enough to realize that Black people can hold prejudice towards other racial groups and that this prejudice can be described as racist.
This actually directly contradicts one of the current "woke" dogmas - the idea that Black people can't be racist. Scott Adams has portrayed Blacks as a group filled with racial hatred. If most Black people think that their own group can be racist, it means that they are much more rational and self-critical than Adams has implied and that they don't enthusiastically embrace the "woke" theory of race relations.
That still leaves a lot of Blacks who are not self-critical, are racist, and having animosity toward whites (and other POC). Adams did not portray all Blacks as such, but suggested that if even 20% of them are antagonistic, it makes wholesale interaction with them untenable. Very few white people disagree with him on the merits of the case -certainly not the ones who cancelled him, if you judge by how they live their lives - but many can’t allow it to be said or they will be deemed racist themselves - which they are in a sense.
But Adams emphasized that no individual Black person should be judged by the hypothetical 20% and interaction on an individual level is a good thing. I think he should have used a more measured tone to present his ideas, but his heart seems to be in more or less the right place. He wanted to bring this issue out in the open to be useful to Blacks most of all, and we’ll see if he succeeded or got cancelled to no effect.
"That still leaves a lot of Blacks who are not self-critical, are racist, and having animosity toward whites (and other POC)."
That's quite the conclusion to jump to based on one poll. I guarantee you'd see a notable uptick in that 66% figure if the word "racist" was replaced with "prejudiced." Personally I find the assertion that Black Americans can't be racist to be logically incoherent and inconsistent, but I do recognize what others who believe differently are getting at when they say as much.
It’s not just based on one flawed poll. You can find black racists all over the internet, specially seemingly well educated ones. That does not bode well for race relations or public policy.
But Adams based his advice on the results of this one flawed poll. And it is not logical to conclude that one should stay away from a group only because some of its members are prejudiced towards one's group.
You can find anything you're looking for all over the internet. Your point?
I agree with you, I guess that few Black Americans would claim that Black people can't be prejudiced towards other races or ethnic groups!
The idea that interaction with Black people is "untenable" because SOME Blacks don't like whites is completely unconvincing. In the same way one could say that Blacks should avoid interactions with whites because SOME whites are racist.
"White flight" does not prove that most whites want to "keep away" from Blacks. Most whites would probably have no problem living in a peaceful middle-class neighbourhood with a large Black population. Most people of all skin colours don't want to live in poor and dangerous neighbourhoods.
Adams said that interaction on an individual level is a good thing, but he also advised whites to keep away from Blacks. I wouldn't personally want to have any interaction with a person who publicly encourages people to keep away from my racial or ethnic group.
Of course Adams had the right to comment on the results of this poll, he had the right to express his bitterness, but he had no right to jump to the conclusion that whites should keep away from Blacks. He has jumped to this conclusion on the basis of the way 47% of Black respondents have responded to a question in a poll.
I don't think that he wanted his words to be useful to Black people. How could they be useful to them? Probably most of them have simply dismissed Adams as yet another white racist. And Black people who don't hold any prejudice towards whites will find it very difficult to change the attitudes of other Blacks if even someone like Scott Adams is openly encouraging racial segregation...
Valid comments, except this one: “Probably most of them have simply dismissed Adams as yet another white racist.” How do you presume to say what they do? You don’t give them much credit for open-mindedness. You should see his talk with Hotep Jesus.
Having read through the comments sections in several media outlets that covered the story as well as some social media posts by folks I know, it would seem that Adams wasn't really a known quantity for most Americans regardless of race. Knowledge of a person's words or actions with respect to racial matters in the past would serve as the basis for most Black folks in determining whether said person is even worth the extra consideration or effort to regard with some nuance, and Adams doesn't appear to fit the bill.
I am going to look for this talk. Let me emphasize that I said "probably". I don't think that many Black people would be ready to defend someone who claims that whites should stay away from Blacks - well, unless these Black people also support racial segregation.
This word 'hate' sho does get thrown around a lot, by golly.
I found this Adams controversy interesting, in the sense that every survey I've seen on UK or America shows white people prefer white-majority neighborhoods, and they leave as neighborhoods diversify in droves. Its not about crime, because it happens where you had Asian and Hispanic influx in Atlanta without rising crime. Everyone is upset about what Adams said, but no one wants to talk about the fact that what Adams said is what white people actually do. Its as if there is some silent agreement that no one will notice white people moving away so long as white people don't state why they are doing so.
I disagree that Adams is going to set off some chain reaction. Its already happening. Further, its not clear that its really a political problem, more diversity, more white flight, so what. It would only be a problem if the whites suddenly decided to stay and fight, but even that would be manageable if whites were a distinct minority, just give them their own reservation at that point, and make sure they were well supplied with mayonnaise to prevent riots.
I don't know why anyone would be surprised by this. Do you believe this to be a white desire only? Yes, no matter how cosmopolitan we aspire to be, we are all still very much tribal given the choice. We prefer to live next to people who look and act like us. It holds for race, class and culture (and I might even argue that in 2023 it's stronger for class). Do you think white people flee blacks, hispanics and asians but all other minorities happily form mixed BIPOC neighborhoods? People with the means, move next to people like them. And the only real difference is that white people have more choices for majority white neighborhoods because there are more white people. White people aren't uniquely tribal.
This might intrigue you: https://blacksnakeofvanity.substack.com/p/white-supremacy
Eric Kaufmann looked at the sociology in his book White Shift, and in the UK, whites will move if its tips more than 80/20 and non-whites not so much. Just because you have a racial housing preference doesn't necessarily make you "tribal". The broader point I was making is so what. People are afraid of some political push for re-segregation, but I don't see it. The staunchest segregationist areas of the South were Black-majority areas, and the drive was political, to keep Blacks out of control of political decision-making, the rest was window dressing. That is the will to power, which is different from the drive to live in an ethnic Polish neighborhood.
When I say tribal I just mean showing an in-group bias. Tribal can sometimes have a harsher connotation, but thats not how I meant it.
So in 2023, if you have a racial housing preference, meaning you prefer to live next to members of your own race, what does that make you? Does it make you something different if you’re white than if you’re a minority? Or should we assume different motivations for whites having in-group bias vs minorities having in-group bias?
Adams is frequently insincere in his comments. Apologizing for example one day to unvaxxed people, then hours later, mocking them with satire, saying they're always right on everything, and that he's always wrong. The guy is a trained hypnotist. He's written books on persuasion. He has a nihilistic bent. He also asked his followers how he should quit and gave them a poll choice between something quiet vs him saying more and more "uncomfortably true things" until he gets cancelled. The latter won. He maybe trying to create the reaction so he can then later make a point out of it.
What happened, broadly speaking, is the Clinton/DNC machine sold out to the corporate class. And then traded middle class values (votes) for identity politics, etc, which was/is WAYYY cheaper, and easy to do by aligning with Academia (at least in the soft sciences), which gave the illusion of Liberalism (the JS Mill type) while actually folding to the critical theory BS we see now. And, for the most part, both Blacks and Whites both bought that garbage with enthusiasm. Blacks got a sense of empowerment/entitlement, resulting in a 'dont criticize my behavior/choices...I am OPPRESSED!'; and 'liberal' Whites got to agree while doing nothing to actually help anyone but themselves. Real Leftists saw this coming a long time ago. Now our political process is a fucking trainwreck, we have been at constant war for 2+ decades, we are bleeding $$$ while increasing debt exponentially, and we are weak, desperate and ungovernable, so will do ANYTHING to look the other way while the whole thing crumbles.
“We pretend to be victims and they pretend to help us”. LOL.
Well this one got a lot of engagement! I think there are 2 interesting points (3 if we count the comments). The first is the idea that speech such as Adams must be shut down lest it influences others in that direction. That is not, in and of itself, an obviously invalid argument. However it is principally the same argument as "violent video games cause violence" or "lyrics glorifying gang culture influence kids towards crime". To make the argument in one direction and dismiss it in the other is some discordant thinking and a subtle hypocrisy that I don't think should be allowed to go unchallenged. Not that woke ideology is starved for hypocrisies, but it should be addressed.
The second point is one that I feel like I bring up in every comment I make, but that is that much of the animus surrounding race comes from equating "black" with "poor and urban" in the context of culture. I don't want to stay away from black people, I want to stay away from urban poor. I would - and do - happily pay money to be exposed to John and Glenn. I would cross the street to avoid a white guy from the south side of Chicago. Using "black" as shorthand for a culture derived from street gangs is inaccurate because that culture tracks better with class than skin color. And that's an inaccurate shorthand that spans both sides of the political aisle.
Finally, third point, I was struggling with how to objectively categorize Scott's comments until I was reading the comments here and saw one that pointed out it's the mirror of Kendi's beliefs. That resonated and helped me firmly categorize them as racist, not just lacking the nuance of point 2.
This might intrigue you: https://blacksnakeofvanity.substack.com/p/white-supremacy
Boom.
Thomas Sowell has suggested that the violence of poor black culture is the violent culture of whites in the South that the Blacks brought with them as they migrated north and elsewhere. Even today, Southern states tend to have the highest rates of violent crime.
Although Sowell's description of "redneck" culture is plausible and rather informative, I find his central argument wholly unconvincing primarily because it rests on the implication that cultural influence and exchange in the antebellum and early postbellum South only went in one direction which is obviously asinine on its face. Even more astonishingly, Sowell even claimed that the religious practices of the enslaved were nothing more than imitations of the animated and emotional low church style of worship characteristic of British "cracker" culture.
The longstanding answer is the correct one here: the legacy of slavery in the American South.
All I can say is thank goodness the dominant flow of white migration is from north to south and not the other way around!
AC is one of God's greatest creations lol.
Scott actually states his belief in many Kendi'st arguments. Although, not saying Kendi believes this and so do I. Such as all disparities are due to systemic racism. So, it's only natural his arguments and beliefs would be categorized as racist. He actually states he knows that what he is saying is racist.
Sounds like you cheated and actually watched the Adam’s video. 😏
"there's also a history of that whole issue of “Is it okay to be white?” that he's completely ignoring. It's a set phrase."
A set phrase for whom?
As I walk the highways and byways of ordinary America, I interact with many people. I am routinely surprised at how few everyday working folks are aware of the myriad "set pieces" the chattering classes consider definitive.
It is well to remember that the hoi polloi tend to be literalist, unable to hear what a few strident agitators term "dog whistles."
Being obsessively online, Adams can reasonably be expected to understand that, for certain cohorts, it is indeed a "set piece," but he is also of an age that remembers the rising majority of people who condemned stereotyping people on the basis of skin color.
Academics that arrogate a prerogative to superimpose their own peculiar definition of common words and phrases, are not the arbiters of the common man's thought. A sense of intellectual superiority induces the self-conceptualized "thought leaders" to incite group coercion, and the results are unsurprising. Those with weak arguments reinforce them with threats of violence or penury. Their status as mere proxy does not alter this fact.
Having observed the incrementalism of the last half-century; the steady injection of radicalism into mainstream discourse, the current impasse is hardly unexpected.
Adams can be quite a jerk. That said, his entire statement, including the portion that has not been openly discussed, mirrors what is being said by a growing minority of those with different complexions from his.
I fail to apprehend how this can be a "good" thing, but no American should be forced, by any means, to seek association with, or to live in proximity to any other if they do not wish it.
“It’s ok to be white” is the set phrase, appearing on clothing worn by anti-anti-racists, and may be what prompted the right-leaning Rasmussen poll.
A provocative comment from Scott Adams from 2020.
"Maybe we should just forgive all dead people and move on without them."
Which sounds like a form of sunk cost analysis. Adams is a economist by training (BA from Berkeley).
A voice from the 1990's echos an ancient warning.
"No peace without justice, no justice without forgiveness: I shall not tire of repeating this warning to those who, for one reason or another, nourish feelings of hatred, a desire for revenge or the will to destroy." Pope John Paul II
https://twitter.com/scottadamssays/status/1280484707663114240
So nearly half of black people surveyed in that poll are basically questioning whether an entire group's existence is acceptable, but Adams having noticed that is the problem? Really? If only someone could have predicted that the perpetual racialization of every aspect of life would end badly.
This a sowing of the roots planted when some people lost their minds over the concept that ALL lives matter. The black ones, the white ones, and the ones in other hues. If the idea that they all matter is too frightening for people to grasp, then the great American experiment is over. The belief that a pluralistic, multicultural society could find common ground and function turned into a Frankenstein's monster that is now devouring its host.
I'm trying to understand John's dismissive view of the poll results. Would he be so cavalier if that many whites said it's not okay to be black? That would be headline news for a week and it suck the oxygen out of every other topic, from Ukraine to East Palestine, OH to the J6 footage being released. Maybe his view of nuance is that we should not get worked up in either case, which is a nice-sounding sentiment but is not grounded in reality. An adult society would pause for a moment and consider what Adams said, dissecting the words AND the poll results, and questioning if the endless drumbeat of race, race, and more race is not creating a new problem. An easily foreseeable problem, which would make the problem's creators far more of an issue than one guy speaking out.
"So nearly half of black people surveyed in that poll are basically questioning whether an entire group's existence is acceptable..."
Bless your heart.
McWhorter was nothing but daft here. He said nothing of substance whatsoever. And he's not a moron...he's the opposite. Begs a coupla questions, doesnt it?