Dilbert: Quiet quitting

[mikeymikec]

No for starters you are comparing an out of context quote, it doesn't make it correct or even not bad, but the context in which he says it, is important.

<shrugs> The video clip is right here, try watching it. The point has already been argued, try reading the thread instead of continuing to flog a dead horse. There isn't any more context, and what Adams brought up himself in his defence actually digs an even deeper hole for himself.

Reaction to kid B defending themselves is good.

Good, then you see that the conditions that people are forced to live in are relevant to the circumstances.

Scott Adams is apparently a heterosexual white man. Therefore it's extremely unlikely that he has ever been on the receiving end of discrimination based on skin colour, gender or sexual orientation.

The fact of the matter is that virtually all black people in America will have experienced discrimination. If they were born in the same year as Adams, then they would have experienced segregation. In such an era, there is no chance whatsoever that a black child won't have had family, extended family and friends and a tonne of experiences of discrimination all the way to the top of any power hierarchy that they could conceivably experience.

Fast forward to today. Since racism in America didn't just disappear after the 60s civil rights struggle, and a large percentage of white people living then are still living now (or at least brought up kids to share their fucked-up beliefs), the seeds of racism continue to germinate in America. I'd say pretty much every black person in America will still have experienced discrimination based on skin colour (let alone the other common attributes for discrimination), and/or will have family and friends with their share of experiences. Black people still die at the hands of racist white people. There are still racists in positions of power and influence. Do you know what I've never heard happening in America? Gangs of black police officers arresting white youths, torturing them and they die in detention. As corrupt as the police are in America, they'd never tolerate that. There would be no cover-up, the officers would be in prison as quickly as legally possible.

Adams won't have personally experienced any of that, nor his white friends and family (being on the receiving end that is). By the looks of things, he grew up middle class, got a job, found a lucrative method of self-employment, and then for reasons best known to himself decided to publicly express his racist attitudes. There's no sympathy angle here, no context to explain why he's gone off at the deep end. If his entire family had just been murdered by a gang of black people and he made some kind of (obviously unplanned) racist-sounding outburst in public shortly after, I'd say, "you know what, the guy is going through a tough time right now".

The fact of the matter is, there aren't any extenuating circumstances for him. He's enjoyed a privileged life, he has power and influence that he should use wisely, yet these comments were planned and he's doubling-down on them.

So if some black lady at an awards ceremony expresses her hope that black people will win awards, I can't say I give a shit. If this happened at some point in the future where the playing field with regard to 'race' has been level for at least a century without a sniff of racism in a given country's power structures then I'd say it was problematic. She's hoping to see signs of equality in the power structures that she interacts with. I hope for the same thing.

What's Adam's struggle that I should have sympathy for and give lee-way for the manner in which he struggles for it?

 

[Kaido]

what Adams brought up himself in his defence actually digs an even deeper hole for himself.

The video was really bad. He later attempted to clarify his intentions, but the follow-up over the last week really felt like he was just doubling down on things. Super disappointing all around.

 

[RPD]

<shrugs> The video clip is right here, try watching it. The point has already been argued, try reading the thread instead of continuing to flog a dead horse. There isn't any more context, and what Adams brought up himself in his defence actually digs an even deeper hole for himself.



Good, then you see that the conditions that people are forced to live in are relevant to the circumstances.

Scott Adams is apparently a heterosexual white man. Therefore it's extremely unlikely that he has ever been on the receiving end of discrimination based on skin colour, gender or sexual orientation.

The fact of the matter is that virtually all black people in America will have experienced discrimination. If they were born in the same year as Adams, then they would have experienced segregation. In such an era, there is no chance whatsoever that a black child won't have had family, extended family and friends and a tonne of experiences of discrimination all the way to the top of any power hierarchy that they could conceivably experience.

Fast forward to today. Since racism in America didn't just disappear after the 60s civil rights struggle, and a large percentage of white people living then are still living now (or at least brought up kids to share their fucked-up beliefs), the seeds of racism continue to germinate in America. I'd say pretty much every black person in America will still have experienced discrimination based on skin colour (let alone the other common attributes for discrimination), and/or will have family and friends with their share of experiences. Black people still die at the hands of racist white people. There are still racists in positions of power and influence. Do you know what I've never heard happening in America? Gangs of black police officers arresting white youths, torturing them and they die in detention. As corrupt as the police are in America, they'd never tolerate that. There would be no cover-up, the officers would be in prison as quickly as legally possible.

Adams won't have personally experienced any of that, nor his white friends and family (being on the receiving end that is). By the looks of things, he grew up middle class, got a job, found a lucrative method of self-employment, and then for reasons best known to himself decided to publicly express his racist attitudes. There's no sympathy angle here, no context to explain why he's gone off at the deep end. If his entire family had just been murdered by a gang of black people and he made some kind of (obviously unplanned) racist-sounding outburst in public shortly after, I'd say, "you know what, the guy is going through a tough time right now".

The fact of the matter is, there aren't any extenuating circumstances for him. He's enjoyed a privileged life, he has power and influence that he should use wisely, yet these comments were planned and he's doubling-down on them.

So if some black lady at an awards ceremony expresses her hope that black people will win awards, I can't say I give a shit. If this happened at some point in the future where the playing field with regard to 'race' has been level for at least a century without a sniff of racism in a given country's power structures then I'd say it was problematic. She's hoping to see signs of equality in the power structures that she interacts with. I hope for the same thing.

What's Adam's struggle that I should have sympathy for and give lee-way for the manner in which he struggles for it?

Cool, not sure how any of this relates to A) my original scenario, no one has touched that yet, interesting and B) your analogy with the two kids just up and vanished? You brought it up but then failed to tie it back to anything in this post.
Do ONLY black people experience racism and it's apparently only a problem for them?
For your last paragraph, so until some abritrary "levelness" in regards to race is reached for a century, it's ok to be racist just int he other direction? Amazing.

 

[mikeymikec]

Cool, not sure how any of this relates to A) my original scenario, no one has touched that yet, interesting and B) your analogy with the two kids just up and vanished? You brought it up but then failed to tie it back to anything in this post.

You seemed to indicate an understanding that justice isn't about treating all situations equally but that the context is important when making a sound judgement, so I dispensed with the analogy (I thought I had made that clear, but anyway). In your latest post though it looks like you fail to understand that context is important, since you apparently believe that a black person should be treated by the media the same for making the award ceremony statement as a white person. Apparently you don't think it would be an odd thing for a white person to say, what basis they might have for making such a statement, whether that basis has any reasonable grounding in reality, anything like that. Do you think white people in America have had difficulty due to their skin colour getting work or awards in the entertainment business?

Do ONLY black people experience racism and it's apparently only a problem for them?

Did I indicate that opinion anywhere (my previous post indicated the opposite but anyway)? My answer to it is "no", in case that helps you somehow.

For your last paragraph, so until some abritrary "levelness" in regards to race is reached for a century, it's ok to be racist just int he other direction? Amazing.

I thought I had supplied sufficient context for my opinion, but supplying context in the topic of racism seems to be something you're having difficulty grasping. Unless of course the topic is Scott Adam's racist statements, and then the (non-existent) context seems to hold some importance for you.

I also find it interesting that any questions and points that have been put to you regarding Scott Adams (which is the topic being discussed here), you've ignored, but this black lady's statement is the only point of interest for you.

 

[RPD]

You seemed to indicate an understanding that justice isn't about treating all situations equally but that the context is important when making a sound judgement, so I dispensed with the analogy (I thought I had made that clear, but anyway). In your latest post though it looks like you fail to understand that context is important, since you apparently believe that a black person should be treated by the media the same for making the award ceremony statement as a white person. Apparently you don't think it would be an odd thing for a white person to say, what basis they might have for making such a statement, whether that basis has any reasonable grounding in reality, anything like that. Do you think white people in America have had difficulty due to their skin colour getting work or awards in the entertainment business?



Did I indicate that opinion anywhere (my previous post indicated the opposite but anyway)? My answer to it is "no", in case that helps you somehow.



I thought I had supplied sufficient context for my opinion, but supplying context in the topic of racism seems to be something you're having difficulty grasping. Unless of course the topic is Scott Adam's racist statements, and then the (non-existent) context seems to hold some importance for you.

I also find it interesting that any questions and points that have been put to you regarding Scott Adams (which is the topic being discussed here), you've ignored, but this black lady's statement is the only point of interest for you.

Because I already made my position clear? To summarize your points, you seem to indicate that racism is OK provided it's the race that's been traditionally been on the short end of the stick of racism that are now racist. That's a brilliant way to have a society function.

 

[Torn Mind]

It's just disappointing to see someone whose work you like (Dilbert comic etc.) go off the rails like this. This article sums it up:

"With his remarks, he canceled himself."

With highlighting actual nuances explicitly and clearly, I think he could have avoided cancellation. The newspapers and book publishers, I believe, determined that he ventured into the realm where they would be at risk for substantial legal inconveniences if they continued to publish his work, and given that their revenue streams are tanking, it's not something they could afford, along with some easily formed bad optics if they carried on because his statements do not have the grounds necessary to stand firmly on.

In addition, the original video is likely scripted(they are so long, it's hard to believe they aren't) or at least outlined, so it isn't something that can easily be washed away with "blind passion" as a excuse. In short, he had time to think about it, and has had more to do so since.

With that said, the journalistic and moral policing "rebukes" are as usual, rather unsatisfying and actually, unfair to Adams up to a point. That point being a quarter polled responded that it's not okay to be white is something worth investigating and discussing, and for as many interpretations of the phrase as possible. But it's not surprising, given that journalists are usually the shunt for people who like to question but are too dumb to do law school or philosophy; they were the original influencers. Thus, their intended narratives are not to be immediately trusted and the facts presented can only be accepted with great care.

One possible manifestation of "being white" is that exhibiting "educated' behaviors constitutes "being white". So, he is aware of that other sense. So then, if he had given some thought, in which he should have by now, maybe the matter is not necessarily a white person just being white but rather the intra-black culture has a mechanism within itself that may be detrimental to both blacks within the group and possibly whites as well.
But, the journalists are also afraid of the answers to the question, because in the sense of being anti-education, the actual logical implication is that is against the black culture to exhibit signs of education, that is accepting the conduct of higher educated liberals. There is already firm, natural, and understanble antagonism against white Southerners and the normal conservative, so what exactly would the "anti-education" interpretation of being white be? Well of course it's against being like a white liberal or going to the likes of an Ivy League school, the latter of which usually trends one way far more than the other.

Far from being benevolent or helpful, the actions of the white knight press is one of silencing another group besides Adams, which are all the people who answered No or Not Sure to "It's okay to be white", including that black subset. Even with the great variety of interpretations, the answering to the poll does lend credence that exhibiting properties of "whiteness" in some form or way is a problem somehow. But acknowledging that would through a wrench and air dirty laundry about a large variety things, such as the media advocacy narrative that the "acting white" taboo education is a total myth. The common non-investigative journalist is a walking conflict of interest: being both fact-finder and influencer/advocate for cause. In addition, they are either uneducated in logical fallacies or deliberately fallacious because of their internal advocacy goals.
There are grievances of many varieties that may be at work that resulted in such an answer to the poll question, and despite all the passion dumped by the parties, not a single one of them wants to bring the many possible pathways to light because it doesn't fit with any of their agendas.

Indeed, many point-counterpoint exchanges often have a ton of ignored meaningful matters because the ones making a point don't want to deal with these "third" issues. Indeed, probably an edifying step would be conduct the same poll with a much larger group to see if the statistics hold. Or, to examine the Black population subset, sampling a much larger number of black people not exposed to the world and see how they answer the same questions. There were only 130 total black people who actually made answers. But will of Adams and the "self-defenders" are seemingly not for such an endeavor.

 

[JEDI]

It's just disappointing to see someone whose work you like (Dilbert comic etc.) go off the rails like this. This article sums it up:

"With his remarks, he canceled himself."

 

[mikeymikec]

Because I already made my position clear? To summarize your points, you seem to indicate that racism is OK provided it's the race that's been traditionally been on the short end of the stick of racism that are now racist.

Your position seems to be:
Scott Adams: But the context! No, I won't be supplying any context or taking any questions.
Black lady at awards ceremony: OH NO, THE RACISM!

If a person with no knowledge of racism asked me what it means, this would be my response: based on the notion of skin colour making group A superior to group B of a different skin colour, group A subjugates group B using various means. Historical examples include genocide, slavery, lynching, denial of justice, denial of jobs and other opportunities, restrictions on where they can live and whom they can have relationships with, and generally classifying them in some way as sub-human and therefore dangerous if not controlled.

I'd have to try quite hard to crowbar the scenario of a member of group B expressing an opinion favouring group B at an awards ceremony into that definition.

That's a brilliant way to have a society function.

If you've found a way to undo all the damage caused to society by racism, I'm all ears!

 

[RPD]

Your position seems to be:
Scott Adams: But the context! No, I won't be supplying any context or taking any questions.
Black lady at awards ceremony: OH NO, THE RACISM!

If a person with no knowledge of racism asked me what it means, this would be my response: based on the notion of skin colour making group A superior to group B of a different skin colour, group A subjugates group B using various means. Historical examples include genocide, slavery, lynching, denial of justice, denial of jobs and other opportunities, restrictions on where they can live and whom they can have relationships with, and generally classifying them in some way as sub-human and therefore dangerous if not controlled.

I'd have to try quite hard to crowbar the scenario of a member of group B expressing an opinion favouring group B at an awards ceremony into that definition.



If you've found a way to undo all the damage caused to society by racism, I'm all ears!

No. No and nope. It's pretty simple you keep seem to make a lot of words to justify it, but if you take a situation where it's ok, but swap out the colors and now its not, that's racism as well and that is where you seem to have a problem. Also racism isn't even that complex, it's literally treating someone different because they look different than you.

 

[Torn Mind]

For starters, I'm going to point out that you're comparing Scott Adams saying, "you need to get the hell away from all black people" with "I hope some black people win some awards today".

That aside, let me pose a hypothetical scenario to you:

Two kids in a school. Kid A has been making kid B's life an absolute misery, beats the living shit out of them every chance they get, etc.

On a given day, let's say kid A has done it again, but gets caught red-handed this time. What's your reaction here?
Now let's change that situation and say that kid B has finally had enough of kid A's bullshit and beats the living shit out of kid A. What's your reaction here?

I do question whether you realize that thinking you are morally right doesn't give you the grounds to make logical fallacies or analogies willy-nilly, especially with some serious implications that result.

Kid A is apparently repeatedly committing the tort of assault. The act of beating is constitutes the physical, non-consented, infliction of "damage" on another. In your scenario, that is "beating".

Kid B, eventually having enough it, assaults the individual right back.

There are some issues drawing an analogy.

Individuals can be held accountable actions and treated as "one agent" performing an act. Groups however, cannot.

Two is the matter of assault. If Kid A is the "white group", then the extrapolation is that white people are, en masse, habitually and freely assaulting blacks with no intervention.

Then there's the matter of feeling good that the retaliator is fighting against the abuse. Up to a point, it can be ethically permissible to strike back at an abuser, but there is a point where it becomes without grounds.

How much "power" Kid B should get to fight back is another question. Because, Kid B is under the rule of law that he can't possess greater assuaulting ability in the way of obtaining firearms; he can be jailed for having one without a license.

And since Kid B is not an indvidiual but a group. Then it makes logical sense that for Group Kid B to get their retribution over Group Kid A, Group Kid B should be armed en masse and given license one time to "beat the living shit out of Group Kid A" to their satisfaction without liability for damages because Group A's prior ethical violations.

 

[Kaido]

With highlighting actual nuances explicitly and clearly, I think he could have avoided cancellation.

That's really my takeaway. I don't know if it's an ego thing or a trolling thing or what. I just can't fathom that kind of behavior. It's like watching the Titanic sink!

 

[mikeymikec]

No. No and nope. It's pretty simple you keep seem to make a lot of words to justify it, but if you take a situation where it's ok, but swap out the colors and now its not, that's racism as well and that is where you seem to have a problem. Also racism isn't even that complex, it's literally treating someone different because they look different than you.

So racism isn't any different from being made fun of for being ginger, having freckles, short, fat, bald or anything like that then, in your opinion?

 

[darkswordsman17]

In light of @Kaido 's comments that SA basically "made a mistake", I decided to take a look at Scott Adam's twitter account, because you know if someone has made a mistake, they stand right up and admit it, right?

Of course that wasn't the case, but there was this video SC quoted that "you ought to see before you pass judgement":

I am just shy of five minutes in (to a video labelled "Scott Adams Interview - It's OK to be white" - in case as a white person you weren't fucking aware of that), and the following has happened:

SA says he "identifies as black"
SA claims he is a leftist, but is a "single issue voter solely on the point of fentanyl"
He says that he was all about helping out with BLM but then found out that "they're not a legitimate organisation".

Here's the interviewer's face while he's coming out with this shit!
View attachment 77400

Was this the extra nuance that I should have been seeking? Do I really have to watch two hours of this pathetic little right wing troll and witness every step of the hole he's dug for himself? I've seen this shit played out before a multitude of times on this forum, like "I used to be a lefty until...", and "I think I'm hilarious and edgy by identifying as black".

Here's another gem, re BLM not being legitimate, "I'm not sure if everyone knows that but it's pretty well established".

Here's the interviewer's face when he drops that one:
View attachment 77401

It's like some Will Ferrell comedy where the actor has to play some washed up old angry racist white man, it's funny because it's an eerily accurate representation but it's so fucking cringeworthy because people actually go on the air with the intention of airing these idiotic and fucked-up views and you just want to shout at the TV, "JUST PLEASE FUCKING STOP TALKING!".

Hopefully that provided Kaido with some context, although something tells me all that was achieved was reinforcing his notion that he was unfairly maligned for daring to speak the "truth" by defending such a racist shitbag as Adams.

But hey, at least we have RPD to take the mantle of Social Justice Warrior for the oppressed rich white man!

how are they not sued by the real dilbert owner?

Not sure if you guys have just been gaslit that badly by corporate IP handling or what, but this would clearly fall under fair use. Now if they had bought the Dilbert website and claimed it was actual official Dilbert comic, sure they'd have a case but its clear parody, which is perfectly legal.

 

[Kaido]

Hopefully that provided Kaido with some context

This is the context I was referring to - his words. The way the video was done & his ongoing response - separate discussion topics.

 

[skyking]

shitty advice. That last bit is the foundation of "separate but equal"

 

[mikeymikec]

@Torn Mind It wasn't meant to be a perfectly scaling analogy that encompasses everything I could possibly want to communicate about racism. A simple point made simply was all its purpose was.

 

[13Gigatons]

The sad part is if Scott Adams was Black and said get away from White people we wouldn't even be discussing it.

 

[mikeymikec]

nvm

 

[BudAshes]

The sad part is if Scott Adams was Black and said get away from White people we wouldn't even be discussing it.

If he was a black guy and said get away from black people he would be Kanye West.

 

[RPD]

So racism isn't any different from being made fun of for being ginger, having freckles, short, fat, bald or anything like that then, in your opinion?

You know what I meant by "look different" in regards to racism, but please continue. You maybe had something with ginger/freckles, short and bald? Then fat? Lmao. Keep trying.

Hopefully that provided Kaido with some context, although something tells me all that was achieved was reinforcing his notion that he was unfairly maligned for daring to speak the "truth" by defending such a racist shitbag as Adams.

But hey, at least we have RPD to take the mantle of Social Justice Warrior for the oppressed rich white man!



Not sure if you guys have just been gaslit that badly by corporate IP handling or what, but this would clearly fall under fair use. Now if they had bought the Dilbert website and claimed it was actual official Dilbert comic, sure they'd have a case but its clear parody, which is perfectly legal.

Tell me you didn't read anything without saying you didn't read anything.

 

[BudAshes]

This is the context I was referring to - his words. The way the video was done & his ongoing response - separate discussion topics.

View attachment 77577

Treat everyone as an individual but then group people together based on what? What is this group that doesn't respect us and how did you manage to group them all together if we are treating everyone as individuals? On top of that what does avoiding mean in this sense?

This guy need to shut the fuck up and go away.

 

[mikeymikec]

You know what I meant by "look different" in regards to racism, but please continue. You maybe had something with ginger/freckles, short and bald? Then fat? Lmao. Keep trying.

No, I don't know exactly what you meant, oddly enough.

I find it kind of weird that you took the time to tell me that my attempts to guess the details of your opinion are incorrect, but you didn't actually just supply the information yourself.

 

[RPD]

No, I don't know exactly what you meant, oddly enough.

I find it kind of weird that you took the time to tell me that my attempts to guess the details of your opinion are incorrect, but you didn't actually just supply the information yourself.

Right, whatever could I mean about "look different" in a topic about racism? Are you seriously this obtuse? Well maybe you are since your examples have what, 4 out of 5 of your which aren't exclusive to race.

Hopefully one day we can figure it out, get some great minds together solve that along with world hunger, green energy and faster than light travel. One day, if we are lucky.

 

[Kaido]

Treat everyone as an individual but then group people together based on what? What is this group that doesn't respect us and how did you manage to group them all together if we are treating everyone as individuals? On top of that what does avoiding mean in this sense?

I think at this point he's pretty much just trolling. He could have left it alone as "avoid people who don't like you" instead of making it a racial issue. Anything that sounds as bad as his video did out of context makes you wonder about his views in the first place, then his responses over the last week or so...well, the whole thing is just disturbing. As a Dilbert fan, the original video was pretty shocking & his response has been super disappointing. The media took things out of the context he was trying to achieve (which...wasn't difficult), but he pretty much dug his own grave with his "technical" responses on an issue as sensitive as this.

I look at stuff like this, Kayne ($1.5 billion tanked), Musk (Tesla tanked $700 billion, in no small part to his Twitter antics), etc. & it really just boggles my mind that anyone would behave this way publicly, despite whatever their personal beliefs are. As someone else mentioned, it's a fairly tone-deaf approach, both with the original video & with the ongoing response. They know that the media is standing by to roast them & that trigger-happy people are ready to condemn them for any perceived slight. If he really wanted to be perceived as a non-racist person, all he had to do was hop on the news, say "hey, I stuck my foot in my mouth, I'm sorry if I offended anyone", and voila, problem solved! Admit you made a PR mistake, apologize & move on!

But like Kanye, he doubled-down. At this point, I think it's just straight-up pride & ego. I still can't fathom sinking your entire multi-decade career & personal empire like this. Not to mention, there was a lot of extrapolation, bad data, poorly-conveyed viewpoints, and just plain bad-sounding stuff across all aspects of this debacle. Again, if he really wanted to show people he wasn't racist, all he had to do was hop online & do some media soundbites, and even throw out some apologies. I dunno. People are crazy.

 

[mikeymikec]

Right, whatever could I mean about "look different" in a topic about racism? Are you seriously this obtuse? Well maybe you are since your examples have what, 4 out of 5 of your which aren't exclusive to race.

I think you may have misunderstood my question in post 112, but it's too late now to do anything about it.