It's not even close, Christians join the faith, Christians leave the faith. It's a voluntary association.
That's exactly why it's a garbage analogy. Work on that. You can stop being Christian but you'll always be white.
The point of the analogy in the first place is that you and Scott Adams are taking the results of a poll very personally because you feel it attacks you, since you're white and they said this about white people, so therefore they're talking about YOU! Since any instance of "white" in the previous sentence can be replaced with "Christian" and the analogy still stands (i.e., a Christian could say that since they themselves are Christian, they take poll results that indicate a dislike of Christians as though the respondents are talking about them personally), it's a perfectly fine analogy, since it's not about the immutability of the characteristic, but about the level of
personal identification that the person reacting to the poll feels with the characteristic 'under attack'. If you didn't personally identify with your race as an extremely important characteristic of who you are, you probably wouldn't care that X% of people said whatever about it.
It doesn't have to be about whether or not you can change your skin color or your religion or whatever. You just have to know how adjectives work.
They are polling people in real life.
Yes, and? The people who make it into these news stories that you're apparently obsessed with are real people, too. That doesn't mean that any story you are dredging up is necessarily a reflection of your own life.
Why is he a big racist baby if you believe the same thing? You gave the exact same advice.
I call black people a 'hate group' and say I'm sick of helping them and that white people should stay away from them? Where? I don't recall doing that.
Right....you think he's a big racist baby for suggesting staying away from black racists....you yourself said you would just stay away from black racists?
I said that I will gladly oblige anyone who has decided that they don't want to talk to me for any reason. It's about being able to let things go, particularly things that don't ultimately matter, like some opinion poll somewhere. How is that agreeing with Adams, who was apparently not able to do so? (Hence the racist rant that this thread is actually about.)
Besides, I likewise recommended this same strategy to you (in the form of making use of the ignore button) if you don't want to read anything I post and for whatever reason can't leave well enough alone despite any irritation you might feel from reading what I write. That's not about race. It's just generally good practice for people if they want to cut down on the amount of arguing they do in a day.
Do you see yourself as a big racist baby?
Nope, because again, I recommend the same thing in situations that have nothing to do with the race of the participants in the conversation. Nobody owes you a conversation they don't want to have, no matter what their reason for not wanting to have it with you, and you don't owe anyone a conversation that you don't want to have. I've spent years here on CF offering my opinion on many things, but should anyone decide that they don't feel that this adds to their forum-using experience, I would
want them to filter me out, rather than have them react like a Scott Adams every time they 'have to' read something I write.
Yes, really.
Oh ok...my apologies. I'm certain I missed all those posts regarding everything police shooting of a black person that people got outraged over where you said...
"Whoa there stupid, quit being a big racist baby....you don't have to take these things personally."
I'm sure I'll find those posts if I go digging. What do you think? Should I start around the 2020 riots lol?
Again, you can do whatever you want. I find the fact that your go-to situation to make a mockery of what I've said about Adams' reaction to a poll is to compare it to others' reactions to
people getting killed by police to be very weird, but whatever. If that's where you want to take this, don't let the fact that I'm once again not interested in your mining of my post history stop you.
Go read my first post....try real hard to understand the main point.
I said I didn't understand why people like yourself are crying racism when you clearly agree with him.
And you proved me right several posts later.
Okay. Cool. Have fun being right on the internet.
There's that old fashioned racism. A white person being discriminated against for their skin color! Quick, make fun of them!
Now I know why you never denied it. No, I still have a job...but that's no reason to accept actual racists promoting racial discrimination.
After all, Adams just said some words....those are just words. They don't really hurt anyone. Quit getting so upset and taking it so personally....you aren't even black.
Hahaha. It would be hard to take it personally without first buying into Adams' (and your) contention that because X% of people answered a poll in a certain way, that means they're talking about
ME and I should be upset along with you as a result, and cry about the supposed 'discrimination' found therein. On the other hand, if in reality I don't actually care about some stupid poll, and find Scott Adams' and your reactions to it to be wildly out of proportion with how much it actually matters in life, then it makes sense that I would make fun of those reactions.
I
do actually care about people not being able to find employment, though, hence the recommendation that you try a job coach if you're struggling in that area of life. I'm glad to know that you aren't, and I hope that anyone who is can avail themselves of whatever resources they have in their region of the world to help with that.
Yeah, that's essentially what he's saying. He realized he's better off staying away from black racists....you said you'd do the same. Great self own.
Okay. It's you who is injecting all of this stuff about 'black racists' into this, though. I thought I was pretty clear that I do the same for people who don't want to talk to me
for any reason, not just race. Again, see the example of this very conversation, where I earlier recommended that you should use the ignore button on me if reading my posts causes you such great distress.
We're kinda past that now...
What? That's the substance of the rant that this thread is about! Hahaha.
I'll recap at the bottom though.
Oh, good! I thought for a second we weren't going to get a recap!
Look....I only asked because I already knew how you would respond lol.
There's a certain type of self hating liberal white who wishes desperately they were anything but white lol.
I don't know what you're talking about. Being white is pretty awesome. Imagine: being at the top of a racial hierarchy that you don't even have to admit
exists, because it's just that much a part of your everyday life that you can legitimately say that you don't see it. Not only that, but not having to do anything or prove anything to anyone in order to be there, getting the benefit of the doubt in random interactions with everyone from police to little old ladies on the street, being taken seriously pretty much automatically as an authority/CEO/political candidate/general statesman even if you are in most areas of life an abject failure, etc. On the basis of such unearned benefits alone, who would choose to be anything else, if it were a choice?
I resent the 'liberal' tag, and openly admit that I may have plenty of reasons to hate myself, but being white isn't one of them. As you've correctly pointed out, it's not like a person can stop being white, so it would be a silly thing to hate myself over.
So when Adams points out a segment of a population is openly racist against white people, these liberals' brains literally explode with rage because white people aren't supposed to state any such facts. When a black person suggests vast swaths of the entire white population are somehow unconsciously racist....well they might as well be MLK Jr in these people's eyes....not the vile racists they are.
Hahaha. God forbid that my brain 'explode with rage' over something that the Dilbert guy said. I've said he's an idiot (though, again, I've also said that about Robin DiAngelo, frequently compared Nancy Pelosi to Skeletor, etc. -- not very 'liberal', by some definitions), but I think you're descending into some very 'woke'-style hyperbole here. Isn't it enough that we just call Scott Adams a big dummy and leave it at that? Why's it have to be "liberals' brains exploding with rage"? Hahaha.
Adams said nothing wrong. You agree with him 100%. He said here's a group that openly hates me and doesn't want anything to do with me....and I'm staying away.
Except he wasn't merely talking about his own reaction to the poll numbers; he suggested that other white people join him in 'staying away' from black people. If I was going to react to his comments in the same way that both he and you reacted to the poll that inspired the rant, I would characterize this as Scott Adams wanting every other white person to join him in his racial neurosis panic room/dreamed-for white community that would be hermetically sealed off from black people. I'm not interested in that. Even if I did want that, I wouldn't want to spend the rest of my life in my new all-white community with the likes of Scott Adams. That'd be like choosing to eat creamed corn and soda crackers for the rest of your life when you could be having...well, anything else.
I gave an example of a black person saying they don't want to speak to you and clearly don't like you....and you said you'd just stay away from those people.
I don't know anyone who wouldn't react that way, though. Do you regularly make a point out of speaking to people who tell you that they don't want to speak to you and don't like you? I don't. That doesn't mean I'm signing off on Scott Adams' racial view of the world. I find it hard to believe that it is really that difficult to notice the difference, given all the other stuff Adams said in his rant that wasn't limited to that, about black people being a hate group, how white people should stay away from them, about how he's tired of helping them, etc.
As for hate groups....you have no reason to disagree if you can't tell me what a hate group even is....and you can't.
That's an odd contention. If I can't or don't want to wax philosophical about what makes a hate group a hate group, I'm unable to disagree with someone else when they call a group I don't see as being one a 'hate group'? I don't think that's the case, because much of my reason for disagreeing with Adams is the basis upon which he supposedly made that determination, not on what he or you or even I would call a 'hate group', philosophically-speaking (since I don't think there's one united or overarching philosophy that might explain why someone might answer that it's "not okay to be white"; I'd want to know more about why they feel that way), which was one opinion poll, by a decidedly dodgy polling company, that said a minority of respondents who were black responded "yes" to a very loaded question. This wasn't like a question included on the U.S. census or something, so at best Adam's is making a mountain out of molehill. At worst, he already felt that way about black people and saw the poll (maybe subconsciously) as providing a pretext for him to go on a rant he's probably had bottled up for quite a while. Either way, it's not something I'm putting any more stock into than that. Adams is a sad lunatic, and I don't feel bad or feel that it was in any way unjust that his cartoon got dropped as a result of this. I've certainly seen people get fired for a lot less!
Yeah, same to you. Take care.
