Dilbert dropped as scott adams declares blacks to be a hate group.

[rturner76]

Edit- BTW thanks for a prime example of the kind of shaming that helped create all these self hating racist white liberals in the first place.

If someone feels ashamed of themself because of the actions of their ancestors that's a personal problem. Still, I wouldn't think that there were many black slave owners though there may have been a few. It was mostly white people owning black slaves whether they hate themselves or not.

 

[Ana the Ist]

If someone feels ashamed of themself because of the actions of their ancestors that's a personal problem.

Sure sure...I'd suggest that they don't actually feel shame, after all, they don't really do anything to help the black community. Instead, they participate in the same sort of racism that is directed at them in some lame attempt to virtue signal "which side they're on" despite the fact that this only results in their further disrespect.

Still, I wouldn't think that there were many black slave owners though there may have been a few.

By the time of the civil war? Tens of thousands. I think S Carolina alone had tens of thousands but certainly newer states had less.

Regardless, if you want to maintain the illusion of being part of a righteous struggle....don't do what Angela Davis did and go looking into your ancestry. You can watch that episode and see what it's like for a person to realize they've literally lived a lie for many decades.

It was mostly white people owning black slaves whether they hate themselves or not.

I'm sure there was more white slave owners than black slave owners...that's never been in dispute. I'm just pointing out that many of the ADOS are actually ADOSO.

 

[rturner76]

Sure sure...I'd suggest that they don't actually feel shame, after all, they don't really do anything to help the black community. Instead, they participate in the same sort of racism that is directed at them in some lame attempt to virtue signal "which side they're on" despite the fact that this only results in their further disrespect

Got any more excuses for how they feel? Maybe their racust ancestors pass down hate or mayby they passed down guild. They were still affected either way by the racist system set up befor the Civil Rights Bill.

By the time of the civil war? Tens of thousands. I think S Carolina alone had tens of thousands but certainly newer states had less.

Regardless, if you want to maintain the illusion of being part of a righteous struggle....don't do what Angela Davis did and go looking into your ancestry. You can watch that episode and see what it's like for a person to realize they've literally lived a lie for many decades.

You could have had a slave-owning ancestor but the other side may have been a slave in that same system. We have two parents, not one so one could have been a slaver and one could have been a slave. It is the white racist notion of the one-drop rule that makes every mixed person black.

I'm sure there was more white slave owners than black slave owners...that's never been in dispute. I'm just pointing out that many of the ADOS are actually ADOSO.

What does this mean? Most of those situations with black slave owners were indentured servitude, Whites couldn't legally be chattel slaves . FOr that distinction, you had to have brown tan or black skin. I have seen recently the trend of blaming black people for their own slavery. I'm not buying it. Is that the white self-hatred you were referring to? If I were a racist I would probably hate myself too. Racists are miserable people.

 

[Pommer]

Correct.



"Groom". That's hilarious. What are they grooming people to believe exactly? That the endless stream of racism towards whites coming from the left is in fact, racist?




No...it doesn't lol.




What's a "real racist"? It seems anyone who believes in racist things is a real racist.




Well I'm not expecting much of you personally @Pommer



Here's a fun fact...Ole @Ana the Ist has a bit of memory still left in the grey matter still clunking around in his dome. I couldn't help but think about a discussion we had back in January regarding a certain feminist website and my suspicion of using them as a source....


To which you sarcastically replied...



Now, it may seem to some like you were trying to make an argument about how it's more important to consider "who said something" not "what was said"....

But I would be dishonest if I didn't point out that in the context of the conversation....that statement was being made mockingly, or sarcastically, and you were actually making the opposite point (that the truth of what someone says is far more important than the person who says it).


**anyone who doubts this or wishes to see an actual example of when context matters, something that's been unsuccessfully argued in this thread for awhile now, feel free to click on the quote above and see for yourself....no need to take my word for it**

Now, even more amusingly, I asked if that wasn't indeed what you believe, because you care far less about the truth...and far more about whether or not the truth is spoken by someone you like.

So I'll ask again @Pommer and just let you kill your own argument....

What matters more? What was said....or who said it?

No.

 

[childeye 2]

Yeah...the first is definitely validation. The second is acceptance.

Black lives matter, is a definitive statement declaring that Black lives are of import.

Who is saying "black skin doesn't matter"?

Whoever skin color doesn't matter to.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Black lives matter, is a definitive statement declaring that Black lives are of import.

Right...it's a validation of black lives. Literally.

The sort of thing you are inclined to disagree with, by your own statements.

Whoever skin color doesn't matter to.

Lol skin color doesn't matter to me but I agree that black lives matter. Not because they're black....but because they're lives.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Got any more excuses for how they feel?

Just speculation lol...I have observed them and their statements and for a group of people who seem bent on destroying black communities, one has to wonder what's going on in their heads lol.

Maybe their racust ancestors pass down hate or mayby they passed down guild.

Or not.

They were still affected either way by the racist system set up befor the Civil Rights Bill.

Were they? That seems a bit presumptuous.

You could have had a slave-owning ancestor but the other side may have been a slave in that same system.

Or you can have an ancestor who was brought here a slave, got their freedom, and then bought slaves. The possibilities are many.

We have two parents, not one so one could have been a slaver and one could have been a slave.

Or one could have been both...see above.

It is the white racist notion of the one-drop rule that makes every mixed person black.

I don't know anyone who thinks that sort of thing today....apart from maybe the KKK, some native American tribes, and perhaps Megan Markle.

What does this mean?

What part don't you understand?

Most of those situations with black slave owners were indentured servitude, Whites couldn't legally be chattel slaves .

No...they bought black slaves just like the white slave owners did. I'm sure there was just as much rape and abuse happening in those situations as well.

I have seen recently the trend of blaming black people for their own slavery.

I'm not sure what you mean by blaming.

Do you think I'm blaming you for something?

The only people really engaged in slavery today are some African nations and India. In fact, there's more black people enslaved by other black people in Africa right now than the number of slaves that crossed the Atlantic to North America during the trans-Atlantic slave trade of colonial times.

I'm not buying it.

Buying what?

I'm not selling anything....these are facts.

Is that the white self-hatred you were referring to?

I can point out posts on this thread if you're unsure about the self hating white liberals who I am referring to.

If I were a racist I would probably hate myself too

I think most racists are deeply attached to their skin color or race as a part of their identity. I think the majority of racists see themselves as superior in some way. For example, some people believe in a racial heirarchy that they are at the top of. For example...

Rutgers University remains silent amid fury after professor's comments

Tenured Rutgers professor Brittney Cooper is facing backlash on social media after making a slew of disparaging comments against white people over the course of several years

www.google.com

This black woman pretty clearly hates white people, sees us as villians, and sees black people as morally superior....while unironically suggesting that the "solution" to "white supremacy" is to "take them out". I'm certain she doesn't mean taking them out on a date lol.

The self hating racist is no exception....however, they simply hate that part of their identity. Sometimes it becomes something of a trope, like in comedy, where you can find plenty of examples of the "self hating Jewish person". The self hating white liberal is a white person on the political left that agrees with racists, like the one I linked above, to some degree or another.

Racists are miserable people.

Sometimes....sure.

 

[rturner76]

Were they? That seems a bit presumptuous.

No...they bought black slaves just like the white slave owners did. I'm sure there was just as much rape and abuse happening in those situations as well.

The only people really engaged in slavery today are some African nations and India. In fact, there's more black people enslaved by other black people in Africa right now than the number of slaves that crossed the Atlantic to North America during the trans-Atlantic slave trade of colonial times.

The middle east actually has the most enslaved people. It was always the Arabs. You seem to just want to blame blacks.

I can point out posts on this thread if you're unsure about the self hating white liberals who I am referring to

A self-hating white liberal has the credibility of a black hating right winger.

I think most racists are deeply attached to their skin color or race as a part of their identity. I think the majority of racists see themselves as superior in some way. For example, some people believe in a racial heirarchy that they are at the top of. For example...

And whites are on the top of that hierarchy no?

This black woman pretty clearly hates white people, sees us as villians, and sees black people as morally superior....while unironically suggesting that the "solution" to "white supremacy" is to "take them out". I'm certain she doesn't mean taking them out on a date lol.

The self hating racist is no exception....however, they simply hate that part of their identity. Sometimes it becomes something of a trope, like in comedy, where you can find plenty of examples of the "self hating Jewish person". The self hating white liberal is a white person on the political left that agrees with racists, like the one I linked above, to some degree or another.

That is one woman's opinion. How does that stand up to a nation full of racist whites?

 

[childeye 2]

Right...it's a validation of black lives. Literally.

I'm sorry, I cannot agree. Why would Black lives (or any lives for that matter) need validation?

The sort of thing you are inclined to disagree with, by your own statements.

Respectfully, you're still not at liberty to say what I mean until you fully understand what I mean. Apparently, you did not factor into your reasoning that I'm already on the record stating that the comparison you presented is a false equivalency. Subsequently, my statement of being inclined to disagree with any statement evaluating/validating people based on skin color is not applicable to "black lives matter". "Black lives matter" is as far away removed from "it's okay to be black" as comparing the import of lives with the importance of the color of skin.

Lol skin color doesn't matter to me but I agree that black lives matter. Not because they're black....but because they're lives.

I mean no disrespect, but it looks to me like you just admitted that your comparison is a false equivalency since you say that lives matter but skin color doesn't. And if skin color doesn't matter to you, then why agree with a statement that evaluates a particular skin color as acceptable?

My answer: Not because you're a racist, but because you didn't discern the underlying premise hidden in the statement, "It's okay to be white". For what it's worth, I asked some family members to respond to the poll; two people saw it (the hidden premise) and two didn't. But after discussing it, they all could clearly see it. As a matter of spiritual warfare, it was an enlightening experience for all, and for the record, I thank God we even see the Truth that is under attack.

 

[Pommer]

Just speculation lol...I have observed them and their statements and for a group of people who seem bent on destroying black communities, one has to wonder what's going on in their heads lol.

People are fighting against their own injustices incorrectly?

 

[Ana the Ist]

No.

This is a great post...one less word and it would have been perfect.

 

[Ana the Ist]

People are fighting against their own injustices incorrectly?

That part referred to the self hating white liberals. Sorry, I thought the context was obvious.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'm sorry, I cannot agree. Why would Black lives (or any lives for that matter) need validation?

I'm sure I don't know but they sought validation all the same. They demanded that people repeat their validation or they were "complicit" in whatever evil they imagined themselves fighting.

Respectfully, you're still not at liberty to say what I mean until you fully understand what I mean. Apparently, you did not factor into your reasoning that I'm already on the record stating that the comparison you presented is a false equivalency.

No I recall you stating that.

Subsequently, my statement of being against any statement evaluating/validating people based on skin color is not applicable to "black lives matter". "Black lives matter" is as far away removed from "it's okay to be black" as comparing the import of lives with the importance of the color of skin.

I disagree. The phrase "it's ok to be white" says absolutely nothing about importance. It's a statement of broad acceptance.

I mean no disrespect, but it looks to me like you just admitted that your comparison is a false equivalency since you say that lives matter but skin color doesn't.

I don't think you understand the statement I made then. I agree with the statement black lives matter because I believe all lives matter.

You may have noticed that when people said this in response to black lives matter....they were called everything from bigots to white supremacists.

I likewise agree that it's ok to be white....just as it's ok to be any race or color. You may have noticed that people who said the same (that it's ok to be any race or color) were not treated as harshly as those saying "all lives matter" in response to "black lives matter". Nobody was treated as if they were bigots for saying that it's ok to be any race or color.

With this in mind, I think it's easy to see how the word "black" was far more important than the word "lives" to the people marching around chanting black lives matter.

Yet that does not mean I would disagree with the statement....even knowing the racist feelings of those saying it....because the "lives" are what's important to me. It doesn't matter if someone thinks I'm a bigot for saying all lives matter....those people are just racists after all.

In fact, you may even recall one of their later slogans "No lives matter till black lives matter"....which is a statement I would disagree with. I don't give greater importance to the lives of one race over another. That's something racists do.

The phrase "it's ok to be white" never resulted in widespread accusations of bigotry or racism to anyone who responded "it's ok to be any race or color". That quite simply never happened.

Now, as to your accusations of a false equivalency....the only thing I'm claiming is equivalent in regards to is your professed stance on validating racial statements. They both apply equally.

And if skin color doesn't matter to you, then why agree with a statement that evaluates a particular skin color as acceptable?

Because it is acceptable....just as acceptable as any other skin color. It is precisely because I treat them equally (any race or skin color) that it stops being something that matters.

This is a view called "colorblindness" and it used to be the mainstream view on the left side of the political aisle....until the last maybe 5 years or so.

If you understand that "It's ok to be white" means that it's acceptable to be white....why would you disagree or reject the statement? Is it because you think it is unacceptable to be white or any other race?

My answer: Not because you're a racist, but because you didn't discern the underlying premise hidden in the statement "It's okay to be white".

What's the underlying premise?

 

[IceJad]

Yes the phrase "it is OK to be white" may have started as trolling but there is nothing wrong with that statement in and of itself.

Why is it not acceptable to declare that you're proud of your ethnic and genetic makeup? If people accept the use of the term "it is OK to be black" then the same curtesy must be extended to all others. You don't get to be proud of your own race but not allow others to be the same. Historical crimes are not genetic.

If the polling are accurate (which I doubt), Adams has a fair argument. Why associate with people who are hostile to you? Sad as it maybe but a portion of people have poison the well for the whole. This is what you get when playing identity politics. All it takes is a drop of poison and everyone will be afraid to drink from the well moving forward. Gone are the dreams of MLK Jr. Because modern America would rather reopen old wounds than mend them.

If you're hoping to pin all the blame on one side let me remind you: It takes two to clap.

Fair is fair.

 

[MrMoe]

Read the site more closely.

I did. Still can't find it. Link?

 

[MrMoe]

You're basically saying these things happened as a fact of reality. While agree it's a fact that there are results that came from this poll, I don't regard the results as facts.

By definition they are. What the results mean is a different story.

I'm not sure what factual information can be taken from the results. But to be clear, to me "facts" are learned just like 1+1=2 is learned, so I don't see facts as open to interpretation.

Does that mean observed unexplained natural phenomena wouldn't be a fact to you? Since they would be open to interpretation.

For the record, this is a foundational Truth I want to be defending in my own mind and propagating in the minds of others: Love God with all your heart mind and soul and love your neighbor as yourself. And I will add, that to love others as yourself one must see others as yourself.

As I see it, every lie propagated by the devil and powers of darkness exists to undermine the Truth above. It's already been shown how the statements in the poll ended up turning brother against brother through differing interpretations of a statement. So, it would qualify as propaganda of the devil.

I don't blame Rasmussen, and not knowing their intentions, I prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt. I see it as a spiritual warfare rather than a carnal vanity of us against them.

That all good but it's important to be on the same page when it comes to the meaning of words. Otherwise we are just talking passed each other.

Propaganda is about turning positives into negatives and negatives into positives or making them appear equal so that no one can tell the truth from a lie.

I don't agree with that since that isn't in the definition of propaganda and that could be said of any news channel.

Well, I sympathize with Mr. Scott. He said things I believe he now regrets as I'm sure we all have. The fact is that people are vulnerable to propaganda, and it would be a hypocritical pride to think or say I have never been fooled.

I don't believe he regrets anything judging from his words. I think he did a good job of exposing the double standard of those "anti-racist" types and their selective pearl clutching.

I don't have a problem with the question in the poll, but rather I see the statement as problematic, so I would say that people interpreted the statement differently, not the question. As far as the results go, I'm not sure anything else can be gleaned other than people interpreted the statement differently. Maybe the poll is meant to see how many people are open to this type of messaging.

I agree and so does Scott Adams. The question should have been phrased differently.

 

[childeye 2]

I'm sure I don't know but they sought validation all the same. They demanded that people repeat their validation or they were "complicit" in whatever evil they imagined themselves fighting.

I think they (The Black community in general) want to know whether people care or don't care about injustices they see done to them and they should be understood as saying that. Please note that I'm not using the term validation and I have my reasons.

What's the underlying premise?

Please look at these hypothetical poll questions I prepared about semantics in our psycholinguistics:

1) Do you agree or disagree with this statement: It's wrong to either accept people or not accept people based on the color of their skin.

2) Do you agree or disagree with this statement: It's acceptable (okay) to be white skinned.

The underlying premise in question (2) is that if someone disagrees with statement (2), they could be construed as racist (because it appears as if they think it's not okay to be white) when in fact they're just agreeing with statement (1).

Because this can happen, the question (2), and statement (2) together, then becomes a snare, wherein a person could be construed as showing prejudice whether they agree or disagree with statement (2). People will say there's nothing wrong with being white, but that is a strawman argument, since there's nothing right or wrong with any skin color. This is how cynicism can be self-fulfilling.

Not so with statement (1). If a person disagrees with statement (1) they actually are displaying a prejudice.

 

[childeye 2]

By definition they are. What the results mean is a different story.

Exactly, and that is also what I meant but did not articulate accurately.

Does that mean observed unexplained natural phenomena wouldn't be a fact to you? Since they would be open to interpretation.

I'd say what is observed was a fact of reality (so long as it was observable phenomenon). Explaining what was observed is a different story and the interpretations do not necessarily qualify as fact.

That all good but it's important to be on the same page when it comes to the meaning of words. Otherwise we are just talking passed each other.

I agree.

I don't agree with that since that isn't in the definition of propaganda and that could be said of any news channel.

It's a property of linguistics that terms have positive, negative, and neutral connotations. I wasn't defining the term, I was alluding to how propaganda is created and works to shape thought and persuade people to a certain point of view.

I don't believe he regrets anything judging from his words. I think he did a good job of exposing the double standard of those "anti-racist" types and their selective pearl clutching.

I think his words come off as trying to explain himself, so I think he feels he could have chosen better words.

I agree and so does Scott Adams. The question should have been phrased differently.

The question is do you agree or disagree with this statement? I agree the statement should have been phrased differently unless it was intentional for some purpose.

 

[childeye 2]

Yes the phrase "it is OK to be white" may have started as trolling but there is nothing wrong with that statement in and of itself.

Why is it not acceptable to declare that you're proud of your ethnic and genetic makeup? If people accept the use of the term "it is OK to be black" then the same curtesy must be extended to all others. You don't get to be proud of your own race but not allow others to be the same. Historical crimes are not genetic.

If the polling are accurate (which I doubt), Adams has a fair argument. Why associate with people who are hostile to you? Sad as it maybe but a portion of people have poison the well for the whole. This is what you get when playing identity politics. All it takes is a drop of poison and everyone will be afraid to drink from the well moving forward. Gone are the dreams of MLK Jr. Because modern America would rather reopen old wounds than mend them.

If you're hoping to pin all the blame on one side let me remind you: It takes two to clap.

Fair is fair.

I see it as a spiritual mindset vs a carnal mindset. The carnal mind seeks to lift oneself up over others, and the spiritual mind seeks to lift others up over oneself. That is why Christ taught that the greatest is the one who serves the rest. That type of greatness will not be accomplished by a carnal pride but only through a selfless humility.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Chuck Tingle has written a new story: COMIC STRIP WRITER SCOMP ADAMS ... REALIZING ... HE’S JUST NOT SMART OR FUNNY AND IS A BIGOT THAT NOBODY LIKES