Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Dilbert creator Scott Adams doesn't expect to live much longer

mercurynews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–38 of 38 posts

Re: Dilbert creator Scott Adams doesn't expect to live much longer

#31

Post by beAbU »

damnitbuilds wrote: post #2

Mercury News: "he called Black Americans a “hate group”" What Scott Adams actually said: "*IF* nearly half of all Blacks are not OK with White people... that's a hate group"

Many years ago I subscribed to his blog/newsletter thinking it was going to be full of great gems, like the comic strip. I was very surprised to learn that not to be the case, as every other article was some sort of unhinged ramble about race, class, culture or religion.

I enjoy his cartoon, I still do in fact. But I don't think I'll enjoy the company of the creator himself.

Having said that, an untimely death is deserved by nobody and I hope he can remain comfortable and pain free till the end.

Re: Dilbert creator Scott Adams doesn't expect to live much longer

#32

Post by damnitbuilds »

kayamon wrote: post #4
damnitbuilds wrote: post #2

Mercury News: "he called Black Americans a “hate group”" What Scott Adams actually said: "*IF* nearly half of all Blacks are not OK with White people... that's a hate group"

Scott Adams: "I’d also like to know how the Holocaust death total of 6 million was determined. Is it the sort of number that is so well documented with actual names and perhaps a Nazi paper trail that no historian could doubt its accuracy, give or take ten thousand? Or is it like every other LRN (large round number) that someone pulled out of his ass and it became true by repetition?"

FWIW, I do believe Scott Adams is probably a horrible racist.

I just wanted to get the facts out there, so people know The Mercury News is not a good news source.

Re: Dilbert creator Scott Adams doesn't expect to live much longer

#33

Post by Induane »

caminante wrote: post #22
Induane wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the topic of crime,no, I don't necessarily disagree there. I'm sure your statistical data is correct. The way societal traumas manifest is tied to the types of trauma each demographic experienced and experiences (including their own self-perceptions of the ways in which they have been victimizes). Poverty is often a stressor that squeezes out behavior we tend to identify as criminal, but it just a common factor in…

You brought up POOR, white Appalachia. Therefore, controlling for wealth is reasonable. Other factors are presumably controlled for too. If you want to bring up generational trauma, then it sounds to me like you're making the argument to leave a neighborhood based on skin color. Yet, I don't know how to reconcile that with your criteria that racism is about intent regardless of risk.

I meant, and probably did not articulate well, that controlling for wealth and then comparing only one type of crime is the problem.

The type of crime is the product of complex factors.

The presence of crime in general is also complex but is exposed by and increased by poverty

As for racism and intent, leaving an area because it's unsafe is one thing. Leaving an unsafe area because you think black people are inferior AND because of safety is another thing entirely.

In the same way, it is one thing to understand historic trauma has negatively impacted a demographic, and another thing to decide that the behavior you're disturbed by is intrinsic is another. That's the reason that discrimination based on a trait a person cannot change (like skin colour) is racist even if you argue it is statistically rational. Judging people individually on criteria of character, ability, etc... is a recipe for better social outcomes overall.

Re: Dilbert creator Scott Adams doesn't expect to live much longer

#34

Post by Ukv »

caminante wrote: post #28
Ukv wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And couldn't that taint the people against the phrase? In that, you think some people would agree with the phrase when taken with its implicature and connotations, but then object to its far milder literal meaning? Struggling to see what worldview that'd be possible for.

No. They'd be agnostic of the alleged nefarious meaning just like you're dismissing all those accepting as being unaware. For your view to be true, you're saying the other 49% of blacks polled are clueless instead of seeing alternative, non nefarious meanings. It's possible, but I wouldn't take that bet.

> No. They'd be agnostic of the alleged nefarious meaning just like [...]

It's entirely possible that some interpreted it as only the literal meaning and still disagreed with it.

My point is "You can disagree with making that statement without thinking it's not okay to be white", and that the poll's poor design does not allow us to distinguish the two, which was answering your question ("How is [the poll's results] not a red flag for "hate" against another racial group?").

If a poll asks people whether they identify as "pro-life" and the majority of liberals say no, it's not a sound argument to say that then implies the majority are admitting to being pro-death, or that it's a red flag for them being some kind of death cult. The term "pro-life" has meaning (relating to abortion) beyond its literal reading (and in this case I'd expect far more to pick up on it). Maybe there genuinely are some pro-death misanthropes in the sample answering no, but the poll's design does not allow you to conclude that.

> [...] you're dismissing all those accepting as being unaware.

Those that answer in support may be unaware of its usage, or aware but choosing to interpret the poll as asking about its literal meaning, or even aware and agreeing with the implicature/associations.

> For your view to be true, you're saying the other 49% of blacks polled are clueless [...]

I'm not sure how you've drawn this conclusion.

Re: Dilbert creator Scott Adams doesn't expect to live much longer

#35

Post by caminante »

Ukv wrote: post #34
caminante wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. They'd be agnostic of the alleged nefarious meaning just like you're dismissing all those accepting as being unaware. For your view to be true, you're saying the other 49% of blacks polled are clueless instead of seeing alternative, non nefarious meanings. It's possible, but I wouldn't take that bet.

> No. They'd be agnostic of the alleged nefarious meaning just like [...] It's entirely possible that some interpreted it as only the literal meaning and still disagreed with it. My point is "You can disagree with making that statement without thinking it's not okay to be white", and that the poll's poor design does not allow us to distinguish the two, which was answering your question ("How is [the poll's results] n…

>It's entirely possible that some interpreted it as only the literal meaning and still disagreed with it.

Here you say "some". Nobody would disagree, at least not me.

Your prior comment was dismissive.

>Those unaware of the statement's usage, and those who choose to interpret the poll question as asking only about the statement's direct literal meaning, would likely answer supportive of the statement.

Your new comment is broader.

>Those that answer in support may be unaware of its usage, or aware but choosing to interpret the poll as asking about its literal meaning, or even aware and agreeing with the implicature/associations.

As for

>it's not a sound argument to say that then implies the majority are admitting to being pro-death, or that it's a red flag for them being some kind of death cult.

"Death cult." I don't get it and presume most people wouldn't place that label either. I agree that would be weird.

Re: Dilbert creator Scott Adams doesn't expect to live much longer

#36

Post by Ukv »

caminante wrote: post #35
Ukv wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No. They'd be agnostic of the alleged nefarious meaning just like [...] It's entirely possible that some interpreted it as only the literal meaning and still disagreed with it. My point is "You can disagree with making that statement without thinking it's not okay to be white", and that the poll's poor design does not allow us to distinguish the two, which was answering your question ("How is [the poll's results] n…

>It's entirely possible that some interpreted it as only the literal meaning and still disagreed with it. Here you say "some". Nobody would disagree, at least not me. Your prior comment was dismissive. >Those unaware of the statement's usage, and those who choose to interpret the poll question as asking only about the statement's direct literal meaning, would likely answer supportive of the statement. Your new commen…

> Your prior comment was dismissive. [...] Your new comment is broader. [...]

As in the lack of mentioning those "aware and agreeing with the implicature/associations" in my prior comment? Notably my prior comment was replying to your:

> > If it was co-opted, then why did 49% of blacks take a neutral to supportive view of the phrase in the poll? Explain that.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I understood your point there to be "there wouldn't be enough black people who agree with its supposed alt-right usage to make up to 49%", so I gave two alternate reasons people would agree making with the statement (those unaware of the alt-right usage, and those aware but choosing to interpret the poll as asking about the literal meaning).

I'm not ruling out that some of the black respondents responded "agree" because they're aware of and agree with the statement's implicature/associations, it was just already the context of the prior comment that there wouldn't have been enough of them alone (for the alt-right associations).

> I don't get it and presume most people wouldn't place that label either. I agree that would be weird.

Similar is the idea here - people can/will disagree with a slogan because of its implicature and associations without disagreeing with its literal meaning.

Re: Dilbert creator Scott Adams doesn't expect to live much longer

#37

Post by resumenext »

I remember Dilbert fondly. Newspaper comic strips were a cool aspect of the pre-internet days and Scott was very early in seeing the digital future and adapting. I don’t think he foresaw people losing their sense humor, nor the problems with Kaiser healthcare. Kaiser kills as they say. Good reminder to get a psa test this year.
Post reply on HN