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

[Ana the Ist]

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

Indeed. Apparently, some folks still didn't understand how the trolling actually worked. The trolling aspect was only to expose the racists triggered by the mere suggestion that it's ok to be white.

Why is it not acceptable to declare that you're proud of your ethnic and genetic makeup?

Actually, if you aren't white....not only is it acceptable, but the new left believes we should practically celebrate and explore all the little nuances of your cultural or ethnic heritage.

Frankly, I find it a little strange whenever people express pride in their racial/ethnic ancestry. It's not like anyone chooses these things.

in fact, one of the oldest examples of socially acceptable bigotry is the judgment and shaming of people according to their ancestry. It predates racism by millenia. India is an obvious example, building an entire caste system on such judgment. In places like Japan, the occupation of one's parents would result in bigotry for centuries.

If you want a modern example though lol, you can just skim back to my posts from just a couple of pages and see someone attempt (and fail) to shame me according to my ancestry. Sadly, this sort of bigotry is not only rampant in the modern left....but actually defended as a good thing, instead of the bigotry it plainly is.

If people accept the use of the term "it is OK to be black" then the same curtesy must be extended to all others. You don't get to be proud of your own race but not allow others to be the same. Historical crimes are not genetic.

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

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

Fair is fair.

Well said. I don't agree with Adam's solution to the problem but I understand he has to do what's right for him.

 

[Ana the Ist]

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

Yeah but "seeking validation" is the short way of describing everything that you wrote out above.

You can have whatever reasons for using or not using any words you want...but what you just described as the purpose of the phrase is, by definition, seeking validation.

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

I'll look....but explain why you made them. We have an actual poll after all, we don't need a hypothetical one.

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

This might be the worst question I've ever seen suggested for a poll. What are the answers supposed to tell us?

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

Again, very confusing.

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

#1 can be construed as racist whether you agree or disagree. It's a self canceling statement....

For example, if I think it's wrong to not accept someone based on their skin color (which is racism imo) how would I answer #1 without canceling out that belief? #1 doesn't actually explain where anyone stands regarding acceptance or rejection based on skin color....

But look....that's why you aren't a pollster, right? Polls aren't written for you personally, and they aren't written to give people ambiguous options when answering. The whole point of the poll in the OP is to figure out the degree of racism towards whites that exists.

It's something that has been inflamed by the political left these days by various racist ideas, tropes, and attempts to redefine the very word "racism" itself.

 

[Ana the Ist]

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

Scomp Adams is probably crying his eyes out....whoever he is.

 

[IceJad]

Well said. I don't agree with Adam's solution to the problem but I understand he has to do what's right for him.

Neither do I. I think it's an overreaction for a single poll. However I believe this didn't come out of nowhere. Nothing does. There would have been a series of events prior to that and unfortunately on that fateful day the poll was the last straw that broke his tolerance.

My opinion is that all these race issues have always been there. It is just before the "progressive movement" people don't talk or get exposed to them on a frequent basis. This allow the sporadic issue to be understood and time to heal each time they surface. People who are heated about it also got time to cool off and have a better view of the situation holistically.

Present day, all these issues are keep in the forefront all the time by the social activists and politicians as a mean of job security. Day in and day out you're bombarded by racial issues that should have been left in the past. People can only tolerate so much before their empathy run dry. You can only accept a certain amount of insults about your ethnicity before you develop a hatred for the group who insulted you.

In today's social environment people are not given the time to heal. And I blame the social activists and politicians that stokes the flame of racial hatred with identity politics.

Instead of stop talking about it they magnify and amplify.

 

[IceJad]

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

To serve others is not the same as undignifying yourself to others. You're ask to place others in need before yourself but not denying your own worth.

Being subservient to another and self hating your race isn't selflessness or humility. We are thought to love other as we love ourselves. Key phrase "love ourselves".

 

[Ana the Ist]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let's try approaching this a different way.....

You seem fixated quite a bit on the wording of the questions in the poll....not merely the results. If I were to make assumptions based on this information, I would assume that you certainly think black people are capable of being racist towards white people (correct?)....but you reject the notion that is what this poll shows or at least you reject the idea that the results are accurate and there's a far smaller percentage of black people who are racist towards white people in reality.


Without getting into any reasons why you think the poll results are inaccurate....would I be correct so far? Or are you one of those people who believes either....

1. Black people are unable to be racist.

Or....

2. Black people are unable to be racist to white people specifically?

I don't mean for that to sound condescending or anything, but surely you are aware of people who believe either 1 or 2 and I don't want to assume the wrong thing here.

 

[childeye 2]

Yeah but "seeking validation" is the short way of describing everything that you wrote out above.

You can have whatever reasons for using or not using any words you want...but what you just described as the purpose of the phrase is, by definition, seeking validation.

The term validation can be misconstrued if not adequately qualified. Wanting to be validated pertaining to thinking people don't care is not the same as validating that they do care. But either way validation doesn't give or take away from the import of Human lives.

I'll look....but explain why you made them. We have an actual poll after all, we don't need a hypothetical one.

You asked to see the underlying false premise in the actual poll statement, and this is how I am showing it to you.

This might be the worst question I've ever seen suggested for a poll. What are the answers supposed to tell us?

It's a simple question of do you agree or disagree? The answer shows if you're for or against judging people based on skin color.

Again, very confusing.

The two statements viewed together are supposed to show a contradiction, so it's going to cause confusion. #2 is actually the Rasmussen statement., "It's okay to be white", with (okay) replaced with "acceptable" and "skinned" added to qualify "white" as referring to skin.

#1 can be construed as racist whether you agree or disagree. It's a self canceling statement....

For example, if I think it's wrong to not accept someone based on their skin color (which is racism imo) how would I answer #1 without canceling out that belief?

It's not a self-canceling statement because it's intentionally meant to introduce to the mind that judging others on the basis of skin color is wrong, whether pro/con in favor of or not in favor of any skin color.

If you think it's wrong to not accept someone based on their skin color, You would answer "I agree". Because #1 states it's wrong to accept or not accept based on skin color. If you think it's right to accept someone based on their skin color, then you would disagree.

#1 doesn't actually explain where anyone stands regarding acceptance or rejection based on skin color....

On the contrary, #1 is a statement that indicates judging people based on skin color is wrong, whether it's accepting or rejecting. To agree is to be for eliminating judging people based on skin color.

But look....that's why you aren't a pollster, right? Polls aren't written for you personally, and they aren't written to give people ambiguous options when answering. The whole point of the poll in the OP is to figure out the degree of racism towards whites that exists.

Like I said the hypothetical is meant to show a contradiction between the two statements depending on if you read #2 as not being okay to be white if you disagree with #2.

Food for thought: If taken out of the context of this poll, what does racist towards white people even mean? Does it mean a prejudice in favor of white people? Or does it mean a prejudice against white people?

The Rasmussen poll fails to do what you think it does. The Rasmussen statement doesn't account for the fact that there are many who believe it's wrong to accept people based on the color of their skin, and therefore people can disagree with it, yet they are not racist against white people.

So, the Rasmussen poll statement actually becomes an inflammatory racist statement in and of itself if and when it infers that anyone who doesn't agree with it, is racist against white people.

It's something that has been inflamed by the political left these days by various racist ideas, tropes, and attempts to redefine the very word "racism" itself.

Racism is a theory. White is not even technically a race nor is black. For example, there are jews that are black and there are Jews that are white yet both are of the same race. Likewise, there are white people that come from different races. There are albinos and shades of color all in the same race and ethnicity of a people. The human race includes all colors and types and we're all Human.

 

[childeye 2]

To serve others is not the same as undignifying yourself to others. You're ask to place others in need before yourself but not denying your own worth.

As I see it, the dignity level of a person rises as they lift up others over themselves in the Spirit of Christ. Christ said lift me up and I will lift up all of mankind. So, I think we agree here.

Being subservient to another and self hating your race isn't selflessness or humility. We are thought to love other as we love ourselves. Key phrase "love ourselves".

I can agree with this too. It's hard to imagine happening, but I would think that if anyone did hate their own race, they would be believing something that isn't true.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Neither do I. I think it's an overreaction for a single poll. However I believe this didn't come out of nowhere. Nothing does. There would have been a series of events prior to that and unfortunately on that fateful day the poll was the last straw that broke his tolerance.

Some people mocked the idea of him helping black people to begin with...a quick search however revealed that at the very least, he used his podcast platform to allow BLM activists to spread their message and discuss their issues to a larger audience than they would typically have.

My opinion is that all these race issues have always been there.

It depends upon what "issues" you're referring to. I've always been aware of racism in various minority communities for example, and of course in white communities too.

However, CRT and the professors who push it into various other academic fields have been very successful in dressing up what is essentially just the explanation of a very racist black man and making it look like something legitimate.

And I mean that quite literally...I made a thread years ago challenging anyone with finding a single CRT based research paper that came to any conclusion regarding any US social problem that didn't ultimately find "it's white people's fault".

The fact that no one can find such a paper might lead anyone with a brain in their head to question the rhetoric they've been spreading around for the past decade or so....but sadly, that's not the case.

It is just before the "progressive movement" people don't talk or get exposed to them on a frequent basis. This allow the sporadic issue to be understood and time to heal each time they surface. People who are heated about it also got time to cool off and have a better view of the situation holistically.

Present day, all these issues are keep in the forefront all the time by the social activists and politicians as a mean of job security. Day in and day out you're bombarded by racial issues that should have been left in the past. People can only tolerate so much before their empathy run dry. You can only accept a certain amount of insults about your ethnicity before you develop a hatred for the group who insulted you.

I never considered it that way....but I did conclude this sort of endless attack on white men was going to lead to a backlash at some point. I figured it would happen when it became an issue of racial discrimination in hiring...but the pushback against the racial indoctrination in schools is promising. I have begun to wonder why Republicans don't make a bigger stink of it than they do....DeSantis is a good exception, but others are less so.

In today's social environment people are not given the time to heal. And I blame the social activists and politicians that stokes the flame of racial hatred with identity politics.

Instead of stop talking about it they magnify and amplify.

Denzel Washington is another good example of a black man not pulling any punches. I think people decide intuitively that members of these communities are going to be the ideal advocates for pushing back against this racism...but unfortunately, in the case of black men, that's a bit more difficult than people realize. It's a certain type of bravery to speak up against half the black people in this country and tell them that they need to drop these racist ideas knowing full well what sort of racist names a black man is called for doing so. Still, it does happen occasionally, and they are carrying the spirit of the Civil Rights movement from 70 years ago on their backs.

It's gotten so bad that even brave members of other minority communities are beginning to speak about it...

So there's still some hope that those who aren't racist will continue to speak up and we can avoid the worst outcomes if they continue to do so.

 

[childeye 2]

Let's try approaching this a different way.....

You seem fixated quite a bit on the wording of the questions in the poll....not merely the results. If I were to make assumptions based on this information, I would assume that you certainly think black people are capable of being racist towards white people (correct?)

I'd say I think some black people are racist against whites, I would not say all black people are capable of it. I know black people who speak in racist terms against different races, but when it comes to white skin, they sometimes are not referring to skin as much as an attitude of being clueless about what it's like to be Black. But generally speaking, I'm sure there are racist thoughts in some black folk, and it's usually descriptive of white people thinking they are better than black people or people of other skin colors. White men can't jump could be seen as proof whites are not better at everything for example. Sorry for the long answer, but there are nuances of racism.

....but you reject the notion that is what this poll shows or at least you reject the idea that the results are accurate and there's a far smaller percentage of black people who are racist towards white people in reality.

I would not say I have an idea of how many black people are racist against white people. I know there are some, but I actually think it's more of a cynicism about humanity in general, and sometimes it's hard to tell the difference.

Without getting into any reasons why you think the poll results are inaccurate....would I be correct so far?

If I understand you correctly, I'd say yes.

Or are you one of those people who believes either....

1. Black people are unable to be racist.

Or....

2. Black people are unable to be racist to white people specifically?

I don't mean for that to sound condescending or anything, but surely you are aware of people who believe either 1 or 2 and I don't want to assume the wrong thing here.

I'm not aware of any people who believe 1 or 2. Just as a thought, I see racism in terms of a disability, not an ability.

 

[IceJad]

This video is nothing new I have been noticing them for more than 10 years. It is absolutely disgusting. Modern western far-leftists or I collectively call them woke are nothing but bigots and racists. It doesn't matter how much they try to mental gymnastics their way around it. This is the end product of the ideology of the modern far-left. For years they have said nothing but every injustice or inequality are the root cause of white people and white privilege. Any wonder why the young people they thought end up as hardcore racists and bigots. It is not even subtle, they openly post on social media what their twisted evil minds think of. And people celebrate them like heroes.

Even as an ethnic Chinese staying in another part of the world, I feel the racism and bigotry targeted towards the white people. I hate racists and bigots regardless of their skin color or background. I especially hate people who openly practise racisms and bigotry while advocating for "diversity" and "inclusivity" which are the buzzwords of woke people. They can shove that mantra up a place where the sun don't shine. I have seen enough of their racist and bigoted virtue signaling.

It bares saying again I hate racists & bigots of all color, gender and nationality.

 

[SimplyMe]

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

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

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

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

Fair is fair.

Except we aren't talking about this in a vacuum. It may have started as trolling but the phrase, "was later spread by neo-Nazi groups and politically organized white supremacists, including former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke and The Daily Stormer.[5] A report by the Anti-Defamation Leaguestates that the phrase itself has a history within the white supremacist movement going back to 2001 when it was used as the title of a song by a white power music group called Aggressive Force as well as fliers with the phrase being spotted in 2005 and the slogan being used by a member of the United Klans of America."

I'm not trying to argue there is anything wrong with the statement, merely that in a poll of Black people -- particularly those that saw the phrase being used by racists as a response to Black Lives Matter -- it very did likely cause the negative responses to pollsters. Many of the negative Black responses are likely to be responding to how they've seen, that slogan used, not to their feelings about White people, in general. If the pollster had been looking at attitudes of Blacks about Whites and not that specific phrase, they would have asked something simpler, such as "What is your view of White people" and then offered a range of answers.

 

[IceJad]

Except we aren't talking about this in a vacuum. It may have started as trolling but the phrase, "was later spread by neo-Nazi groups and politically organized white supremacists, including former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke and The Daily Stormer.[5] A report by the Anti-Defamation Leaguestates that the phrase itself has a history within the white supremacist movement going back to 2001 when it was used as the title of a song by a white power music group called Aggressive Force as well as fliers with the phrase being spotted in 2005 and the slogan being used by a member of the United Klans of America."

I'm not trying to argue there is anything wrong with the statement, merely that in a poll of Black people -- particularly those that saw the phrase being used by racists as a response to Black Lives Matter -- it very did likely cause the negative responses to pollsters. Many of the negative Black responses are likely to be responding to how they've seen, that slogan used, not to their feelings about White people, in general. If the pollster had been looking at attitudes of Blacks about Whites and not that specific phrase, they would have asked something simpler, such as "What is your view of White people" and then offered a range of answers.

This wouldn't have mattered if people stand on principle and principle alone. Everyone can take the same phrase to mean different things personally. Do you think that the phrase "it is ok to be black" or "black live matters" has not been use by black supremist groups? I have seen on social media how the BLM slogan has been use to justify hatred against the white.

I would say Adams did went overboard in his reaction. There is no justifiable reason to label an entire group as a hate group based on the poll. But like you said nothing happens in a vacuum. You can't clap with one hand and it takes two to tango.

We must stand above such double standards. We can't say because of this history there it is only fine for my group of people to say it. That is selective judgement.

 

[SimplyMe]

This wouldn't have mattered if people stand on principle and principle alone. Everyone can take the same phrase to mean different things personally. Do you think that the phrase "it is ok to be black" or "black live matters" has not been use by black supremist groups? I have seen on social media how the BLM slogan has been use to justify hatred against the white.

I would say Adams did went overboard in his reaction. There is no justifiable reason to label an entire group as a hate group based on the poll. But like you said nothing happens in a vacuum. You can't clap with one hand and it takes two to tango.

We must stand above such double standards. We can't say because of this history there it is only fine for my group of people to say it. That is selective judgement.

Tell me, why isn't acceptable to use the Swastika today? Should we stand against that double standard, or do we admit that symbols (and phrases) have power beyond the mere words or iconography used? Even if we should allow these things to be "acceptable" -- that doesn't change the opinions that those individuals (who participated in the poll) have about that phrase, nor does it necessarily reflect what they think about White people.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The term validation can be misconstrued if not adequately qualified. Wanting to be validated pertaining to thinking people don't care

I don't think the statement "black lives matter" is a statement of validation that people "don't care".

You asked to see the underlying false premise in the actual poll statement, and this is how I am showing it to you.

You wrote up a bad hypothetical. If there's an underlying premise behind the statement "It's ok to be white"....other than the reason I gave for its creation....then just say it.

Your "hypothetical question" didn't help me understand what it is you're trying to say.

It's a simple question of do you agree or disagree? The answer shows if you're for or against judging people based on skin color.

No....the question was about "acceptance". Is it ok to accept someone because of their skin color? Yeah...I guess so....but that's an odd reason to accept someone outside of any specific context. Then you added together the exact opposite question "Is it OK to not accept someone because of their skin color? I would say that overwhelmingly that's not ok....but again, it's a goofy question outside of context.

If you intended to write a question about judging....why didn't you just write it out as you did above?

"Is it wrong to judge people by their skin color.....yes or no?"

It's completely different from the hypothetical question you posed.

The two statements viewed together are supposed to show a contradiction, so it's going to cause confusion.

That's why it's a bad hypothetical poll question lol.

#2 is actually the Rasmussen statement., "It's okay to be white", with (okay) replaced with "acceptable" and "skinned" added to qualify "white" as referring to skin.

Yeah I don't see why you included the word skin....I think you risk confusing the idea of race with something like albinism.

It's not a self-canceling statement

You just said the two questions show a contradiction.

because it's intentionally meant to introduce to the mind that judging others on the basis of skin color is wrong, whether pro/con in favor of or not in favor of any skin color.

It's not about judging though....it's about acceptance. There are plenty of things I and you judge as negative or bad but we willingly accept them. Judging isn't the same as acceptance.

If you think it's wrong to not accept someone based on their skin color, You would answer "I agree"

And you wrote the opposite statement as well.

That's the problem....what if someone agrees with one half and disagrees with the other???

Because #1 states it's wrong to accept or not accept based on skin color. If you think it's right to accept someone based on their skin color, then you would disagree.

You should also avoid double negatives. Use the word rejection instead to clear up the questions.

On the contrary, #1 is a statement that indicates judging people

Judging is not the same as acceptance.

based on skin color is wrong, whether it's accepting or rejecting. To agree is to be for eliminating judging people based on skin color.

Yeah I agree it's wrong to judge people based on skin color. There's nothing wrong with accepting everyone's skin color.

That's because judging and accepting aren't the same.

Judging everyone's race is something I consider bad, regardless of race.

Accepting everyone's race, regardless of race, is something good imo.

Food for thought: If taken out of the context of this poll, what does racist towards white people even mean?

It means literally the same thing as racism against any other race.

The Rasmussen poll fails to do what you think it does. The Rasmussen statement doesn't account for the fact that there are many who believe it's wrong to accept people based on the color of their skin,

It simply asks if it's ok to be white ....

Not that being white is the only thing to be accepting of.

So, the Rasmussen poll statement actually becomes an inflammatory racist statement

Lol no it doesn't.

Racism is a theory.

Did you mean "race is theory"?

There are albinos and shades of color all in the same race and ethnicity of people.

This is why I said to avoid skin color. I think everyone understood what was meant by "white".

 

[IceJad]

Tell me, why isn't acceptable to use the Swastika today? Should we stand against that double standard, or do we admit that symbols (and phrases) have power beyond the mere words or iconography used? Even if we should allow these things to be "acceptable" -- that doesn't change the opinions that those individuals (who participated in the poll) have about that phrase, nor does it necessarily reflect what they think about White people.

I'm all for using the swastika, if you know what the swastika actually stands for. It is the same reason I tolerate the hammer and sickle.

My principle is very simple if a person from group A can do it therefore a person from group B can as well.

Leviticus 19:15 New King James Version (NKJV)
'You shall do no injustice in judgment. You shall not be partial to the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty. In righteousness you shall judge your neighbor.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'd say I think some black people are racist against whites, I would not say all black people are capable of it.

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

I know black people who speak in racist terms against different races,

We don't have to downplay it.

but when it comes to white skin,

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

they sometimes are not referring to skin as much as an attitude of being clueless about what it's like to be Black.

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.

.

But generally speaking, I'm sure there are racist thoughts in some black folk, and it's usually descriptive of white people thinking they are better than black people or people of other skin colors.

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

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

White men can't jump could be seen as proof whites are not better at everything for example.

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

Or what exactly are you saying?

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?

Sorry for the long answer, but there are nuances of racism.

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 would not say I have an idea of how many black people are racist against white people. I know there are some, but I actually think it's more of a cynicism about humanity in general, and sometimes it's hard to tell the difference.

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.

If I understand you correctly, I'd say yes.

Ok.

I'm not aware of any people who believe 1 or 2. Just as a thought, I see racism in terms of a disability, not an ability.

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.


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?

 

[childeye 2]

I don't think the statement "black lives matter" is a statement of validation that people "don't care".

When the sentiment is expressed that one is complicit "if" they are not outraged, then the semantics of what is being validated would hinge on that "if".

You wrote up a bad hypothetical. If there's an underlying premise behind the statement "It's ok to be white"....other than the reason I gave for its creation....then just say it.

When I say underlying premise, I'm referring to the premise built into the statement in its contrary inference. It becomes a false premise in the statement "it's okay to be white", if/when it is assumed that if one disagrees with the statement, that person is expressing "it's not okay to be white". Why? Because it's also wrong to accept/not accept someone based on skin color depending on the context (Show a preference for or against someone based on skin color).

childeye 2 said:
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.
childeye 2 said:
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?"
childeye 2 said:
For example, I am inclined to disagree with any statement that validates people according to their skin color.

Your "hypothetical question" didn't help me understand what it is you're trying to say.

It says it's wrong to accept or not accept others based on skin color.
Rephrase: It's wrong to judge someone as acceptable based on skin color.
Rephrase: It's wrong to judge someone as unacceptable based on skin color

In other words it says it's wrong to judge others based on skin color altogether.

"It's okay" and "It's not okay" are both judgments.

judge
verb
judged; judging
transitive verb

2
: to form an estimate or evaluation of

No....the question was about "acceptance". Is it ok to accept someone because of their skin color? Yeah...I guess so....but that's an odd reason to accept someone outside of any specific context.

It looks to me like you're starting to get what I mean in bold above. A key point I would make is that the Rasmussen question is simply, Do you agree or not agree with this statement? The statement itself is about accepting someone on the basis of skin color, but... the statement is open to interpretation.

Here is one example,
(1) "It's illegal to hire someone based on skin color whether you show a preference either for or against any color.

The other interpretation is obviously taken to mean,
(2)"There is nothing wrong with being born with white skin"="It's okay to be white" (people).

If you understand the difference, then you should be able to see the semantics at play here in our psycholinguistics that I am referencing.

When I look at sentiment (2), "There is nothing wrong with being born with white skin",
It appears as an obvious and harmless enough statement when taken this way.

The problem is that when people who see the statement as (2), they then assume others would also see it that way, and when those others disagree, then those who interpret it as (2) assume that those others (who interpret it as 1) are racist against whites, when in fact they are not. They only disagreed because they saw the sentiment differently, as either example (1) above, or something in the ballpark of it's okay to judge others based on their skin color.

Judging is not the same as acceptance.

Referring to sentiment (2): "There is nothing wrong with being born with white skin". In that context, I would submit that the statement, "it's okay to be white", is not just a statement about accepting the skin someone is born in, but also the sentiment of a grievance that some people have something against people who are white. And that is why some people see that acceptance/non-acceptance are both in the question under the terms agree/disagree, and therefore judging others based on skin color becomes relevant even in that context.

 

[Ana the Ist]

This video is nothing new I have been noticing them for more than 10 years. It is absolutely disgusting. Modern western far-leftists or I collectively call them woke are nothing but bigots and racists.

Well I have tended to give them the benefit of the doubt in the past. I don't think the majority of them see themselves that way.....but their propensity towards groupthink and easy acceptance of dogmatic ideas are creating real harm and injustice at this point (not the imaginary harm they claim to be fighting)

It doesn't matter how much they try to mental gymnastics their way around it. This is the end product of the ideology of the modern far-left. For years they have said nothing but every injustice or inequality are the root cause of white people and white privilege.

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.

You could be a molecular biologist but when your peer is a biologist that also majors in Ethnic Studies, they take that CRT framework and start applying it to your department until eventually the only research being done is within this CRT ideological framework.

Any wonder why the young people they thought end up as hardcore racists and bigots. It is not even subtle, they openly post on social media what their twisted evil minds think of. And people celebrate them like heroes.

Yeah it's really bizarre to watch. It puts difficult to understand parts of history in a new light.

Even as an ethnic Chinese staying in another part of the world, I feel the racism and bigotry targeted towards the white people. I hate racists and bigots regardless of their skin color or background. I especially hate people who openly practise racisms and bigotry while advocating for "diversity" and "inclusivity" which are the buzzwords of woke people. They can shove that mantra up a place where the sun don't shine. I have seen enough of their racist and bigoted virtue signaling.

Yeah honestly, I don't know if they genuinely feel like they are doing something good and believe they are fighting an "injustice" or if they are fully aware they're just reveling in the racism they've cultivated.

Back in the early years of BLM when posters here would claim that it was very important to them to fight against racism....I would select the few sporadic instances of blatant racism against whites and those same posters would mock it. When I pointed out to one such poster that they claimed to care about fighting racism....they openly admitted they didn't care about racism towards whites. When I asked if they were concerned that it would lead to racial discrimination in hiring and other opportunities....they said they didn't think it would get that far lol.

It bares saying again I hate racists & bigots of all color, gender and nationality.

Yeah as do I....but I keep in mind that racism isn't the end-all be-all of human interaction. We have a tendency to blow it up as if it's the worst thing a person can be. I recall a caption on a YouTube short video that read something like...

"Former Drug Cartel Member Reveals He's Racist!"

The absurdity of the statement clearly lost on whomever wrote it. This guy was a relatively big time drug smuggler poisoning the people of our nation....yet the caption seemed to imply that being racist was something even worse lol. Idiocy.

 

[Ana the Ist]

When the sentiment is expressed that one is complicit "if" they are not outraged, then the semantics of what is being validated would hinge on that "if".

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.

When I say underlying premise, I'm referring to the premise built into the statement in its contrary inference. It becomes a false premise in the statement "it's okay to be white", that assumes if one disagrees with the statement, that person is expressing "it's not okay to be white". Why?

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.

childeye 2 said:
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.

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.

You know like, "Don't think of a brown cow", it's impossible not to do, once someone says not to do it.

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.

childeye 2 said:
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?"

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.

childeye 2 said:
For example, I am inclined to disagree with any statement that validates people according to their skin color.

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"?

It says it's wrong to accept or not accept others based on skin color.
Rephrase: It's wrong to judge someone as acceptable based on skin color.
Rephrase: It's wrong to judge someone as unacceptable based on skin color

In other words it says it's wrong to judge others based on skin color altogether.

"It's okay" and "It's not okay" are both judgments.

judge
verb
judged; judging
transitive verb

2
: to form an estimate or evaluation of

It looks to me like you're starting to get what I mean in bold above. A key point I would make is that the Rasmussen question is simply, Do you agree or not agree with this statement? The statement itself is about accepting someone on the basis of skin color, but... the statement is open to interpretation.

Here is one example,
(1) "It's illegal to hire someone based on skin color whether you show a preference either for or against any color.

The other interpretation is obviously taken to mean,
(2)"There is nothing wrong with being born with white skin"="It's okay to be white" (people).

If you understand the difference, then you should be able to see the semantics at play here in our psycholinguistics that I am referencing.

When I look at sentiment (2), "There is nothing wrong with being born with white skin",
It appears as an obvious and harmless enough statement when taken this way.

The problem is that when people who see the statement as (2), they then assume others would also see it that way, and when those others disagree, they then assume that those others are racist against whites, when in fact they are not. Because those others only disagreed because they saw the sentiment differently, as either example (1) above, or something in the ballpark of accepting/judging others based on their skin color.



Referring to sentiment (2): "There is nothing wrong with being born with white skin". In that context, I would submit that the statement, "it's okay to be white", is not just a statement about accepting the skin someone is born in, but also the sentiment of a grievance that some people have something against people simply because they are white. And that is why people see that acceptance/non-acceptance are both in the question under the terms agree/disagree, and therefore judging others based on skin color becomes relevant even in that context.

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