Live data from Hacker News

Dilbert Dropped by Newspapers over Creator's Racist Rant

nypost.com

41–50 of 53 posts

Re: Dilbert Dropped by Newspapers over Creator's Racist Rant

#41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is anti-individualist and collectivist rhetoric. A "group" of heterogeneous people with different viewpoints can't disrespect you. Only a subset of individuals within that group are capable of that. All the other individuals within that same group are innocent. So this talk of grouping all Black people into a homogeneous group that hate white people is factually incorrect, anti-individualist and dangerous.

[flagged]

> The unfortunate reality for your worldview is that I can significantly improve the health, wealth, and happiness of myself…

You don’t sound very happy. You sound very, very angry.

Re: Dilbert Dropped by Newspapers over Creator's Racist Rant

#42
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Respect is a two-way street and you owe no respect to those who don't respect you. If a group doesn't respect you, it's fair to ignore them. Tough shit if they are offended by the response. Plus, if you apply this to /everyone equally/ it's not discrimination. Also as already mentioned by another commenter: group !== race

This is anti-individualist and collectivist rhetoric. A "group" of heterogeneous people with different viewpoints can't disrespect you. Only a subset of individuals within that group are capable of that. All the other individuals within that same group are innocent. So this talk of grouping all Black people into a homogeneous group that hate white people is factually incorrect, anti-individualist and dangerous.

[deleted]

Re: Dilbert Dropped by Newspapers over Creator's Racist Rant

#43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> The unfortunate reality for your worldview is that I can significantly improve the health, wealth, and happiness of myself… You don’t sound very happy. You sound very, very angry.

[flagged]

Re: Dilbert Dropped by Newspapers over Creator's Racist Rant

#44

I was trying to read this charitably, but here’s a quote from Adams’ Twitter: > 1. Treat everyone as an individual (no discrimination). > 2. Avoid any group that doesn't respect you. The irony is that the second point is literally discrimination. Wholesale avoiding a specific race, regardless of your reasoning, is racist by definition. This is no different than Kanye talking about “the Jews”. Don’t take group general…

Speaking about Jews, I wonder if vocal progressive people are including them in the group "people of color" and if not, why the discrimination? :)

PS: Just a joke about hypocrisy of some individuals, I personally support all kinds of different discriminated groups, both locally and globally, including Jews.

Re: Dilbert Dropped by Newspapers over Creator's Racist Rant

#45
post #44

I was trying to read this charitably, but here’s a quote from Adams’ Twitter: > 1. Treat everyone as an individual (no discrimination). > 2. Avoid any group that doesn't respect you. The irony is that the second point is literally discrimination. Wholesale avoiding a specific race, regardless of your reasoning, is racist by definition. This is no different than Kanye talking about “the Jews”. Don’t take group general…

Speaking about Jews, I wonder if vocal progressive people are including them in the group "people of color" and if not, why the discrimination? :) PS: Just a joke about hypocrisy of some individuals, I personally support all kinds of different discriminated groups, both locally and globally, including Jews.

> Speaking about Jews, I wonder if vocal progressive people are including them in the group "people of color" and if not, why the discrimination? :)

Generally, Jewish people (either the religious or the ethnic group, for different reasons) per se are not generally included in “people of color”, though the religious group overlaps with “people of color”. But “people of color” is not a catch-all for all marginalized groups, or even all racial/ethnic marginalized groups, Jewish people being excluded from it is no more “hypocrisy” than “Black” not generally including East Asians.

Re: Dilbert Dropped by Newspapers over Creator's Racist Rant

#46
post #8

Hard to say whether Adams is suffering from online radicalisation and cognitive decline, or whether he was always of this opinion and online radicalisation and cognitive decline have just meant he no longer has the self-control to hide it.

> Hard to say whether Adams is suffering from online radicalisation and cognitive decline, or whether he was always of this opinion and online radicalisation and cognitive decline have just meant he no longer has the self-control to hide it.

Hasn't most of Adams’ public life and career been a very sharp public reaction to being passed over for promotion on a basis he has always blamed on racial and gender politics, even if in the early part of it more of that resentment was channelled into more broadly palatable forms than it has been recently?

Re: Dilbert Dropped by Newspapers over Creator's Racist Rant

#47
post #37
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He’s rich already and so maybe doesn’t care?

JK Rowling has been clear this is her stance with respect to her bizarre anti Trans stance.

She doesn't have a bizarre anti trans stance, that's made up and willfully repeated by a media that wants to stir up clicks. What she's said is that she supports trans people but has limits on what people are obliged to call/consider them, in terms of factual gender.

Re: Dilbert Dropped by Newspapers over Creator's Racist Rant

#48
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speaking about Jews, I wonder if vocal progressive people are including them in the group "people of color" and if not, why the discrimination? :) PS: Just a joke about hypocrisy of some individuals, I personally support all kinds of different discriminated groups, both locally and globally, including Jews.

> Speaking about Jews, I wonder if vocal progressive people are including them in the group "people of color" and if not, why the discrimination? :) Generally, Jewish people (either the religious or the ethnic group, for different reasons) per se are not generally included in “people of color”, though the religious group overlaps with “people of color”. But “people of color” is not a catch-all for all marginalized gr…

I didn't say that "poc" was a catch-all for marginalized groups. I was using the term literally, as in - Jews are not "white", therefore they are "people of color" by the definition. And Asian people, be they from middle east or far east, are "people of color" too. But they are often excluded from that group due to the reasons unclear for me.

My go to theory, is that some people, who are not quite clear of racial biases, wanted to have a name for specifically and strictly for black people, but without ever using word "black". So they have constructed a hypocritical landmine by their own hands, and after "other" people of color readily showed up, from all across the globe, they are in a collective denial.

Re: Dilbert Dropped by Newspapers over Creator's Racist Rant

#49

I dont understand the question.. what does "is it ok to be white" actually mean?

This was my issue -- "okay" seems a synonym for "acceptable." And 47% of those polled saying that they cannot accept the existence of white people, taken at face value, would indeed be quite alarming.

But, most people won't take it at face value, and those who responded to the survey didn't likely have this interpretation either.

Adams fell right into the trap of responding to this sort of bait.

Not that he'd ever have been the spokesman for radically rethinking race relations. But no, I don't expect he's secretly a klansman.

Re: Dilbert Dropped by Newspapers over Creator's Racist Rant

#50
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Speaking about Jews, I wonder if vocal progressive people are including them in the group "people of color" and if not, why the discrimination? :) Generally, Jewish people (either the religious or the ethnic group, for different reasons) per se are not generally included in “people of color”, though the religious group overlaps with “people of color”. But “people of color” is not a catch-all for all marginalized gr…

I didn't say that "poc" was a catch-all for marginalized groups. I was using the term literally, as in - Jews are not "white", therefore they are "people of color" by the definition. And Asian people, be they from middle east or far east, are "people of color" too. But they are often excluded from that group due to the reasons unclear for me. My go to theory, is that some people, who are not quite clear of racial bia…

> Jews are not “white”

In classical racial theory terms, Jewish people, as a (sub)racial group are, actually, White (the subcategory hierarchy running, from the top, Caucasian -> Mediterranean -> Semitic -> Jewish.)

Now, its true that despite classic racial theory being intimately connected to various forms of White supremacy, most actual forms of White supremacy include bigotry that operates on different levels than classic races, and treats lots fo White subgroups as either non-White or inferior within the broader White race, but that’s a side issue. “People of color” has never been intended to mean “every group marginalized by the particular people adhering to White supremacy in the immediate social context”; it is fairly inclusive, but its not intended as a catchall, and exclusion of people from that label is not discrimination against them.

> My go to theory, is that some people, who are not quite clear of racial biases, wanted to have a name for specifically and strictly for black people, but without ever using word “black”.

Actually, he term was one of many used during the period of de jure discrimination to refer to people of black ancestry (in some times and places, like “mulatto”, with precise legal definitions which distinguished it from “black”.)

From there it was one of many terms adopted to varying degrees within the community of black ancestry (sometimes, as equivalent to “black”, and sometimes, within some corners of the community that use “black” more narrowly, with a broader definition.)

It faded as an identity label within that community, and was recycle for broader use fairly recently (“black and brown” has been used in a fairly similar sense for a longer time, and still has considerable currency; a lot of activists will use “black and brown people” as the general collective term, but something like “woman of color” when referring to an individual – actual or hypothetical – person.)

Post reply on HN