Would it matter, given how already-wrong it would be to call the first 50% a hate group? The overarching problem is that he called black Americans a hate group based on some stupid poll. If he hadn't done that, the chances that this thread or conversation would still be happening would be pretty slim. You seem to think that the problem in all this is the reaction to it, and I don't agree. This was an unforced error if there ever was one.
Yeah, and that's delusional. The poll was not about how black people in the USA view Scott Adams, and I'm pretty sure nobody (black, white, purple, whatever) ever saw Scott Adams as a great helper of black causes. Maybe it's
somebody's fault that if we follow this line of reasoning it makes Scott Adams seem like a delusional weirdo with a seriously out-of-whack sense of self-importance
in addition to a racist way of reacting to things, but that somebody is not any newspaper publishing group or black person. That somebody is or would be Scott Adams himself.
Again, if you're right about this, then the most we can probably say is that Scott Adams appears to be taking the results of this one poll extremely personally, and that's a problem for
him, not for anyone else. Most people can read the results of an opinion poll without reacting by going on a racist rant.
Well 'good' thing he's given them some much more understandable reasons for doing so with his stupid reaction, then!
The even crazier response would be thinking that you were helping in the first place by drawing a cartoon about a white office worker and his dog, but okay.
He may not have been trying to make a generalization about black people, but that's sure what it sounded like he was doing anyway when I listened to the rant myself.
I don't know who that is, but okay.
Ooof. I very much disagree.
I don't really understand where this is coming from. Do you encounter tons and tons of black people in your everyday life who blame you for their problems? I don't, so maybe I just can't relate, but this seems like some weird type of projection to me. Like even if a black person were to tell me "White people are the cause of problems in my community", my reaction would not be to say "Hey, hey --
I never did anything to your community!", because I don't think I would hear "white people" and think that they're talking about
me in particular, since they didn't say "you" at any point, and I guess I don't have much of a feeling of brotherhood or whatever with other white people. Meh.
No one. The point is that if he
had said something like that, it would've been hard to characterize it as racist, but he was not clear at all that he was speaking only of the respondents to that poll -- hence, why I don't believe that defense of what he said.
Exactly. So Scott Adams was in the wrong.
I have no idea. I don't really spend any time trying to think of ways to get groups branded as hate groups, so I guess I've never really thought about it. I don't work for the SPLC or whatever, so it's not really my job to come up with some methodology to do that.
I guess it would be helpful to clarify just who you think is giving what group a pass. I don't think I've ever seen the Wobblies or whoever giving a 'pass' to the KKK, nor would it make sense that they do so given their ties to socialist and anarcho-syndicalist labor movements.
I'm sorry, but what do any of these people have to do with the topic of this thread? This seems to be coming out of nowhere.
Is it that we can't have a thread anywhere on CF if it doesn't mention Trump? Is that some sort of new forum rule that I am unaware of?
The thread isn't about what I consider a hate group to begin with, but I don't think I'm wildly out of line with what most people would consider one: a group founded upon or otherwise espousing the idea that some people are better/worse than others based on some immutable characteristic, like race or sex. So groups like the KKK, the Aryan Nations, etc. would fit that definition. I'm unaware of any similar 'black supremacy' groups outside of perhaps the Black Hebrew Israelite weirdos, who as far as I know have a 'complicated' relationship to the idea of race to begin with (i.e., I can't tell if they argue for their superiority based on their supposed 'Jewish' roots or their skin color, but either way they're freaking crazy, so that's enough for me to avoid them at all costs). I also don't know about the NOI, because the only person I've ever known who was in it (he was raised in it, like I guess a lot of people are or were at the time) left many years ago and eventually married a white lady, so he's probably not a great source on what their doctrine is. From what I've read about it (e.g., white people being invented in a lab by a mad scientist), though, I would agree that they seem nuts. Farrakhan himself is obviously out to lunch, and has been for many years. Even if there weren't any wacky racial theories to go along with it, I would definitely look askance at him for doing things like responding positively to overtures from Scientology, but anyway...
Why should I have to tell you what you clearly already believe without me having said anything like that? What's the point of that? So that you can be convinced that you've got my number, but even more so now? I'll pass, thanks.
And you'd be wrong, anyway; I hold everyone to the same standard, called the "not behaving like Scott Adams" standard. Most people manage it every day without having to have a big argument over it. Go figure.
