6 ms·

I find it highly unlikely that Scott Adams is a "dark dog whistle" kinda guy. At best the most I'd believe would be that "some people who Scott Adams pissed of

I find it highly unlikely that Scott Adams is a "dark dog whistle" kinda guy. At best the most I'd believe would be that "some people who Scott Adams pissed off now like to say that when he says X he actually means Y".

delecti 4y ago
Scott Adams' descent into reactionaryism [1] has not been subtle or quiet. If you were surprised that it eventually exploded in a public way, that just tells me you haven't heard much of anything about him in the past decade. Also, "it's okay to be white" is not a hidden rake of a dogwhistle to stumble on. If that were a serious position, it immediately leads to the question of "who is saying otherwise". And then you learn about replacement theory, "a white nationalist far-right conspiracy theory" [2], and realize what Scott Adams was really saying without saying. Lots of language policing is dumb. Hell, language policing would drive me away from even using "dumb". Scott Adams did not stumble into this controversy through zealous language policing, he charged into it with eyes open, and knew exactly what he was saying. [1] I think the word is actually reactionism, but chrome's spellcheck prefers reactionaryism [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Replacement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Replacement
- jwond 4y ago
  > Also, "it's okay to be white" is not a hidden rake of a dogwhistle to stumble on. If that were a serious position, it immediately leads to the question of "who is saying otherwise". I found a few examples if you are interested: > conservatives are objecting after the discovery of a speech by Berkeley Professor Zeus Leonardo in which he discussed the need “to abolish whiteness.” […] “to abolish whiteness is to abolish white people” https://jonathanturley.org/2022/03/02/abolish-white-people-berkeley-faces-new-free-speech-controversy/amp/ https://jonathanturley.org/2022/03/02/abolish-white-people-b... > Abolishing whiteness has never been more urgent https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2019/11/17/abolishing-whiteness-has-never-been-more-urgent/ https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2019/11/17/abolishing-whi... > Coca-Cola, Facing Backlash, Says 'Be Less White' Learning Plan Was About Workplace Inclusion https://www.newsweek.com/coca-cola-facing-backlash-says-less-white-learning-plan-was-about-workplace-inclusion-1570875 https://www.newsweek.com/coca-cola-facing-backlash-says-less...
  - delecti 4y ago
    I'll start with addressing the second one, because it sets up the first. To start, the author of that article is himself white. He seems to be saying (and pointing to others who have said) that "whiteness" as a cultural identity leads to white supremacy. For example, "white pride" is white supremacist in a way that "Irish pride" isn't. The article isn't saying anything should happen to people considered white, just that lumping us all into a single "white" identity is a problem. Meanwhile, the reaction to that first link seems to prove that professor's point. In context, it seems clear to me that he's saying is that people interpret arguments like those presented in the second link as attacks on those people rather than just calling out that singular identity as an issue. He's not saying "the solution to white supremacy is to get rid of white people", he's saying "whiteness as a singular identity is a problem, and pointing out that it's a problem is seen as an attack on white people themselves", which is clearly true based on the reaction to his speech. Newsweek is trash, but I'll put that aside for the moment. The training seems to be presenting the same arguments as the first two, but badly. A workplace training is really the wrong context to try and make that kind of nuanced point, and that seems to have been an especially clumsy attempt at it.
    - skissane 4y ago
      > The article isn't saying anything should happen to people considered white, just that lumping us all into a single "white" identity is a problem. And yet, it seems to be that many Americans – including Americans like this university professor – are actually huge on doing exactly that. Growing up in 1980s/1990s Australia, there was very little talk about "white" or "who is white". At school, this kid was Irish, this one Italian, another Croatian, Lebanese, Chinese, Indian, Filipino, etc – who was "white" and who wasn't? Who knew and who cared–"white" (in a racial sense) was not a frequently used word in our vocabulary. Even the school curriculum avoided the term – 1788 was presented as the start of the "European settlement" or "British settlement" of Australia, I don't remember any teacher ever saying "white" in that context. But, in the last 10–15 years or so, there's been this big influx of talk about "white" and "whiteness" – which mostly seems to be coming from the US, and (my impression is) predominantly from that part of America which this university professor represents. Australia wasn't always like that – we did once have a "white Australia policy". But, as we dismantled it (a gradual process between 1940 and 1970), I think we collectively decided that the best way to be less racist was to stop lumping people into coarse racial categories such as "white". Hence, post-1970 Australian officialdom was very happy to put people in ethnicity/nationality categories – British, New Zealander, Aboriginal, Maori, German, Jewish, Irish, Italian, Lebanese, Chinese, Indian, Pakistani, Vietnamese, Egyptian, Somalian, Sudanese, South African, etc, etc, etc – but studiously avoided the use of terms such as "white". Most Americans seem to have never got that memo, and the creeping Americanisation of Australia seems to be injecting that kind of "white" talk back into the conversation.
slackdog 4y ago
If you listen to the video of what Scott Adams says, he's quite explicit about it. It doesn't seem like a plausible misspeak. He didn't merely say "It's okay to be white" in an ambiguous context (plausibly not related to the 4chan propaganda campaign.) He said that because some poll claims whatever% of black people disagree with the phrase, that black people are a hate group, that white people should stay away from them, and that he would no longer advocate for black interests. If you don't trust my paraphrasing, fair enough, but you can watch the video yourself and I think you'll find that my paraphrasing is fairly accurate. Suppose for the sake of argument the poll is legitimate, and suppose he wasn't aware that the phrase is a 4chan propaganda slogan.. I think he still grievously erred when he decided to judge all black people by the opinions of only a portion of black people, as though black were a political affiliation that people can enter or leave at will. But it's not a political affiliation, it's an ethnic group. You legitimately can't claim that an entire ethnic group is a "hate group" because whatever% of them believe hateful things, even if that statistic is true. It's not as though the remaining% can disassociate themselves from the ethnic group, it isn't a voluntary association. I think his failure to distinguish an ethnic classification (involuntary association) from an ideological classification (voluntary association) is where he really went off the rails with no plausible deniability. I interpret this whole affair as: he's rich, wants to retire, and decided now is as good a time as any to finally speak his mind. He lost his inhibitions.
- tarotuser 4y ago
  Previously, Scot Adams "identified as a black person because he wanted to be on the winning team". And then he decided that 'its OK to be white' was perfectly fine and re-identified as white, and that black people hate white people, and called them a hate group that should be stayed as far away as possible. The only good out of that whole situation is that Scott Adams is a trashy racist, and anybody who likes him is also a trashy racist. The real insidious racists are the ones who know how to use diplomacy, and affect organizations with "culture fit" (aka: not white enough), and other types of hard-to-identify racism.

delecti 4y ago

Scott Adams' descent into reactionaryism [1] has not been subtle or quiet. If you were surprised that it eventually exploded in a public way, that just tells me you haven't heard much of anything about him in the past decade. Also, "it's okay to be white" is not a hidden rake of a dogwhistle to stumble on. If that were a serious position, it immediately leads to the question of "who is saying otherwise". And then you learn about replacement theory, "a white nationalist far-right conspiracy theory" [2], and realize what Scott Adams was really saying without saying. Lots of language policing is dumb. Hell, language policing would drive me away from even using "dumb". Scott Adams did not stumble into this controversy through zealous language policing, he charged into it with eyes open, and knew exactly what he was saying. [1] I think the word is actually reactionism, but chrome's spellcheck prefers reactionaryism [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Replacement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Replacement

jwond 4y ago
> Also, "it's okay to be white" is not a hidden rake of a dogwhistle to stumble on. If that were a serious position, it immediately leads to the question of "who is saying otherwise". I found a few examples if you are interested: > conservatives are objecting after the discovery of a speech by Berkeley Professor Zeus Leonardo in which he discussed the need “to abolish whiteness.” […] “to abolish whiteness is to abolish white people” https://jonathanturley.org/2022/03/02/abolish-white-people-berkeley-faces-new-free-speech-controversy/amp/ https://jonathanturley.org/2022/03/02/abolish-white-people-b... > Abolishing whiteness has never been more urgent https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2019/11/17/abolishing-whiteness-has-never-been-more-urgent/ https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2019/11/17/abolishing-whi... > Coca-Cola, Facing Backlash, Says 'Be Less White' Learning Plan Was About Workplace Inclusion https://www.newsweek.com/coca-cola-facing-backlash-says-less-white-learning-plan-was-about-workplace-inclusion-1570875 https://www.newsweek.com/coca-cola-facing-backlash-says-less...
- delecti 4y ago
  I'll start with addressing the second one, because it sets up the first. To start, the author of that article is himself white. He seems to be saying (and pointing to others who have said) that "whiteness" as a cultural identity leads to white supremacy. For example, "white pride" is white supremacist in a way that "Irish pride" isn't. The article isn't saying anything should happen to people considered white, just that lumping us all into a single "white" identity is a problem. Meanwhile, the reaction to that first link seems to prove that professor's point. In context, it seems clear to me that he's saying is that people interpret arguments like those presented in the second link as attacks on those people rather than just calling out that singular identity as an issue. He's not saying "the solution to white supremacy is to get rid of white people", he's saying "whiteness as a singular identity is a problem, and pointing out that it's a problem is seen as an attack on white people themselves", which is clearly true based on the reaction to his speech. Newsweek is trash, but I'll put that aside for the moment. The training seems to be presenting the same arguments as the first two, but badly. A workplace training is really the wrong context to try and make that kind of nuanced point, and that seems to have been an especially clumsy attempt at it.
  - skissane 4y ago
    > The article isn't saying anything should happen to people considered white, just that lumping us all into a single "white" identity is a problem. And yet, it seems to be that many Americans – including Americans like this university professor – are actually huge on doing exactly that. Growing up in 1980s/1990s Australia, there was very little talk about "white" or "who is white". At school, this kid was Irish, this one Italian, another Croatian, Lebanese, Chinese, Indian, Filipino, etc – who was "white" and who wasn't? Who knew and who cared–"white" (in a racial sense) was not a frequently used word in our vocabulary. Even the school curriculum avoided the term – 1788 was presented as the start of the "European settlement" or "British settlement" of Australia, I don't remember any teacher ever saying "white" in that context. But, in the last 10–15 years or so, there's been this big influx of talk about "white" and "whiteness" – which mostly seems to be coming from the US, and (my impression is) predominantly from that part of America which this university professor represents. Australia wasn't always like that – we did once have a "white Australia policy". But, as we dismantled it (a gradual process between 1940 and 1970), I think we collectively decided that the best way to be less racist was to stop lumping people into coarse racial categories such as "white". Hence, post-1970 Australian officialdom was very happy to put people in ethnicity/nationality categories – British, New Zealander, Aboriginal, Maori, German, Jewish, Irish, Italian, Lebanese, Chinese, Indian, Pakistani, Vietnamese, Egyptian, Somalian, Sudanese, South African, etc, etc, etc – but studiously avoided the use of terms such as "white". Most Americans seem to have never got that memo, and the creeping Americanisation of Australia seems to be injecting that kind of "white" talk back into the conversation.

slackdog 4y ago

If you listen to the video of what Scott Adams says, he's quite explicit about it. It doesn't seem like a plausible misspeak. He didn't merely say "It's okay to be white" in an ambiguous context (plausibly not related to the 4chan propaganda campaign.) He said that because some poll claims whatever% of black people disagree with the phrase, that black people are a hate group, that white people should stay away from them, and that he would no longer advocate for black interests. If you don't trust my paraphrasing, fair enough, but you can watch the video yourself and I think you'll find that my paraphrasing is fairly accurate. Suppose for the sake of argument the poll is legitimate, and suppose he wasn't aware that the phrase is a 4chan propaganda slogan.. I think he still grievously erred when he decided to judge all black people by the opinions of only a portion of black people, as though black were a political affiliation that people can enter or leave at will. But it's not a political affiliation, it's an ethnic group. You legitimately can't claim that an entire ethnic group is a "hate group" because whatever% of them believe hateful things, even if that statistic is true. It's not as though the remaining% can disassociate themselves from the ethnic group, it isn't a voluntary association. I think his failure to distinguish an ethnic classification (involuntary association) from an ideological classification (voluntary association) is where he really went off the rails with no plausible deniability. I interpret this whole affair as: he's rich, wants to retire, and decided now is as good a time as any to finally speak his mind. He lost his inhibitions.

tarotuser 4y ago
Previously, Scot Adams "identified as a black person because he wanted to be on the winning team". And then he decided that 'its OK to be white' was perfectly fine and re-identified as white, and that black people hate white people, and called them a hate group that should be stayed as far away as possible. The only good out of that whole situation is that Scott Adams is a trashy racist, and anybody who likes him is also a trashy racist. The real insidious racists are the ones who know how to use diplomacy, and affect organizations with "culture fit" (aka: not white enough), and other types of hard-to-identify racism.