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

[childeye 2]

No but they are asking questions posed on 4chan by white supremacists. And if these polled know it, they are answering a different question.

Heck, j wonder why they did not ask 'do you agree with the statement "black lives matter?"'. I suspect it would see a similar useless result.

It is a trick question. How many times have you ever thought it's okay to be white? I've never said anything like that in my entire life because I don't think to evaluate a skin color.

 

[dzheremi]

And you....we're both white even if only one of us is ashamed of it lol.

Again, I don't know where you get this idea that I'm somehow ashamed of being white. It's not like I did anything one way or another to be white, so to me it's the same as being left-handed, having brown hair, etc. These aren't things to be ashamed of. They just sort of are as they are.

You could find faith in any other religion tomorrow and any hate towards Christians would not apply to you.

And you and Scott Adams could read different poll results. What's the point in pointing this out? Things are as they are, and simply pointing out that different circumstances could lead to different outcomes is not illuminating, especially when again the point is that it is within your power how you choose to react regardless of what some poll says.

Till the day you die though....you are white. This is what makes racism so particularly awful...along with any hatred towards immutable characteristics.

For sure. I just don't agree that 25% or whatever percent answering a loaded question on a poll in a certain way is indicative of discrimination against me, or white people more generally. My identity is not wrapped up in how people answer "Is it OK to be white?", because I (like others who have responded) consider that question illegitimate in the first place. It's the conservative pollster's equivalent of a double-bind: answer in the affirmative, and you are "All Lives Matter"-ing your way around the issue (which, despite what people who think they're being clever seem to believe, is not an effective answer to the question); answer in the negative, and you get Scott Adams upset...well, Scott Adams and you, and everyone else who treats the Washington Examiner as a reliable source on the current state of race relations in the United States.

I don't. The racists do though. And those self hating white liberals.

You're the one in this conversation claiming that Scott Adams said nothing wrong, so I'm not sure what to make of this claim. I guess if these are really our only two choices, then it's better to me to be 'self-hating' than to be 'other-people hating'. Self-reproach can at least be sometimes put to good ends, so long as it doesn't become pathological and weird.

Who said it was?

That was the question I had originally asked, several replies ago.

You literally reacted the same as Adams.

Adams is saying white people should stay away from black people because X% in this poll he read say it's not okay to be white, therefore black people are a hate group. I am saying I don't go out of my way to try to force people who don't want to talk to me to do so. If you can't tell the difference between these two stances, then you're simply too committed to your idea that Adams is presenting a reasonable reaction to read properly. They're not the same reaction at all. I'm not basing my approach to others on skin color, or on the results of a poll, but on how I would like to be treated (I don't want to be forced into conversations with anyone that I don't want to have, either), and I'm not saying what anyone who happens to share my skin color should do, or calling an entire segment of society a hate group for not wanting to talk to me.

Right and Adams is done helping those black people who hate him and giving them space.


You agree....so why are you so worked up over this?

Adams, like yourself, can do or think whatever he wants. I was not aware that responding to the topic of the thread as I originally had meant I was "all worked up" over it. I think Adams is a racist idiot, but it's not like I'm protesting outside of his house or something. Haha.

How would so many openly racist black people not matter?

Because again, I don't think their responding to a loaded question is evidence of racism. It's evidence of a question that is designed to evoke a response which can then be characterized in a certain way. (Hence the 'loaded' part.)

If 25% of white people were openly racist....would that matter lol? I could have sworn people like you despised racism. You seem pretty cool with it when it's aimed at white people lol.

Thanks for the free personality reading.

What argument? Seems pretty clear we both understand where you are on this issue lol.

I don't see what point you're making here.

I don't think I need to go into your history.

I'm glad you've made your decision, after several posts of vaguely threatening (?) to expose me as...having opinions on things. Hahaha.

Black people can assume racism is the cause and result of everything.

Who claimed they're doing that? You? Because I don't recall saying anything like that, but maybe this is one of those things like how I supposedly agree with Scott Adams despite not realizing that I'm doing so by not wanting to bug people.

White people find actual examples of racism? You think they shouldn't take it personally.

Uh huh. When it happens to white people, it's actual racism; when it happens to black people, they're just assuming that racism is the cause and result of everything.

Sorry, you identified yourself as white. They are talking about you. It doesn't matter to them that you aren't particularly fond of white people. They hate you as much as me.

Okay. The difference being that you seem to really, really care about this 25 or whatever percent of people who responded to a poll question in a way you find objectionable. I don't. You're saying it's hate, whereas I think it's a loaded question to begin with. Again, it's about reactions. You're going the Scott Adams route where this all says something very deep and alarming about black people and how much 'they hate us', but that's not the only way to read the situation. So...sorry for not reacting as a white person 'should', I guess. I guess that's where the claims of me being a 'self-hating liberal' come from?

Mockery is typical of the racists.

Now I'm a racist because I'm not taking your conservative race war talking point seriously? Get outta here. Hahaha.

Poll shows hiring managers discriminating against white men - Washington Examiner

It must be all that white privilege going around the country, but a recent survey showed that 1 in 6 hiring managers was asked not to hire white males. That's the discriminatory behavior implemented in companies throughout the country, according to data from ResumeBuilder. It's obviously...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

If you go back to the original poll results as reported on Glass Door, you can see that this is mostly a result of programs implemented by middle management in the companies under consideration. I don't know what the racial breakdown of middle management at these companies is, but do you think that they're primarily black? If not, then I fail to see how this is such a good example of 'them hating us' for our skin color or whatever. Maybe I could take the claims of anti-white racism a little more seriously if it weren't white people doing it to other white people (sort of like Scott Adams' observation about the reaction to his rant, before you go there). Particularly when combined with the result that said 70-something percent of those surveyed see their company as embracing DEI objectives for appearance's sake more than to make real change, it doesn't seem like most people involved think that this is a very good state of affairs. Less corporate wokeism would probably be better for those who actually do want to improve things, but people in that position are probably not the ones answering Glass Door surveys in the first place, so meh.

I think a much better way to tackle this issue would be to ask what should replace the current system, since it's clearly got some pretty obvious flaws. A 'pure' meritocracy is probably most inviting to those who already think that this is how they got to whatever place they're in (you know, Ayn Rand types and those who love them), but most people can probably see the pitfalls in that too, since meritocracies often assume a sort of blank slate when it comes to background, which is never the case, since not everyone comes from the same schooling, upbringing, socio-economic status, etc. So even if you get rid of DEI initiatives, you won't get rid of the things that made middle management implement them in the first place.

Well there you go....think this might be due to all the rampant racism against whites?

At the companies surveyed, sure, but I would hope that the Scott Adams debacle has shown the dangers in extrapolating too much from one set of poll results.

I thought you didn't particularly feel anything about being white?

That is correct. I don't feel any particularly strong attachment to whiteness as a thing (e.g., I didn't grow up eating Lutefisk in a heavily Scandinavian-descended area of the USA or whatever). That doesn't mean that I don't recognize that there are advantages to being white in a society that was constructed to give such advantages to white people on the basis of their whiteness. These are related, but ultimately separable issues (in that I still benefit from being white regardless of how attached I feel to it).

Oh gross....you think black people are beneath you because you're white?!?

No. What? There's a difference between recognizing that racism exists and that you benefit from it by being of the race that its continued existence benefits (what I'm saying) and agreeing with a racist view of the world (what you apparently think I'm saying).

If I were to say "conventionally attractive people have an easier time in life than unattractive people", does that mean that I'm saying that's how it should be?

Oh I'm sure you're the acme of success. All because you're white. If you truly hate yourself for such reasons, I expect you'll be quitting your job soon and handing it to those beneath you.

I never said I hated myself for any of these reasons. Again, I'm describing things as they usually are, not as I believe they should be. And considering how I was just hired in December, I'm not sure that there's anyone beneath me in my current job. Nice try, though. Hahaha.

Yeah I skipped the rest once you revealed that you think everyone who isn't white is somehow beneath you. No thanks.


Imagine the irony of someone who believes black people beneath him calling Adams racist

If that's what you think I'm saying, then I think you have more in common with how you portray Adams' detractors than you realize.

 

[childeye 2]

Some people think the poll is asking, Is it okay to be white?
So they answer Yes. No racism here in this answer.

The question is not asking that:
So other people answer the poll question posed as, Do you think it's good to go around stating this?
Now anyone thinking it's good to go around saying "it's okay to be white", must think it needs to be said for some good reason, as if they think of others as in need of being told, as if they think they are racists or CRT victims that need to be told. So they answer No. No racism here in this answer either.

Scott Adams thinks the question is asking if it is okay to be white. So, people who answered No to the poll question posed as, "is it good to state it", Scott Adams mistakenly took them to mean, No "it's not okay to be white". He also then proceeds to conclude that all black people who said No, must think it's not okay to be white and therefore should be shunned, while also concluding that "white liberals" who said No, must hate themselves for being white (see alleged intentions of CRT indoctrination).

This is how the propaganda of the devil works to manipulate minds, stir up passions, and turn brother against brother.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Sorry, but it is a trick question. The premise being whether it's good/bad to think if it's okay to be a certain skin color. You know like, "Don't think of a brown cow", it's impossible not to do, once someone says not to do it. I don't believe Scott Adams should be seen as racist just because he had trouble seeing through it. I would hope he can admit he thought of a brown cow.

Ok is more analogous to acceptable or tolerable...or maybe satisfactory.

Nobody who thinks you did a good job would tell you that you did an OK job.

 

[Ana the Ist]

No but they are asking questions posed on 4chan by white supremacists. And if these polled know it, they are answering a different question.

Heck, j wonder why they did not ask 'do you agree with the statement "black lives matter?"'. I suspect it would see a similar useless resulJon.

Except no one disagreed with the statement "black lives matter" in fact...they agreed, saying "of course they do....all lives matter". Then the racist black queer Marxists who originated the term got upset and said "no they don't....Black lives matter!"

Now, does the fact that a bunch of black racist Marxists originating the phrase black lives matter suddenly make me disagree with it? No...of course not. Black lives matter because all lives matter.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Some people think the poll is asking, Is it okay to be white?
So they answer Yes. No racism here in this answer.

Questions - Okay To Be White - February 13-15, 2023 - Rasmussen Reports®

www.rasmussenreports.com

That is what the poll is asking. That's exactly what it asked. Feel free to take a look.

The question is not asking that.

Yes, yes it is.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Again, I don't know where you get this idea that I'm somehow ashamed of being white.

From you, your answers. Remember when you mocked racial discrimination against whites?

And you and Scott Adams could read different poll results.

It's the topic of the OP LOL.

For sure. I just don't agree that 25% or whatever percent answering a loaded question on a poll in a certain way is indicative of discrimination against me, or white people more generally.

It's not loaded if you aren't racist.

My identity is not wrapped up in how people answer "Is it OK to be white?", because I (like others who have responded) consider that question illegitimate in the first place.

See above.

It's the conservative pollster's equivalent of a double-bind: answer in the affirmative, and you are "All Lives Matter"-ing your way around the issue (which, despite what people who think they're being clever seem to believe,

You don't think all lives matter? Called it. Which lives don't matter?

is not an effective answer to the question); answer in the negative, and you get Scott Adams upset...well, Scott Adams and you, and everyone else who treats the Washington Examiner as a reliable source on the current state of race relations in the United States.

It's a real poll taken by real people. A real representative sample.

You're the one in this conversation claiming that Scott Adams said nothing wrong, so I'm not sure what to make of this claim. I guess if these are really our only two choices, then it's better to me to be 'self-hating' than to be 'other-people hating'.

You mocked racial discrimination against whites...clearly hating others.

Self-reproach can at least be sometimes put to good ends, so long as it doesn't become pathological and weird.


That was the question I had originally asked, several replies ago.


Adams is saying white people should stay away from black people because X% in this poll he read say it's not okay to be white, therefore black people are a hate group.

I don't think he's referring to the other 50%.

I am saying I don't go out of my way to try to force people who don't want to talk to me to do so. If you can't tell the difference between these two stances, then you're simply too committed to your idea that Adams is presenting a reasonable reaction to read properly.

The sentiment is the same.

They're not the same reaction at all. I'm not basing my approach to others on skin color, or on the results of a poll, but on how I would like to be treated (I don't want to be forced into conversations with anyone that I don't want to have, either), and I'm not saying what anyone who happens to share my skin color should do, or calling an entire segment of society a hate group for not wanting to talk to me.

If an entire segment of society hates you for your skin color, are they a hate group or not?

Adams, like yourself, can do or think whatever he wants. I was not aware that responding to the topic of the thread as I originally had meant I was "all worked up" over it. I think Adams is a racist idiot, but it's not like I'm protesting outside of his house or something. Haha.

You seem to call him a racist for beliefs that you share.

Because again, I don't think their responding to a loaded question is evidence of racism.

Not loaded. Only loaded if you're racist. 50% got it right.

It's evidence of a question that is designed to evoke a response which can then be characterized in a certain way. (Hence the 'loaded' part.)

Thanks for the free personality reading.



I don't see what point you're making here.


I'm glad you've made your decision, after several posts of vaguely threatening (?) to expose me as...having opinions on things. Hahaha.


Who claimed they're doing that? You? Because I don't recall saying anything like that, but maybe this is one of those things like how I supposedly agree with Scott Adams despite not realizing that I'm doing so by not wanting to bug people.


Uh huh. When it happens to white people, it's actual racism; when it happens to black people, they're just assuming that racism is the cause and result of everything.

What would be the cause of racial discrimination except racism?

Okay. The difference being that you seem to really, really care about this 25 or whatever percent of people who responded to a poll question in a way you find objectionable. I don't. You're saying it's hate, whereas I think it's a loaded question to begin with. Again, it's about reactions. You're going the Scott Adams route where this all says something very deep and alarming about black people and how much 'they hate us', but that's not the only way to read the situation. So...sorry for not reacting as a white person 'should', I guess. I guess that's where the claims of me being a 'self-hating liberal' come from?

Well there's a correct way to read it (honestly) and then there's full blown denial (you).

Now I'm a racist because I'm not taking your conservative race war talking point seriously? Get outta here. Hahaha.

No....you appear to be a self hating liberal who sees himself at the top of some "racial hierarchy" (your words) and every other race is beneath you.


Pretty gross.

If you go back to the original poll results as reported on Glass Door, you can see that this is mostly a result of programs implemented by middle management in the companies under consideration.

That is who does the hiring.

I don't know what the racial breakdown of middle management at these companies is, but do you think that they're primarily black?

Why would that matter? They could be self hating racist white liberals. It's racial discrimination regardless of the race of the person discriminating.

I think a much better way to tackle this issue would be to ask what should replace the current system, since it's clearly got some pretty obvious flaws. A 'pure' meritocracy is probably most inviting to those who already think that this is how they got to whatever place they're in (you know, Ayn Rand types and those who love them), but most people can probably see the pitfalls in that too, since meritocracies often assume a sort of blank slate when it comes to background, which is never the case, since not everyone comes from the same schooling, upbringing, socio-economic status, etc. So even if you get rid of DEI initiatives, you won't get rid of the things that made middle management implement them in the first place.

At the companies surveyed, sure, but I would hope that the Scott Adams debacle has shown the dangers in extrapolating too much from one set of poll results.


That is correct. I don't feel any particularly strong attachment to whiteness as a thing (e.g., I didn't grow up eating Lutefisk in a heavily Scandinavian-descended area of the USA or whatever). That doesn't mean that I don't recognize that there are advantages to being white in a society that was constructed to give such advantages to white people on the basis of their whiteness. These are related, but ultimately separable issues (in that I still benefit from being white regardless of how attached I feel to it).


No. What? There's a difference between recognizing that racism exists and that you benefit from it by being of the race that its continued existence benefits (what I'm saying) and agreeing with a racist view of the world (what you apparently think I'm saying).

If I were to say "conventionally attractive people have an easier time in life than unattractive people", does that mean that I'm saying that's how it should be?



I never said I hated myself for any of these reasons. Again, I'm describing things as they usually are, not as I believe they should be. And considering how I was just hired in December, I'm not sure that there's anyone beneath me in my current job. Nice try, though. Hahaha.



If that's what you think I'm saying, then I think you have more in common with how you portray Adams' detractors than you realize.

Yeah I skipped the rest. You're predictably against merit because you're one of those self hating white liberals who doesn't believe it's wrong to be racist against whites and discriminate against them.

If you intended to argue something else...you failed.

 

[childeye 2]

Questions - Okay To Be White - February 13-15, 2023 - Rasmussen Reports®

www.rasmussenreports.com

That is what the poll is asking. That's exactly what it asked. Feel free to take a look.




Yes, yes it is.

1* Do you agree or disagree with this statement: “It’s OK to be white.”

I know that's how you see it. You think it's asking if it's okay to be white. To you, the question is evaluating if the person being asked is racist against whites or not, and it will be revealed depending on whether a person agrees or disagrees.

But to me, I see the question as asking if I agree or disagree with stating this. I see this question as prompting an evaluation of a statement evaluating the color of one's skin and whether one agrees or disagrees with doing that. Thanks be to Christ, I feel it's wrong to think that way, so I don't accept the premise of the statement.

Either way, I don't believe either answer shows a person to be racist.

 

[dzheremi]

From you, your answers. Remember when you mocked racial discrimination against whites?

The hiring thing, you mean? Yeah, I think bringing it up as you did makes for a barometer to measure how racist you can feel free to be around another white person (I guess bringing up that statistic sounds less blatantly racist than just saying "Don't you hate it when unqualified brown and black people take your job due to diversity initiatives in hiring?"), so I did mock it on that account, but if you remember I also offered some advice based on what has worked for me, a white person who has trouble finding employment in the recent past (not due to racial issues). I don't like to see anyone who's trying to better themselves go through hardships with no help. I just also recognize that you don't need to fall into a racist trap based on a Glass Door survey in order to communicate that concern.

It's not loaded if you aren't racist.

It is if you know that it originated with trolls looking to inflame 'liberals' and was subsequently adopted by white supremacists. Do you think that the people responding to the question don't know about its ties to racists and the alt-right?

You don't think all lives matter? Called it. Which lives don't matter?

Ugh. I can't tell if you're being purposely obtuse and trolling or if you are asking a sincere question, but yes, of course everyone's life matters. You never saw people out there proclaiming "All lives matter" (or "Blue lives matter", or whatever the latest spin on it might be) until black people in particular started adopting "Black lives matter" in protest of police brutality against them, though. That's why stuff like this "All lives matter" thing rubs people the wrong way -- in context, it is reactionary and frequently adopted by white supremacist losers who want to be able to de-emphasize and delegitimize the struggle of black people while claiming to be against racism. It is weaponized feigned color blindness.

Judging from your earlier breakdown of racism against black people versus racism against white people (where the latter is the 'actual' racism, and the former is false attribution), it appears that this strategy is working.

The sentiment is the same.

Really? You're going to try to tell me that Scott Adams just doesn't want to butt in where he's not welcome, as though I didn't watch the rant on YouTube myself? I don't buy that for a second, because you don't stay out of things by calling an entire group a 'hate group' in response to a poll question, particularly via a public forum like his podcast or whatever that was that he was ranting on. He wanted people to hear his stupid racist thoughts because he knew that a portion of the public would respond by thinking he was right, and that he hadn't said anything wrong.

You are in that portion of the public, I am not, and yet I'm the one who is expressing the same sentiments as Adams? I don't think so. You're free to interpret my words however you want (in that nobody can stop you), but I'm not just going to agree with you because you can't tell the difference between what I've stated and what Adams stated. That's a comprehension problem on your part, not evidence of me agreeing when I've pointed out several times already how I don't agree.

If an entire segment of society hates you for your skin color, are they a hate group or not?

If that's what they mean by answering the poll question as they did, then sure, those respondents are being hateful. There are other interpretations of what is going on here that have nothing to do with hating white people for their skin color, though. You seem to just be ignoring those in favor of taking the phrase itself as though it is neutral when it clearly isn't.

You seem to call him a racist for beliefs that you share.

No, you say I share them. So certainly it seems that way to you, but it does not seem that way to me, and furthermore I've shown several times now how it isn't. I'm not in the mood to repeat myself over and over to someone who refuses to listen, so I'm sorry if it's not clear enough to you already, but I'm not going to go over it again.

Not loaded. Only loaded if you're racist. 50% got it right.

Yes it is loaded. Read the ADL link that summarizes where it comes from and why it's a problem.

Well there's a correct way to read it (honestly) and then there's full blown denial (you).

I don't trust your reading comprehension skills by this point, to be perfectly honest.

No....you appear to be a self hating liberal who sees himself at the top of some "racial hierarchy" (your words) and every other race is beneath you.


Pretty gross.

I agree, it is gross that that's how you read that, and doubly gross that you insist on mischaracterizing my position even after I explained it in detail so as to avoid precisely this misunderstanding. You can stop that at any time, please.

Yeah I skipped the rest. You're predictably against merit because you're one of those self hating white liberals who doesn't believe it's wrong to be racist against whites and discriminate against them.

Wait a minute, wait a minute...are you saying here that non-white people only ever get wherever they are when meritocracy is abandoned? Because I didn't tie a meritocracy in with race (my wording was that a meritocracy is probably most attractive to those who believe that this is how they got to wherever they are -- that's true of everyone of every color, I'd imagine, since nobody wants to think "I don't belong where I am", whether it's true or not), but you just did. That's pretty odd.

If you intended to argue something else...you failed.

Physician, heal thyself.

 

[Ana the Ist]

1* Do you agree or disagree with this statement: “It’s OK to be white.”

I know that's how you see it.

It's not how I see it...that's how it is.

There's nothing subjective, ambiguous, or interpretive that I'm adding. Words have meaning. That's what those words mean.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The hiring thing, you mean? Yeah, I think bringing it up as you did makes for a barometer to measure how racist you can feel free to be around another white person (I guess bringing up that statistic sounds less blatantly racist than just saying "Don't you hate it when unqualified brown and black people take your job due to diversity initiatives in hiring?"),

Yeah look...

You can call something a "diversity initiative" if you want. In practice you're promoting racial discrimination.

That's what it is...that's what you're for.
Let's be honest. Nobody is dumb enough to believe there's anything else happening here. You are for racial discrimination.

It is if you know that it originated with trolls looking to inflame 'liberals' and was subsequently adopted by white supremacists. Do you think that the people responding to the question don't know about its ties to racists and the alt-right?

Does the far left racist and Marxist origins of the phrase "black lives matter" change its meaning?

Ugh. I can't tell if you're being purposely obtuse and trolling or if you are asking a sincere question, but yes, of course everyone's life matters.

Oh ok...nice flip flop.

How about racial discrimination?

Not the kind where we pretend its racism that someone can't find a job because they sent out an extra resume or two before getting a call back....

But where we can be 100% sure it's racial discrimination because of the actual person doing the hiring says "we passed over this candidate because they are white"?

I agree

Let's see....then I'll respond to the rest of your barely coherent rant.

 

[RDKirk]

1* Do you agree or disagree with this statement: “It’s OK to be white.”

I know that's how you see it. You think it's asking if it's okay to be white. To you, the question is evaluating if the person being asked is racist against whites or not, and it will be revealed depending on whether a person agrees or disagrees.

But to me, I see the question as asking if I agree or disagree with stating this. I see this question as prompting an evaluation based on the color of one's skin whether one agrees or disagrees. I feel it's wrong to think that way, so I don't accept the premise of the statement.

Either way, I don't believe either answer shows a person to be racist.

A lot of white people would not agree with the statement "Black lives matter" just as it is, because it represents for them the intentions of the organization behind it.

That's the same way for black people who know the intention behind "It's OK to be white."

 

[dzheremi]

Yeah look...

You can call something a "diversity initiative" if you want. In practice you're promoting racial discrimination.

That's what it is...that's what you're for.
Let's be honest. Nobody is dumb enough to believe there's anything else happening here. You are for racial discrimination.

I'm using the terminology that the story on Glass Door uses. They're not my initiatives, and I'm not promoting them by talking about them any more than you are by having brought them up in the first place. I have somehow not managed to advance to middle management in the company I work for in the last four months, and I was the one who said I'd rather discuss what should replace these initiatives as they are currently being used, because it's clear from that poll that the hiring managers who have to use them don't even really think they're doing what they're supposedly designed to do. So if they're not making real change, and they're seemingly exposing companies to a lot of backlash and potential liability (e.g., the lawsuit mentioned in the Glass Door article filed by somebody against Google), why keep them as they are just so that companies can say that they're doing something?

Does the far left racist and Marxist origins of the phrase "black lives matter" change its meaning?

That's backwards from the development in usage and meaning vis-a-vis "it's ok to be white" (if the ADL link is to be believed), but anyway...it's a basic fact that the meaning of words do in fact change as they move through society. Maybe "It's OK to be white" started out as some stupid edgy trolling of 'liberals' by 4Chan people, but it has since grown beyond that to be used by out and out white supremacists who know that they can't just go around in society in most places any more screaming about blacks and Jews or whatever, so instead they say that because it gives them a handy way to paint anyone who disagrees with them as an anti-white racist.

It follows that a change could also be posited with regard to Black Lives Matter: what may have started off as an encapsulation of a Marxist approach to race is not necessarily what anyone outside of that philosophical circle has in mind when they say it. Maybe they are therefore 'co-opting' its original meaning to some degree or whatever, but that can't really arrest the linguistic change that is already underway, anymore than if 4Chan people wanted to take "It's OK to be white" back from white supremacists, they'd probably not have much success.

Oh ok...nice flip flop.

How is it a flip-flop of any kind to say that I recognize that everyone's life matters? This appears to be a problem you are having with several posters in this thread: because you seemingly refuse to recognize that any of these sayings have any wider context around them at all (except apparently when you feel it supports your point, like pointing out the 'far left racist Marxist origins' of "Black Lives Matter"), you either don't see or just refuse to recognize how a person can agree with the statement that everyone's life does in fact matter, and yet not see it as benign to go around spouting "ALL LIVES MATTER!" in response to black people saying that their lives in particular matter. That's the same issue that you've had with Childeye2 with regard to "It's OK to be white": you either support everyone affirming it all the time, or you hate white people. You either answer "ALL LIVES MATTER" to every instance of "Black Lives Matter" or you're an evil, Marxist, white-hating black racist (or in my case, a 'self-hating liberal'...because Lord knows you can't really love yourself unless you're ready to throw out an "It's OK to be white!" at any and every possible moment!)

It's not a flip-flop. I just don't turn into some kind of weird robot concerning how language works when it's convenient for winning internet arguments.

How about racial discrimination?

Not the kind where we pretend its racism that someone can't find a job because they sent out an extra resume or two before getting a call back....

But where we can be 100% sure it's racial discrimination because of the actual person doing the hiring says "we passed over this candidate because they are white"?

What about it? Have we somehow not discussed this to your satisfaction already? I already said that the people who are being passed over at those companies would be experiencing discrimination based on those companies' hiring practices. I'm not sure what more you want. Also, since the person who got passed over at Google went on to sue the company, I'm going to assume that at least some lawyers would consider this a possibly winnable or at least prosecutable case, so I dunno what that does to your "white people are so unfairly discriminated against" narrative, but it might not even hold for that much longer with regard to this topic, assuming that cases like this get anywhere and are able to be used in future cases of this type to establish precedent. That's part of the reason why I said I'd rather focus on what ought to replace these DEI corporate woke policies, but I notice that you didn't throw out any suggestions, just more nonsense about how I'm the real racist because...I engaged you on a topic you brought up, I guess? Shame on me. I'll know better than to do that next time, I suppose.

Let's see....then I'll respond to the rest of your barely coherent rant.

Sorry. Maybe I should change my account name to Scott Adams. You seem to love it when that guy goes on barely coherent rants.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'm using the terminology that the story on Glass Door uses.

Nope.

Me-what about racial discrimination against whites?

You-mockery.

Me-statistics.

You-Well I guess that's less racist than blablahblah...DEI initiatives.

You mocked racism...I showed you statistics...you messily tried to imply I'm racist to cover your tracks.

It's real simple.

Are you in favor of any kind of racial discrimination in hiring?

That's backwards from the development in usage and meaning

Nope.

They were both racists and Marxists when they created that slogan. You might be the last person to realize this....but that's the facts.

The big clue, was when a broad multi racial group responded of course black lives matter, all lives matter....they said "nope....only white supremacists say that!"


Which if I was incurably dumb...might have made sense. I mean, what kind of moron thinks "all lives matter" was ever a white supremacists slogan?

vis-a-vis "it's ok to be white" (if the ADL link is to be believed), but anyway...it's a basic fact that the meaning of words do in fact change as they move through society. Maybe "It's OK to be white" started out as some stupid edgy trolling of 'liberals' by 4Chan people,

Let's run with this theory....

Let's imagine this is "edgy trolling" from 4Chan users....

How would it work....if the targets aren't racist towards white people???

It wouldn't. All those people who saw that simple phrase and got upset are in fact, racists. That was the whole point....that's the only reason why it worked.

How is it a flip-flop of any kind to say that I recognize that everyone's life matters?

You mentioned "all lives matter" being the wrong response to black lives matter.

This appears to be a problem you are having with several posters in this thread: because you seemingly refuse to recognize that any of these sayings have any wider context

Again, I completely understand the "wider context"...


The phrase was created for one purpose and one purpose only...to reveal people who were racist against whites.

They are the only ones who would ever disagree with the statement.


Apparently, it still works like a charm lol.

around them at all (except apparently when you feel it supports your point, like pointing out the 'far left racist Marxist origins' of "Black Lives Matter"), you either don't see or just refuse to recognize how a person can agree with the statement that everyone's life does in fact matter, and yet not see it as benign to go around spouting "ALL LIVES MATTER!"

It is benign...it's broad agreement.

Now you're flip flopping right back.

in response to black people saying that their lives in particular matter. That's the same issue that you've had with Childeye2 with regard to "It's OK to be white": you either support everyone affirming it all the time, or you hate white people. You either answer "ALL LIVES MATTER" to every instance of "Black Lives Matter" or you're an evil, Marxist, white-hating black racist (or in my case, a 'self-hating liberal'...because Lord knows you can't really love yourself unless you're ready to throw out an "It's OK to be white!" at any and every possible moment!)

I don't think everyone who says black lives matter is a racist Marxist, I simply pointed out it's origins. Sorry you're the last to know.

It's not a flip-flop. I just don't turn into some kind of weird robot concerning how language works when it's convenient for winning internet arguments.


What about it? Have we somehow not discussed this to your satisfaction already? I already said that the people who are being passed over at those companies would be experiencing discrimination based on those companies' hiring practices. I'm not sure what more you want. Also, since the person who got passed over at Google went on to sue the company, I'm going to assume that at least some lawyers would consider this a possibly winnable or at least prosecutable case, so I dunno what that does to your "white people are so unfairly discriminated against" narrative, but it might not even hold for that much longer with regard to this topic, assuming that cases like this get anywhere and are able to be used in future cases of this type to establish precedent. That's part of the reason why I said I'd rather focus on what ought to replace these DEI corporate woke policies, but I notice that you didn't throw out any suggestions, just more nonsense about how I'm the real racist because...I engaged you on a topic you brought up, I guess? Shame on me. I'll know better than to do that next time, I suppose.



Sorry. Maybe I should change my account name to Scott Adams. You seem to love it when that guy goes on barely coherent rants.

Do you even understand why "it's ok to be white" worked as an effective phrase?


I'll give you a hint...


It's because one side of the political aisle filled up real fast with racists.

 

[childeye 2]

It's not how I see it...that's how it is.

There's nothing subjective, ambiguous, or interpretive that I'm adding. Words have meaning. That's what those words mean.

This is how it is: The poll literally asks, "Do you agree or disagree with this statement?" It does not literally ask, "Is it okay to be white or not okay to be white?"

So, with that fact in mind, let's look at these meanings a little closer to understand how Mr. Adams became upset by people disagreeing with a statement. The poll asks if you agree or disagree with a certain prepared statement, which in turn states the obvious by declaring it is okay to have white skin. Subsequently, the statement is coming from a point of view that subliminally posits, that there are some people who don't think it's okay to be white. That's why the disagree is offered, to suggest to the mind that anyone who disagrees must think it's not okay to be white. People are meant to think that they must agree so as not to be racist against white people. And to agree is to accept the spirit of the premise in the statement that some people think it's not okay to have white skin. That's how propaganda works to tell people what to think and what to feel and divide brother against brother. That's why Scott Adams got angry at anyone who did not agree with the statement.

Moreover, I see the first question/statement as a pretext for the second question/statement. With the spirit of,.... being white is okay/some people don't think so...., freshly ingrained in one's psyche, the poll then asks: Do you agree or disagree with this statement: “Black people can be racist, too.” Aha, now we know who we're supposed to think these people are who don't think it's okay to be born with white skin, because if not, then we are meant to think we are racist enough to believe that only white skinned people are racist.

These are loaded questions, because they are simply asking to agree or disagree with manufactured statements that blatantly present as leaving only one right answer. This is why it's wrong to even accept the underlying premise of evaluating people based on skin color hidden in the first statement. After accepting that lie, then more lies can be built upon it.

Now suppose I stated, "It's okay to be black". Any Black American being in the know, would probably just shake their head at my ignorance, because Black is not even referring to a skin color. In Black American vernacular, it refers to a unique cultural identity rooted in slavery, reconstruction, and oppression of a people. To them, White means clueless about being Black, which is easily misconstrued and then mischaracterized as not being okay with white skin, and then disseminated through social media.

So, to summarize, the meaning I see in the words, is to introduce the false narrative of a false equivalency, that racism in Black people is just the same as racism in white people, and if you don't agree, you're a racist. For the record, I thank God that I can see through such propaganda, lest I fall victim to my own vainglory.

 

[MrMoe]

Lets see if I've got this right. So he's being called racist for calling black people a hate group and that comment is racist because it's a sweeping generalization of an entire race? Have I got that right?

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'm using the terminology that the story on Glass Door uses. They're not my initiatives, and I'm not promoting them by talking about them any more than you are by having brought them up in the first place. I have somehow not managed to advance to middle management in the company I work for in the last four months, and I was the one who said I'd rather discuss what should replace these initiatives as they are currently being used, because it's clear from that poll that the hiring managers who have to use them don't even really think they're doing what they're supposedly designed to do. So if they're not making real change, and they're seemingly exposing companies to a lot of backlash and potential liability (e.g., the lawsuit mentioned in the Glass Door article filed by somebody against Google), why keep them as they are just so that companies can say that they're doing something?


That's backwards from the development in usage and meaning vis-a-vis "it's ok to be white" (if the ADL link is to be believed), but anyway...it's a basic fact that the meaning of words do in fact change as they move through society. Maybe "It's OK to be white" started out as some stupid edgy trolling of 'liberals' by 4Chan people, but it has since grown beyond that to be used by out and out white supremacists who know that they can't just go around in society in most places any more screaming about blacks and Jews or whatever, so instead they say that because it gives them a handy way to paint anyone who disagrees with them as an anti-white racist.

It follows that a change could also be posited with regard to Black Lives Matter: what may have started off as an encapsulation of a Marxist approach to race is not necessarily what anyone outside of that philosophical circle has in mind when they say it. Maybe they are therefore 'co-opting' its original meaning to some degree or whatever, but that can't really arrest the linguistic change that is already underway, anymore than if 4Chan people wanted to take "It's OK to be white" back from white supremacists, they'd probably not have much success.



How is it a flip-flop of any kind to say that I recognize that everyone's life matters? This appears to be a problem you are having with several posters in this thread: because you seemingly refuse to recognize that any of these sayings have any wider context around them at all (except apparently when you feel it supports your point, like pointing out the 'far left racist Marxist origins' of "Black Lives Matter"), you either don't see or just refuse to recognize how a person can agree with the statement that everyone's life does in fact matter, and yet not see it as benign to go around spouting "ALL LIVES MATTER!" in response to black people saying that their lives in particular matter. That's the same issue that you've had with Childeye2 with regard to "It's OK to be white": you either support everyone affirming it all the time, or you hate white people. You either answer "ALL LIVES MATTER" to every instance of "Black Lives Matter" or you're an evil, Marxist, white-hating black racist (or in my case, a 'self-hating liberal'...because Lord knows you can't really love yourself unless you're ready to throw out an "It's OK to be white!" at any and every possible moment!)

It's not a flip-flop. I just don't turn into some kind of weird robot concerning how language works when it's convenient for winning internet arguments.


What about it? Have we somehow not discussed this to your satisfaction already? I already said that the people who are being passed over at those companies would be experiencing discrimination based on those companies' hiring practices. I'm not sure what more you want. Also, since the person who got passed over at Google went on to sue the company, I'm going to assume that at least some lawyers would consider this a possibly winnable or at least prosecutable case, so I dunno what that does to your "white people are so unfairly discriminated against" narrative, but it might not even hold for that much longer with regard to this topic, assuming that cases like this get anywhere and are able to be used in future cases of this type to establish precedent. That's part of the reason why I said I'd rather focus on what ought to replace these DEI corporate woke policies, but I notice that you didn't throw out any suggestions, just more nonsense about how I'm the real racist because...I engaged you on a topic you brought up, I guess? Shame on me. I'll know better than to do that next time, I suppose.



Sorry. Maybe I should change my account name to Scott Adams. You seem to love it when that guy goes on barely coherent rants.

I can't believe it's 2023 and you still don't get it....

Yes, the phrase probably originated on 4Chan message boards. In fact, years ago when I last checked...it's still there in it's original discussion.

You see, they saw the overwhelmingly anti-white racist rhetoric of the left and tried to come up with a phrase to expose it. It had to be so benign... so unambiguously neutral, only a racist could possibly be triggered by it....

The phrase "it's ok to be white" has no secret meaning, no wider context, no hidden agenda beyond exposing people who are now racist towards white people.


So the meaning of "it's ok to be white" has only ever meant literally 1 thing...

Ready for the big reveal???


It's OK to be white.


Now, you may have noticed that at least 50% of black people openly agree....of course they do, they aren't a pack of dumb ignorant racists.

You should remember that, next time you imagine yourself far above them in your "racial hierarchy".

 

[childeye 2]

Lets see if I've got this right. So he's being called racist for calling black people a hate group and that comment is racist because it's a sweeping generalization of an entire race? Have I got that right?

He's not a racist. He just got manipulated by some propaganda and it has now spun completely out of control. Cute dog, by the way.

 

[MrMoe]

He's not a racist. He just got manipulated by some propaganda and it has now spun completely out of control. Cute dog, by the way.

Propaganda? You mean the Rasmussen poll?

Well according to this site I've seen used by some left wing members, they've got the second best rating on factual reporting.

Rasmussen Reports - Bias and Credibility

RIGHT-CENTER BIAS These media sources are slightly to moderately conservative in bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words

mediabiasfactcheck.com

That's a higher rating than CNN and MSNBC (both got mixed).

So if Rasmussen is propaganda, then CNN and MSNBC must be pure brainwashing.

 

[RDKirk]

Propaganda? You mean the Rasmussen poll?

Well according to this site I've seen used by some left wing members, they've got the second best rating on factual reporting.

Rasmussen Reports - Bias and Credibility

RIGHT-CENTER BIAS These media sources are slightly to moderately conservative in bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words

mediabiasfactcheck.com

That's a higher rating than CNN and MSNBC (both got mixed).

So if Rasmussen is propaganda, then CNN and MSNBC must be pure brainwashing.

That site itself is just an open survey. Anyone can click in and vote. And even then, Rassmussen gets rated as center-right biased overall.