I am always genuinely curious when someone interprets something that is blatantly racist to me as something not. What about what Scott said was not racist? How do you define racism?
Then, of course, racism consists of the believe that some races are intrinsically less valuable (in whatever sense) than others. I didn't see Scott Adams voice that part. But I might have missed it or it might have been implied.
But it's important to note that US identity politics of the last couple of decades looks increasingly weird to me as an outsider in any case.
But I believe some other countries have their own challenges living up to their nominal multi-ethnic ideals. Surely if I pop open a copy of Der Spiegel and start commenting about the finer points of an immigration policy proposal from an American perspective, I am going to get something wrong.
Sorry, but no.
The scientific community has moved away from 'race' in the biological sense (although there is debate) but the sociological construct of race, which is what we refer to in this context, obviously exists.
When a person 'self identifies' as Black, or Asian or White - that is 'race' - in the 'social construct' sense and it's perfectly accepted and normal - the recognition of that does not make one racist.
I doubt that something built on self-identification yields a meaningful concept of racism.
It's literally on the census form.
'Race' is a cultural euphemism for broader ethnicity.
AKA 'European = White' - 'African = Black' - more or less.
These are not arbitrary groups of 'self identification' like 'emo' or 'punk'.
These groups are even self organizing - every single US city is built around small enclaves of groups - they pop right out on urban maps.
We've been fighting tribal wars since the dawn of time, it's not hard to imagine how the 'Flemish' vs. 'Dutch' is not going to extend to 'European vs. African'.
Elon Musk, on twitter, 2 days ago, was interjecting on this horrible bit of 'race war' nonsense, talking about 'blacks eviscerate whites' etc..
Again - while there's feeble support for the notion of 'race' in the field of biology (although I think it's more controversial than stated), we obviously have cultural foundations around those concepts.
Honestly - this kind of argument is plausibly the 'worst thing' about HN. I don't understand how something so common and obvious could be devoid in the face of some, odd, hair-splitting rhetoric.
In that statement, it's not disdain for another group, it's disdain and resignation over racial politics.
He seems to in fact have empathy, but has become maligned for some reason.
He's seems to be 'giving up' on the cause and suggesting people go their separate ways.
It's frankly much more cynical than it is racist.
That's nothing near a traditional racist view.
It's the posture of a cynical, old angry man - not some kind of White Nationlist.
I'm not justifying anything but I am indicating that these thins are obviously nuanced.
That said - I'm reflecting on a single comment, not his entire body of ugly commentary.
> In a February 2023 poll conducted by Rasmussen Reports, a polling firm often referred to by conservative media, 72% of 1,000 respondents agreed with the statement "It's okay to be White". Among the 130 black respondents, 53% agreed, while 26% disagreed, and 21% were unsure. Slate magazine suggested that some negative respondents may have been familiar with the term's links with white supremacy.
Scott was a rather intelligent person with an MBA from UC Berkeley. How do you go from a sample of 130 black people a majority who agree with the slogan and only a minority against (less than a quarter). To all black people? Is that not an extreme overreaction?
It is indeed, but I think it makes sense to see it in the context of the culture wars. You can be upset at 47% of respondents to a poll disagreeing or being unsure that it's ok to be from your ethnic group; but that compounds with being upset at the perceived folly of a cultural movement that denies this is wrong or even encourages this way of thinking. It's the usual polarization mechanism, where apparent extremism of one side is so upsetting that it fuels or justifies an equally extreme reaction on the other.
So again, I don't think it makes sense to judge these statements in a vacuum as if they were well thought and considered. They are momentary angry reactions to a perceived wrong.
And, are you sure he didn't? While the media is full of his supposedly racist comments, it's much harder to find any follow-up. Here's one:
"[...] he offered a “reframe” to allow people to get out of what he called a “mental trap” of a worsening racial divide in America.
“We’ve literally monetized racism so that everybody can be a little bit madder at each other,” Adams said. “If you monetize racial divide, you’re only going to get more of it.”
Faulting the “energy” he put into his comments, Adams said he can understand why people came to the conclusion that he literally meant what he was saying. He disavowed racism — “always have, always will,” he said — but went on to offer “context” about other “racist” things that he approves of.
“For example, historically Black colleges. Feels a little racist, totally approve,” Adams said. “Black History Month? Feels a little bit racist to some people, totally approve. Black people should get their own month; makes perfect sense in light of American history.”
During a segment of the show where viewers call in, a Black teacher in Missouri who said she was a longtime fan of the “Dilbert” comic strip said she was hurt by the comments. She asked Adams how she’s supposed to explain this kind of rhetoric to her students.
Adams suggested she tell them to stop looking backward and start looking forward. “Tell your students that they have a perfect path to success as long as they get good grades,” he said. “[...] if they employ strategy, and don’t look backwards, just strategy, they’ll do great. Now, there’ll still be way too much systemic racism, but you’ll be able to just slice through it like it didn’t exist.” [1]
Etc. Is anyone interested in this? Apparently, no.
1 https://www.yourcentralvalley.com/news/u-s-world/dilbert-cre...
But some people, especially in white supremacist and adjacent circles, who had never used "All Lives Matter" before started using it as a response to "Black Lives Matter".
The implication was the BLM was asking for special treatment for Black people. In reality what BLM was saying was that Black lives matter too (in retrospect maybe they should have actually included "too" in the slogan), and ALM as a response to that is essentially dismissing BLM's concerns.
Semi related is why we have a Black History Month but no White History Month in the US. Every month is a de facto white history month.
Adams here was doing one of two things, either being blatantly racist or (perhaps the more generous, and perhaps more likely) being extremely bad at comedy?
It is of course "possible" to comedically play around with "what team am I on," but you have to be good at it or you look like -- if not racist -- a completely oblivious weirdo, and he was obviously one of the two here?
Hotep Jesus' podcast - Scott Adams Interview
https://rumble.com/v2axwg2-scott-adams-interview-its-okay-to-be-white.html