Can we talk about Scott Adams/Dilbert?

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

What concerns me is that Adams has spewed similarly bigoted ideas for years. This latest outburst is nothing at all new. It's not as though distributors and newspapers just learned this about him. If this was their bridge too far, it was an awfully long time coming.

I think most of us agree it should have been done before but what your views translate to me, at least, is "well it's been so long why not just let 'em keep going" as if the phrase "better late than never" simply doesn't apply.

If I go looking into wiki I can see last fall his comic that week was pulled from close to 80 different newspapers due to its content from not only racist but homophobic content. In 2020 he went on a rant about the Dilbert show being cancelled claiming it was for xyz reasons.

I can agree with you clearly this person showed others on the other hand to your point about separating the person from the work maybe that's what the newspapers were trying to do until enough was enough.

 

[BrianL]

Well, on the face of it, sure. However, that percentage of black people could actually have realised that the poll was "planted" by white supremacists, as that's a phrase that they have hijacked and use. (Like White Lives Matter, and All Lives Matter). So maybe their answers are reacting against the poll rather than the answer itself. The question was "Do you agree with the statement It's OK to be white? Well, given that it's propaganda from white supremacists, of course they wouldn't agree with it.

Sometimes it's very nuanced and complicated!

Yes, this "poll" is heavily problematic and biased, which is why I've come to the conclusion that Adams's statements are really bad. Sure, IF some fearmongering poll were accurate and unbiased, there'd be a lot of cause for concern. In this case though, the poll is absolutely geared to tell certain people what they want to hear and stir up problems that don't really exist.

 

[BlueStarryHat]

It's hard enough to be black in this country, or to raise a black child to be a good and fair man, without people who have a platform spewing hate about their race to God knows how many people. I have a dog in this fight, and I refuse to give Adams the benefit of the doubt, nor do I have any inclination to separate his work from his views. Maybe, just *maybe* I could understand if he was a person who made these statements fifty or sixty or seventy years ago. You know, times were different and all that B.S. But to say something so hateful and out there today? Please.

 

[mefordis]

It's hard enough to be black in this country, or to raise a black child to be a good and fair man, without people who have a platform spewing hate about their race to God knows how many people. I have a dog in this fight, and I refuse to give Adams the benefit of the doubt, nor do I have any inclination to separate his work from his views. Maybe, just *maybe* I could understand if he was a person who made these statements fifty or sixty or seventy years ago. You know, times were different and all that B.S. But to say something so hateful and out there today? Please.

I personally don't give a pass to people who made racist statements decades ago either. They kept the hate machine going with their racist views. Many of them still believe that way but just know how to cover it up. I think people, once adults, generally do not change. They might become better at hiding who they are, though.

 

[BlueStarryHat]

I personally don't give a pass to people who made racist statements decades ago either. They kept the hate machine going with their racist views. Many of them still believe that way but just know how to cover it up. I think people, once adults, generally do not change. They might become better at hiding who they are, though.

That's why I called it B.S. I can understand it being a different time when such views were tolerated. I should have been more clear.

 

[Mysterian]

I remember hearing about Adams' YouTube channel years ago when he would spout off about other topics, like COVID, climate change, and certain political leaders. I did a quick search and found an example of Adams using Dilbert to voice some of his opinions. At this point, I wonder if the only place left for Dilbert is Infowars. That's where the Family Circus kids go to spew their flat-Earth propaganda.

Look at Garfield in comparison. He advocates for lasagna, and the only hate he preaches is for Mondays. That's where we all should find common ground.

Is Dilbert a good comic strip? Yes.

I never found it funny. I wouldn't mind if newspapers dropped it for that reason alone. DIlbert is the NickelCrocs of cartoons.

 

[Genie+]

He is free to his views. Businesses and consumers are free to break the relationship. If a cartoonist continued saying he highly endorses taking synthetic hallucinogenic drugs from the ripe age of 10yo since he credits that for his artistry, we are all free to choose not to support that voice. Some may disagree but I think that example has more in common with this situation than not.

 

[Kaleidodad]

This has been coming for a long time, and I would be very surprised if he didn't 100% expect the consequences. Sadly, this isn't likely to hurt him any. He's going to lose the revenue from the comic strip but I'm sure the whole headline-grabbing affair is netting him loads of new YouTube followers who are tuning in to watch him cry victimhood for the entirely predictable consequences of his words. And odds are, they're going to drive a lot more traffic, a lot more merch sales, and therefore a lot more money than a comic that peaked decades ago running in the back section of newspapers that few households even subscribe to any more.

Heck, maybe he'll even score himself another 20-something wannabe-influencer as a wife for the next couple years!

 

[CdnCarrie]

I remember hearing about Adams' YouTube channel years ago when he would spout off about other topics, like COVID, climate change, and certain political leaders. I did a quick search and found an example of Adams using Dilbert to voice some of his opinions. At this point, I wonder if the only place left for Dilbert is Infowars. That's where the Family Circus kids go to spew their flat-Earth propaganda.

Look at Garfield in comparison. He advocates for lasagna, and the only hate he preaches is for Mondays. That's where we all should find common ground.



I never found it funny. I wouldn't mind if newspapers dropped it for that reason alone. DIlbert is the NickelCrocs of cartoons.

I adore your sense of humour!

 

[MikeandReneePlus5]

Well, on the face of it, sure. However, that percentage of black people could actually have realised that the poll was "planted" by white supremacists, as that's a phrase that they have hijacked and use. (Like White Lives Matter, and All Lives Matter). So maybe their answers are reacting against the poll rather than the answer itself. The question was "Do you agree with the statement It's OK to be white? Well, given that it's propaganda from white supremacists, of course they wouldn't agree with it.

Sometimes it's very nuanced and complicated!

yes I see how that concept gets pulled into the write ups on the issue.

It strains credulity to believe that 47% of random telephone responders would have any idea about a supposed alternative meaning....it is much more likely they took the question at face value and answered accordingly.

Rasmussen is professional polling organization. Why on earth would they not simply ask a direct question if they wanted to poll whether or not someone believes in any kind of race supremacy? What would be the purpose of a clandestine polling question?

Scott Adams comments are offensive. There are also black people who think being white is inherently problematic. Two things can be true at the same time.

 

[Christine]

yes I see how that concept gets pulled into the write ups on the issue.

It strains credulity to believe that 47% of random telephone responders would have any idea about a supposed alternative meaning....it is much more likely they took the question at face value and answered accordingly.

Rasmussen is professional polling organization. Why on earth would they not simply ask a direct question if they wanted to poll whether or not someone believes in any kind of race supremacy? What would be the purpose of a clandestine polling question?

Scott Adams comments are offensive. There are also black people who think being white is inherently problematic. Two things can be true at the same time.

I suggest you read up more on Rasmussen and their behavior over the past 8 years or so. What was once a professional polling organization has openly shifted it's focus and slant. It's polls these days are often sponsored by very, very biases organizations and causes. Rasmussen pretty much cherry-picks all it's respondents these days and is far from random anymore. It's really a shame.

 

[lowlight]

Scott Adams comments are offensive. There are also black people who think being white is inherently problematic. Two things can be true at the same time.

That’s pretty much the quote to end the thread with, but we will go on another 20 pages with each side explaining why Adams was misunderstood or how the poll was conducted by white supremacists when really the saddest part of it all is that people on both sides truly do feel this way and I fear for my children in the future.

 

[Kaleidodad]

yes I see how that concept gets pulled into the write ups on the issue.

It strains credulity to believe that 47% of random telephone responders would have any idea about a supposed alternative meaning....it is much more likely they took the question at face value and answered accordingly.

Rasmussen is professional polling organization. Why on earth would they not simply ask a direct question if they wanted to poll whether or not someone believes in any kind of race supremacy? What would be the purpose of a clandestine polling question?

Scott Adams comments are offensive. There are also black people who think being white is inherently problematic. Two things can be true at the same time.

Rasmussen is a professional polling organization... with a well-established right-leaning bias that gets stronger every year.

 

[EilonwyWanderer]

Reverse racism against white people doesn't exist. It can't exist. Here's a great video that will explain it to you.

Though the people that need to understand this will never click on it.

 

[MikeandReneePlus5]

Rasmussen is a professional polling organization... with a well-established right-leaning bias that gets stronger every year.

Inference being right-leaning bias is racist?

Someone said above there won't be much progress on this topic anymore and I agree with that.

 

[Christine]

Inference being right-leaning bias is racist?

Someone said above there won't be much progress on this topic anymore and I agree with that.

No it's not racist but the wording of the question they posed in that poll was taken directly from the 4Chan conspiracy site and was put out there to incite a specific response of which I won't get into here. There's nothing innocent about the way the question was phrased and why Rasmussen chose to use it. Believe me, I'm no expert on this but had some time on my hands today and decided to study up on the Rasmussen poll at the center of this.

 

[MikeandReneePlus5]

I suggest you read up more on Rasmussen and their behavior over the past 8 years or so. What was once a professional polling organization has openly shifted it's focus and slant. It's polls these days are often sponsored by very, very biases organizations and causes. Rasmussen pretty much cherry-picks all it's respondents these days and is far from random anymore. It's really a shame.

Trying to follow your logic - Rasmussen cherry picked black respondents to generate a 47% negative response to the question "1* Do you agree or disagree with this statement: “It’s OK to be white.”"?

They also asked "2* Do you agree or disagree with this statement: “Black people can be racist, too.”" and that got a 79% "agree" response rate.

Right-leaning bias or not, it seems more likely people just answered the question they were asked.

 

[lowlight]

Reverse racism against white people doesn't exist. It can't exist. Here's a great video that will explain it to you.

Though the people that need to understand this will never click on it.

To use a phrase the youngins use, “I literally can’t even.”

 

[Christine]

Trying to follow your logic - Rasmussen cherry picked black respondents to generate a 47% negative response to the question "1* Do you agree or disagree with this statement: “It’s OK to be white.”"?

They also asked "2* Do you agree or disagree with this statement: “Black people can be racist, too.”" and that got a 79% "agree" response rate.

Right-leaning bias or not, it seems more likely people just answered the question they were asked.

No.

 

[BrianL]

Reverse racism against white people doesn't exist. It can't exist. Here's a great video that will explain it to you.

Though the people that need to understand this will never click on it.

While, I agree with most of the points made in that video, I personally don't think it's a good example because of how condescending and dismissive the narrator is. This is the type of presentation that is not helpful in creating dialogue and actually being informative because it's tone is an immediate turn-off. Being combative from jump is not productive.