Dilbert comic strip dropped by US media over creator's racist tirade | Hacker News Reader

Dilbert comic strip dropped by US media over creator's racist tirade

bbc.co.uk

17 pointschoult13 comments

Adams said on Wednesday that he had moved to a different location to get away from Black people, and urged others to do the same.

“I’m not saying start a war or anything like that,” he said. “I’m just saying get away.” [1]

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/feb/26/dilbert-cart...

And we, as a society, now condemn getting away from groups defined by their race/skin color, and flocking together to others who are less likely to hate you?

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/09/12/us/freedom-black-cooperat...

We are, as a society, I suppose more or less aware of power asymmetries. Also, ‘other people do X too’ is a poor argument.

I agree it would be a poor argument if used as argument. It wasn't. Funny you use "other people do X too". You agree those Georgians are self segregating.

I'm using it to explain the news to other people, not to argue for Adams' right to be free from blame for what he said. Here's an asymmetry:

Self segregating is racist if done to get away from black people, and indifferent (or even praise worthy) if done by black people.

> We are, as a society, I suppose more or less aware of power asymmetries.

I agree. And pointed out an asymmetry above.

There's a difference between "I want to be closer to people like me" and "I want to get away from people who are different to me"

There are differences. But also things in common. Both statements get to "like me" by using skin color (or race) as proxy. And so we learn "people (un)like me" are people of the same color, and now you see they are the same statement.

Adams was condemned, fired, newspapers print his guilt, and the parent of this thread selects a bit of evidence for his guilt: he wanted to self segregate.

As for the Georgians, we condemn them in private equally as Adams. However, because they are black, society lets them be racist.

In any case, what bothers me more is the art not being separate from the artist. If there's merit in Dilbert, I hope someone picks it up.

Do we condemn them in private equally? I don't. I'm not sure why you'd think that everyone shares your point of view.

If you're part of a marginalized group you are the outgroup everywhere you go, all the time. Wanting a break from that experience, wanting to walk the neighbourhood without fear that you will die-by-police feels fair to me.

Context matters, doesn't it?

Black cities were born out of need, since people of color were kicked out of their homes and had to find a place that was safe for them. The came redlining. The specific case of Freedom Georgia, the article you linked, is about building a town where they feel safe, not because of the color of the skin, but because they will have the opportunity to enforce fair policing and not have to fear for their lives when stopped by a patrol.

Adam said that black people are a hate group, based on a poll of 1000 people, and it's not safe to live close to them. Quite a different context, right?

Yes, different context. But for the same idea to exist in both Adam and Freedom Georgia's peoples: self segregation.

Freedom Georgia wants a black owned town. They do it because they think of it as proxy for "safe for black people". And they think that because they see skin color as the clue to spot friend or foe.

A different context, to use the same tools (race based prejudice). Both Freedom Georgia and Adams are racists. Either being a racist is not the accusation society frames it to be, or both of them should be shunned. Neither outcome looks good...

> Adam said that black people are a hate group, based on a poll of 1000 people, and it's not safe to live close to them.

How many people would the poll need for you to find it harder to condemn Adams?

I don't see why the existence of a power asymmetry has any moral bearing one's freedom of association. Seems like you are just trying to rationalize double standards.

It's a shame. Dilbert has offered important perspectives on tech culture. It seems to me that we all have our inadequacies and mistakes. It's one thing to denounce a serious mistake. Banning an author is a very different and questionable thing to do.

It's completely justified, awesome and unavoidable it happened in my book.

Being racist is not an "inadequacy" or "mistake".

Certainly not in the context of how Scott Adams chose to air his opinion.

The guy is smart (intellectually, not emotionally) and doubled down on his sweeping allegations, stating that black people are dangerous and cannot be fixed.

No ambiguity in such words, no wiggle room to deflect to a less extreme position.

Anyone keeping in touch with the guy and accepting such bullshit will justifiably be seen as a backer of such a ludicrous opinion and have their own position on racism questioned.

Drawing a line is so important.

Are you claiming that black people are dangerous but that they can be fixed or that black people are not dangerous and so there's nothing to fix?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com