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

[childeye 2]

Well I don't think everyone is racist. I do think anyone is capable of racism. We are equal in that respect.

The way I look at it, is that I think we're all capable of being misguided in our ignorance. Racism denotes a prejudice, and even though its effects are real, I believe it's actually illusory.

We don't have to downplay it.

We don't need to downplay the effects of it, but I think we do need to not play into it.

Again, I think white people works fine. "White skin" seems like it could refer to albinos or something.

"White people" is innocuous to my mind, so I use that term as a distinction. I've used white skin in this thread only to convey specifically a subset of racism which I have no ism for, other than colorism which is already taken.

Ok...well most of the time racism doesn't refer to skin. For example, saying "black people are always late" is considered a racist statement and it's not about black skin....it's about being "on time". Nobody is saying that their black skin is what makes them late.

Yeah, people do stereotype, but that to me, is not racism depending on what the stereotype is.

Ok....so off the top of your head, the only racist statement is that they think white people are racist?

I don't think it's against all white people nowadays as it may have been more so in the past., but in general, as a suspicion yes. If I may explain. When I think of Black in America, I think of the people who came out of slavery. I figure that these people didn't see any white people working in the cotton fields alongside them, so they felt looked at as though inferior. I also grew up during their struggle for equal rights and again there were some white people that were standing in the way.

Ok lol well I agree that such a blanket moral judgment of whites is indeed racism.

Actually, it's just a repercussion from the beginnings of white ownership and the ensuing struggle to be treated equally. It qualifies as racism only because it is a prejudice of distrust today that yet remains ever wary that some white people in power still do not see them as equal.

I'm sorry....are you talking about the Woody Harrleson movie? Or do you literally think "white men can't jump" ??

Yes, the Woody Harrelson movie. A stereotype in other words.

It's a pretty simple question....do you think black people can be racist like white people or any other race can? Do you think they can be racist towards white people specifically?

I'm trying to say that I understand why some people have a prejudice against white people. The Native Americans have their reasons for example.
Racism is a theory that I believe spawns in a cynicism that gets projected back and forth.

Sure....not disagreeing with that. I'm sure you've heard both white and black people say that black people cannot be racist....or somehow racism from black people is something insignificant or unimportant. I'm simply trying to figure out if you're in this category of people who have a very specific view of racism.

I currently see racism as a manifestation of carnal vanity. It's a form of cynicism where prejudice is being projected back and forth in mutual distrust between people of different ethnic or cultural backgrounds. I see cynicism as self-fulfilling, which is why I view racism as misguided. I'm one who tries to point out why, but I can't just say to the Black community they have no cause for being racist against white people since to them white means clueless about what it's like to be Black.

Well for the purposes of discussion, let's use the definition of racism everyone actually uses regardless of what they claim about who is racist.

You mean the belief that some races of people are inherently better than others? How can anyone quantify that, since the semantics that qualify the terms of that definition get lost in a back and forth of prejudice where one color of skin might think they're better simply because they don't think they're better and it's the other color that does?

Ok...well I wouldn't go as far as to say that myself. People are racist because people are pattern seeking by nature. If they believe something about a group is true because their personal experiences justify it....then it's also something they can change. Most disabilities don't have that possibility.

I get what you mean, but I'm talking about a belief that impairs one's ability to see others as themselves.

If we both agree that black people can be racist....then even if we imagine it's unlikely that 25-50% are.....we would still have to accept it's at least possible, right?

That would not be productive, as I see it, since it's essentially the same prejudice being projected back and forth. My opinion of why the Rasmussen poll shows these results seems more plausible to me. Roughly 25 % were unsure how to interpret the question, 25% interpreted it as okaying/not okaying based on skin color, and 50% interpreted it as there's nothing wrong with being white.

 

[childeye 2]

Actually, I think the sentiment was that you are complicit unless you're somehow working with/donating to BLM.

It was a necessary evolution in garnering support....despite just years earlier claiming they had no obligation to address the #1 killer of young black men (other young black men) because everyone is entitled to pursue their own causes.

The fact remains that lives have import without any validation.

Because it is ok to be white.

What possible reason is there to disagree with that statement?

Because it's also wrong to accept/not accept someone based on skin color depending on the context

It's removed from context....or you can say it applies the same way in any context.

The context is racism when stating it's okay to have white skin. It still can qualify as judging someone okay based on their skin.

That's not a trick question. You either accept people who have a certain skin color or you don't....because you're racist.

That's all the phrase ever meant.

No offense intended, but that is why it is a trick question. That's how those who saw it as judging others based on skin color, ended up being mistaken as racists.

There's no similarity there. They aren't telling you to not think of a white person lol. There's no hidden alternative statement that you're supposed to think of.

You're missing the point here. The point is that it's suggestive to the mind, that if you disagree, you're a racist.

Yeah, we went over this...

The reason why it doesn't ask that question is because it makes no sense. If someone says they "agree" we have no idea whether or not they think it's ok to be white lol.

That only verifies that there's a false premise in the statement because people who do not want to evaluate others on the basis of skin color were deemed racist.

Which frankly, doesn't seem true when it comes to the statement "black lives matter". Are you telling me that agree with the statement "black lives matter" but you would disagree with the statement "it's okay to be black"?

I've already said that this comparison is a false equivalence and I showed why.

childeye 2 said:
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 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 think the question I asked above should settle this....I'll wait and see what your answer is.

Lives are meaningful, skin color is meaningless. On this we agree:

Ana the Ist said:
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.

 

[IceJad]

The fact remains that lives have import without any validation.

Because it's also wrong to accept/not accept someone based on skin color depending on the context

The context is racism when stating it's okay to have white skin. It still can qualify as judging someone okay based on their skin.

No offense intended, but that is why it is a trick question. That's how those who saw it as judging others based on skin color, ended up being mistaken as racists.

You're missing the point here. The point is that it's suggestive to the mind, that if you disagree, you're a racist.

That only verifies that there's a false premise in the statement because people who do not want to evaluate others on the basis of skin color were deemed racist.

I've already said that this comparison is a false equivalence and I showed why.

childeye 2 said:
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 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.


Lives are meaningful, skin color is meaningless. On this we agree:

Ana the Ist said:
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.

You have to agree that putting the color of your skin into a slogan or phrase is automatically a racial distinction whether the message is positive or negative. You can't say that it doesn't carry the racial distinction but rather it is about the value of live alone. Therefore in the same manner if I replace the color in the phrase it shouldn't carry a different interpretation to you as the original color. That would be double standard.

Yes everyone gets it that replacing black with white in the phrase is meant to be a tongue and cheek retort and retaliation. There are hidden intentions to saying it. However in the same freedom accorded to one group to proclaim their skin color mattered, other groups must be allowed to as well. That is the crux of the matter.

You might interpret it as bad faith argument but others might see it as equal right. Between equal rights and bad-faith motive, I would choose equal rights every time. It is near impossible to prove bad faith especially when the basis of accusing others of it can be equally use back on us.

To me All Lives Matter, but if you ever utter this back when the riots are happening you know the outcome. For me all lives do matter, that is my genuine expression.

 

[IceJad]

CRT ia an offshoot of Critical Legal Theory....a theory which aimed at undermining the basis of all modern legal theory and Englist common law by exposing certain contradictions or logical fallacies....and it died upon attempting to debate. CRT proponents are well aware of this and don't actually debate anyone.

The reason this has been a death knell for academia is the fact that we have interdisciplinary studies.

The issue with modern day western leftism is the intersectionality of everything. Each ideology that the "left" believe in have to be intertwine together such as CRT with LGBT with Feminism. It like you pointed out is a result of the propensity for group think by the left. Which may I add is quite pronounced. A venn diagram of sometimes conflicting ideologies and principles. Not just inconsistencies with other leftist ideology but within the original ideology itself. And I usually observe how such inconsistencies are reconciled is by projecting them on their common rival, the western right or they short handed it to white. There are many derivative like cis white male, white Christian conservatives, white privilege, whiteness and etc (I have heard too much to list down all). You get the common denominator - the Caucasian.

That is why I believe there is also much effort to change and redefine language by the left - to reconcile their own inconsistencies. Today the western far-left believe racism must have element of position of power and not just the prejudice alone. They also want to redefine genders categorization as another example. Because elements of modern feminism is actually binary gender in nature.

It gets complicated to sort out which subset of a subset a leftist individual belongs to. So since they like to short hand their opponents, I do the same - just collectively call them woke. Not that they disagree with the terminology at all.

 

[childeye 2]

You have to agree that putting the color of your skin into a slogan or phrase is automatically a racial distinction whether the message is positive or negative. You can't say that it doesn't carry the racial distinction but rather it is about the value of live alone. Therefore in the same manner if I replace the color in the phrase it shouldn't carry a different interpretation to you as the original color. That would be double standard.

Yes everyone gets it that replacing black with white in the phrase is meant to be a tongue and cheek retort and retaliation. There are hidden intentions to saying it. However in the same freedom accorded to one group to proclaim their skin color mattered, other groups must be allowed to as well. That is the crux of the matter.

You might interpret it as bad faith argument but others might see it as equal right. Between equal rights and bad-faith motive, I would choose equal rights every time. It is near impossible to prove bad faith especially when the basis of accusing others of it can be equally use back on us.

To me All Lives Matter, but if you ever utter this back when the riots are happening you know the outcome. For me all lives do matter, that is my genuine expression.

The issue with modern day western leftism is the intersectionality of everything. Each ideology that the "left" believe in have to be intertwine together such as CRT with LGBT with Feminism. It like you pointed out is a result of the propensity for group think by the left. Which may I add is quite pronounced. A venn diagram of sometimes conflicting ideologies and principles. Not just inconsistencies with other leftist ideology but within the original ideology itself. And I usually observe how such inconsistencies are reconciled is by projecting them on their common rival, the western right or they short handed it to white. There are many derivative like cis white male, white Christian conservatives, white privilege, whiteness and etc (I have heard too much to list down all). You get the common denominator - the Caucasian.

That is why I believe there is also much effort to change and redefine language by the left - to reconcile their own inconsistencies. Today the western far-left believe racism must have element of position of power and not just the prejudice alone. They also want to redefine genders categorization as another example. Because elements of modern feminism is actually binary gender in nature.

It gets complicated to sort out which subset of a subset a leftist individual belongs to. So since they like to short hand their opponents, I do the same - just collectively call them woke. Not that they disagree with the terminology at all.

You're right about word change (meaning change). But it happens on both sides and is typically a matter of circumstance. The red flag (sign that something is amiss) is hypocrisy (hypocritical judgment).

 

[Ana the Ist]

The fact remains that lives have import without any validation.

Because it's also wrong to accept/not accept someone based on skin color depending on the context

The context is racism when stating it's okay to have white skin. It still can qualify as judging someone okay based on their skin.

No offense intended, but that is why it is a trick question. That's how those who saw it as judging others based on skin color, ended up being mistaken as racists.

You're missing the point here. The point is that it's suggestive to the mind, that if you disagree, you're a racist.

That only verifies that there's a false premise in the statement because people who do not want to evaluate others on the basis of skin color were deemed racist.

I've already said that this comparison is a false equivalence and I showed why.

childeye 2 said:
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 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.


Lives are meaningful, skin color is meaningless. On this we agree:

Ana the Ist said:
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.

You said you were inclined to disagree with the statement "It's ok to be white".


Frankly, I don't care what reasons you have for disagreeing...because they're contradictory and don't make any sense.

That's why I asked if you agree with the statement "it's ok to be black". Now you're saying it's a "false equivalency" despite the fact that they are literally equivalent statements.

It's ok to be white. You disagree.

It's ok to be black. Do you agree or disagree?

Real simple.

 

[childeye 2]

You said you were inclined to disagree with the statement "It's ok to be white".


Frankly, I don't care what reasons you have for disagreeing...because they're contradictory and don't make any sense.

That's why I asked if you agree with the statement "it's ok to be black". Now you're saying it's a "false equivalency" despite the fact that they are literally equivalent statements.

It's ok to be white. You disagree.

It's ok to be black. Do you agree or disagree?

Real simple.

I already answered this here:
childeye 2 said:
I'm inclined to disagree with any statement that validates people based on the skin they're born in, or their race or ethnicity.

I see no contradiction. and it makes perfect sense to me, that we should not judge others based on their skin.

I would therefore be disinclined to agree with either one of these statements, "It's okay to be black" or "It's okay to be white".

 

[Ana the Ist]

I already answered this here:
childeye 2 said:
I'm inclined to disagree with any statement that validates people based on the skin they're born in, or their race or ethnicity.

I see no contradiction. and it makes perfect sense to me, that we should not judge others based on their skin.

I would therefore be disinclined to agree with either one of these statements, "It's okay to be black" or "It's okay to be white".

If you disagree with the idea that it's ok to be black...

Then how can you possibly think black lives matter? In your opinion, it's not even ok to be black.

 

[childeye 2]

If you disagree with the idea that it's ok to be black...

Then how can you possibly think black lives matter? In your opinion, it's not even ok to be black.

Respectfully, you don't get to say what I mean until you understand what I mean. I don't agree with any statement where I feel it's judging a skin color of a person as okay or not okay, (in the context of racism).

This is what I mean: I don't agree with judging a skin color in the context of racism.

And that is exactly what the question "do you agree or disagree?" does; it asks us to judge whether a skin color is okay or not okay, in the context of racism.

I can agree with the statement black lives matter, because it refers to lives and not skin. It doesn't imply Black skin matters. Hence lives do matter, but skin color doesn't matter.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Respectfully, you don't get to say what I mean until you understand what I mean.

Again, it's a simple question....

Do you agree with the statement "it's ok to be black"?

If you disagree....and it certainly appears that you disagree....then you don't think it's ok to be black.

Is that your position or not?

Because nobody is asking you if you think it's ok to judge people according to their skin color. That's not the question.

In fact, no judgment is being made.

It's literally asking if you agree that it's ok to be a black person.

 

[childeye 2]

Again, it's a simple question....

Do you agree with the statement "it's ok to be black"?

The proper question is, Do you agree or disagree with this statement: It's okay to be black. My answer is No, because I don't agree with judging a skin color in the context of racism.

Because nobody is asking you if you think it's ok to judge people according to their skin color. That's not the question

In fact, no judgment is being made.

It's literally asking if you agree that it's ok to be a black person.

I'm not saying anybody is asking me if I think it's okay to judge people according to their skin color. No, the question is literally asking me to do so. That's why I disagree with the statement as posed. To me the question is not simply proclaiming a distinction, it's asking me to agree to evaluate a skin color in the context of racism.

Rephrase: The question is literally asking,"Do you agree or disagree with this statement?" The statement is declaring that it's okay to be black (it is making an evaluation). So, the question is literally asking me to judge if it's okay or not okay to be black by asking if I agree or disagree.


judge
verb

1. To form an opinion or evaluation.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The proper question is, Do you agree or disagree with this statement: It's okay to be black. My answer is No, because I don't agree with judging a skin color in the context of racism

I'm sorry...but disagreeing is actually a judgment in the context of racism. (Because not accepting someone because of their skin color is racism).

I'm not saying anybody is asking me if I think it's okay to judge people according to their skin color. No, the question is literally asking me to do so. That's why I disagree with the statement as posed.

Disagreement is the racist judgment...you're literally saying that you disagree with it being ok to be black.

Rephrase: The question is literally asking,"Do you agree or disagree with this statement?" The statement is declaring that it's okay to be black (it is making an evaluation).

Well it is an evaluation. The evaluation is that it's acceptable to be black/white/ or whatever race is inserted.

By disagreeing....you're saying it's not acceptable.

So, the question is literally asking me to judge if it's okay or not okay to be black by asking if I agree or disagree.


judge
verb

1. To form an opinion or evaluation.

Thankfully, a gentleman on Youtube went around asking people if it's ok to be white.

Thankfully, as you can see...most black people aren't racist. Clearly some are uncomfortable with the mere question and perhaps would answer differently in an anonymous survey.


However, two black women who clearly disagree and answer "no"...and when asked if they are racist answer "yes". They clearly just hate white people and aren't the least bit ashamed of it.

There's also a fine example of the "self hating white liberal" (perhaps someone you agree with). Regardless, I don't see any reason at all to imagine that the 25% of black people who disagree with the statement "it's okay to be white" disagree for whatever convoluted reason you dreamt up.


Nobody seems confused about the meaning of the question except for you.

 

[childeye 2]

I'm sorry...but disagreeing is actually a judgment in the context of racism. (Because not accepting someone because of their skin color is racism).

I get why you say that. But I see accepting people because of the color of their skin as racist also. And that's what I see the statement doing and why I am inclined to disagree with it.

Disagreement is the racist judgment...you're literally saying that you disagree with it being ok to be black.

I understand that is how you see it, but that's the false premise in the statement I've been alluding to. Notice that I don't agree with the statement because it evaluates a person according to the color of their skin, and that does not qualify me as a racist.

Well it is an evaluation. The evaluation is that it's acceptable to be black/white/ or whatever race is inserted.

By disagreeing....you're saying it's not acceptable.

It doesn't matter what skin color is inserted. The fact remains that the statement evaluates based on the color of one's skin. If I thought it was okay to evaluate people as acceptable based on their skin color, then I would not have disagreed with the statement.

Thankfully, a gentleman on Youtube went around asking people if it's ok to be white.

Thankfully, as you can see...most black people aren't racist. Clearly some are uncomfortable with the mere question and perhaps would answer differently in an anonymous survey.

Well, it would be interesting to see how people would respond when asked if it's right to evaluate someone as okay based on their skin color.

However, two black women who clearly disagree and answer "no"...and when asked if they are racist answer "yes". They clearly just hate white people and aren't the least bit ashamed of it.

Well, I can't speak for these people. I can only speak for myself and those few I have personally queried.

There's also a fine example of the "self hating white liberal" (perhaps someone you agree with). Regardless, I don't see any reason at all to imagine that the 25% of black people who disagree with the statement "it's okay to be white" disagree for whatever convoluted reason you dreamt up.

Some people like me believe it's wrong to accept or not accept people based on their skin color. For me it violates the great commandment of Love others as you would want to be loved. In all honesty, I don't feel that skin color should come to mind when accepting someone and I personally wouldn't want to be accepted on that basis. That's why I see the statement as suggestive, similar to don't think of a brown cow. It's okay that you don't see it that way.

Nobody seems confused about the meaning of the question except for you.

I think we actually agree above that the statement is evaluating people based on skin color. I understand that you agree with the statement because you're interpreting the statement to mean it's okay to be born with white skin. For what it's worth, I don't think that makes you a racist.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I get why you say that. But I see accepting people because of the color of their skin as racist also. And that's what I see the statement doing and why I am inclined to disagree with it.

How do you know that a person isn't accepting someone regardless of their skin color?

Surely you watched the video? You saw the lady who said, and I'm paraphrasing...

"Yeah of course it's ok to be white, it's ok to be black, it's ok to be brown, pink, or whatever. "

That's not someone accepting someone because they're white....that's someone accepting someone regardless of skin color.

You know, how a person who isn't racist would think.

You're the only person who hears that phrase or reads it and thinks it's asking if you accept someone because they are white.

That's a completely different question that isn't being asked.

 

[IceJad]

You're right about word change (meaning change). But it happens on both sides and is typically a matter of circumstance. The red flag (sign that something is amiss) is hypocrisy (hypocritical judgment).

Yes it is true both sides employs such tactics, however I observed that this happens far more often from the far-left side of the political spectrum.

 

[childeye 2]

How do you know that a person isn't accepting someone regardless of their skin color?

As I have already indicated, I would think the majority of people would feel they are accepting someone regardless of color when they agree. But the statement is still making a judgment based on skin color.

Surely you watched the video? You saw the lady who said, and I'm paraphrasing...

"Yeah of course it's ok to be white, it's ok to be black, it's ok to be brown, pink, or whatever. "

That's not someone accepting someone because they're white....that's someone accepting someone regardless of skin color.

The video is what I would expect and closely matches my own personal results from asking others, (I've since asked more people). For example, the lady indicates she is not accepting someone based on their being white, and that's my sentiment also (why I disagreed). But, unlike the poll statement, the lady is being asked face to face and has the opportunity to point out that the skin color doesn't matter, by saying all skin colors are acceptable not just white.

You know, how a person who isn't racist would think.

Exactly. That's why she said all colors are acceptable, indicating skin color shouldn't matter. That is no different in sentiment than what I mean when I say it's wrong to accept or not accept people based on their skin color.

You're the only person who hears that phrase or reads it and thinks it's asking if you accept someone because they are white.

That's a completely different question that isn't being asked.

You don't think the lady saying that whatever color of skin is acceptable didn't take the question as accepting white people because they're white? Then why did she amend the statement to include all colors unless she felt the text didn't fully finish the thought in regards to color?

 

[childeye 2]

Yes it is true both sides employs such tactics, however I observed that this happens far more often from the far-left side of the political spectrum.

I think one side describes the other side in terms that in some degree misrepresents the other side. I don't think it's always intentional, but mostly circumstantial. I would point out that the most prominent media outlet of the right wing has admitted in court filings to intentionally misrepresenting the news to keep from losing their audience. Meanwhile, it can be expected that the far left gets a lot of attention on the right, and the far right gets a lot of attention on the left.

 

[rjs330]

While I see the angst over what he said he was speaking toward a poll that is very concerning.

IF the poll is right it's just another indication how divided this country is regarding race.

He totally wrecked any hope of reconciliation or understanding between races. He was b ing just as dividing as the poll was.

This is a sad indictment on race issues. At l ast 50% blacks think it's not okay to be white? What on earth?

He wants to completely separate himself? What?

Both sides here show a serious problem.

 

[SimplyMe]

While I see the angst over what he said he was speaking toward a poll that is very concerning.

IF the poll is right it's just another indication how divided this country is regarding race.

He totally wrecked any hope of reconciliation or understanding between races. He was b ing just as dividing as the poll was.

This is a sad indictment on race issues. At l ast 50% blacks think it's not okay to be white? What on earth?

He wants to completely separate himself? What?

Both sides here show a serious problem.

As context to the poll "it is okay to be white" is a slogan that has been used by White supremacy groups for the last five years. It is likely, though unclear, that many of the "no" responses were saying they are against the slogan and not against White people. Kind of like if asked about Black Lives Matter, likely half the White respondents would respond with a "no," but would say that because of the organization, not meaning that Black lives don't matter.

 

[rjs330]

As context to the poll "it is okay to be white" is a slogan that has been used by White supremacy groups for the last five years. It is likely, though unclear, that many of the "no" responses were saying they are against the slogan and not against White people. Kind of like if asked about Black Lives Matter, likely half the White respondents would respond with a "no," but would say that because of the organization, not meaning that Black lives don't matter.

Honestly this poll should be as concerning as if we asked white people if it was okay to be black and 50% said no.