3 ms·

The first is a (totally legitimate) dig at DEI policies, has nothing to do with racism; the other two need to be put in context, as he was reacting to a poll ac

The first is a (totally legitimate) dig at DEI policies, has nothing to do with racism; the other two need to be put in context, as he was reacting to a poll according to which a sizeable proportion of black people disagreed with the statement "it's ok to be white". Now, someone who disagrees with the statement "it's ok to belong to <ethnic group>" is usually called a racist. That's if we stick to the default meaning of words, without second and third guessing what people really mean to say when they deny it's ok to belong to an ethnic group. I think it's legitimate to be upset in this context and at the normalisation of such a thought, even to the point of reacting offensively.

stetrain 10mo ago
He combined those who disagree with those who were unsure to get up to 47%, and then declared that that meant that Black people were a hate group. I provided the link to the full episode for anyone who would like more context.
- throw310822 10mo ago
  I'm curious how you would rate the statement: "I'm unsure it's ok to be Black".
  - stetrain 10mo ago
    I think the equivalent statement, as in one that is preexisting and has political connotations[1], would be "Black lives matter", for which I would not be surprised to see a decent number of "unsure" responses among white poll respondents asked to agree or disagree, especially a few years ago. I don't think either response is great, but I don't think a single poll of 130 people is a good justification to make such statements about an entire race of people. And follow up polls conducted by others after the referenced Rasmussen poll got much more nuanced results[2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_okay_to_be_white https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_okay_to_be_white [2] https://www.cloudresearch.com/resources/blog/its-ok-to-be-white-rasmussen-poll/ https://www.cloudresearch.com/resources/blog/its-ok-to-be-wh...
    - kstrauser 10mo ago
      "Black lives matter" is an excellent example. I think the reactionary phrase "White lives matter" might be even better, as while almost everyone would (and should) agree with it without context, in the context of people complaining about "Black lives matter", lots of people would disagree with it or be unsure about it. I mean, I'd count myself among them. If you asked me if I agree that white lives matter, yes, of course we do. If you asked me about it in a political poll about other reactionary phrases, I might have to think long and hard about what it's really saying in that context.
rchaud 10mo ago
For it to be a legitimate dig at DEI, there would need to be some evidence of significant black advancement in corporate world for reasons unrelated to their qualifications. Have there been any?
- xp84 9mo ago
  Why just in the corporate world? Is Kamala Harris not an example? Or do we think being an unimpressive DA in San Francisco who dropped out before Iowa, merited the vice presidency AND the presidential nomination that she also got handed to her?
  - Starman_Jones 9mo ago
    What are your minimum acceptable qualifications for the presidency, and why?
    - cthor 9mo ago
      Winning a primary would be nice.
      - xp84 9mo ago
        Indeed. The biggest election win she had outside of San Francisco prior to her coronation as the nominee in 2024 was a Senate special election where she drew 40% of voters. 3 million Californians voted for her out of 7.5 million voters. California has 39 million residents, but about 5 million are non-citizens. Actually more Californians voted for the Republican against her in the 2014 election for attorney general, than voted for Harris when she later ran for Senate in the special election. Obama by contrast had won 3.6 million votes, in a smaller state, for a decisive 70% win in his Senate race. Harris was a joke of a candidate who was obviously unelectable outside of a deep blue state, but she was forced on us so the DNC could virtue signal. It was a slap in the face to every qualified Democrat, many of whom would have had a chance to defeat Trump (a low bar if there ever was one). Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_history_of_Kamala_Harris https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_history_of_Kamala_Ha... https://www.ppic.org/publication/immigrants-in-california/ https://www.ppic.org/publication/immigrants-in-california/
kstrauser 10mo ago
> he was reacting to a poll according to which a sizeable proportion of black people disagreed with the statement "it's ok to be white". The context of that poll was an alt-right uplifting of the phrase "it's OK to be white", as though they were being oppressed and were finally removing the yoke of hatred they'd endured. A similar poll might ask about the phrases "not all men" or "me too". In isolation, who could possibly have a problem with either of those?, but these things aren't taken in isolation. I'd be curious about a followup question like "is it acceptable for someone to be white", which is asking the exact same question, on the surface, but in context is asking something completely different.
culi 10mo ago
the CATO Institute, of all orgs, did a good piece on this https://www.cato.org/commentary/dilbert-cartoonist-scott-adams-was-not-canceled# https://www.cato.org/commentary/dilbert-cartoonist-scott-ada... > It’s worth noting that Adams, once a moderate libertarian/ Republican but more recently a purveyor of far-right paranoia, has long reveled in provocative statements (for instance, that a Joe Biden victory in the 2020 election would lead to Republicans being hunted down). In this case, he was responding to a Rasmussen poll asking whether people agreed with the statement, “It’s okay to be white.” Among Black respondents, 26% said they disagreed either strongly or somewhat, while 21% weren’t sure. From this, Adams deduced that nearly half of all Black Americans don’t think it’s okay to be white and presumably hate white people. > In fact, in addition to doubts about Rasmussen’s sampling methods, the question itself is misleading. “It’s okay to be white” is a slogan long used as a seemingly innocuous “code” by white supremacists and popularized by internet trolls a few years ago. Most likely, many Black people in the survey had some vague knowledge of this background or realized they were being asked a trick question of sorts. More than one in four white respondents (27%) also declined to endorse the statement. > Adams could have acknowledged his error. Instead, he dug in his heels, improbably claimed that he was using “hyperbole” to illustrate that it’s wrong to generalize about people by race, and seemed to take pride in his “cancellation” (which he can afford financially). He has also found a troubling number of more or less mainstream conservative defenders, including Twitter owner Elon Musk and highly popular commentator Ben Shapiro. On Twitter, Shapiro acknowledged that Adams’ rant was racist — only to add that “if you substituted the word ‘white’ for ‘black’ ” in it, you would get “a top editorial post at the New York Times.”
- Auracle 9mo ago
  To call the whole "it's ok to be white" thing "code" is a reach. The whole point of it was to call out the hypocrisy and, potentially, racism of anyone who was offended by such a benign statement. That's not code, and it was extremely obvious at the time the intent.
  - culi 9mo ago
    It started as a trolling campaign in 2017 from 4chan's /pol/. It spread outside of 4chan mostly due to David Duke and The Daily Stormer. It might have some history even longer than that because in 2001 it was used as a title track by a white power music group called Aggressive Force and was also found in 2005 fliers by United Klans of America

stetrain 10mo ago

He combined those who disagree with those who were unsure to get up to 47%, and then declared that that meant that Black people were a hate group. I provided the link to the full episode for anyone who would like more context.

throw310822 10mo ago
I'm curious how you would rate the statement: "I'm unsure it's ok to be Black".
- stetrain 10mo ago
  I think the equivalent statement, as in one that is preexisting and has political connotations[1], would be "Black lives matter", for which I would not be surprised to see a decent number of "unsure" responses among white poll respondents asked to agree or disagree, especially a few years ago. I don't think either response is great, but I don't think a single poll of 130 people is a good justification to make such statements about an entire race of people. And follow up polls conducted by others after the referenced Rasmussen poll got much more nuanced results[2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_okay_to_be_white https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_okay_to_be_white [2] https://www.cloudresearch.com/resources/blog/its-ok-to-be-white-rasmussen-poll/ https://www.cloudresearch.com/resources/blog/its-ok-to-be-wh...
  - kstrauser 10mo ago
    "Black lives matter" is an excellent example. I think the reactionary phrase "White lives matter" might be even better, as while almost everyone would (and should) agree with it without context, in the context of people complaining about "Black lives matter", lots of people would disagree with it or be unsure about it. I mean, I'd count myself among them. If you asked me if I agree that white lives matter, yes, of course we do. If you asked me about it in a political poll about other reactionary phrases, I might have to think long and hard about what it's really saying in that context.

rchaud 10mo ago

For it to be a legitimate dig at DEI, there would need to be some evidence of significant black advancement in corporate world for reasons unrelated to their qualifications. Have there been any?

xp84 9mo ago
Why just in the corporate world? Is Kamala Harris not an example? Or do we think being an unimpressive DA in San Francisco who dropped out before Iowa, merited the vice presidency AND the presidential nomination that she also got handed to her?
- Starman_Jones 9mo ago
  What are your minimum acceptable qualifications for the presidency, and why?
  - cthor 9mo ago
    Winning a primary would be nice.
    - xp84 9mo ago
      Indeed. The biggest election win she had outside of San Francisco prior to her coronation as the nominee in 2024 was a Senate special election where she drew 40% of voters. 3 million Californians voted for her out of 7.5 million voters. California has 39 million residents, but about 5 million are non-citizens. Actually more Californians voted for the Republican against her in the 2014 election for attorney general, than voted for Harris when she later ran for Senate in the special election. Obama by contrast had won 3.6 million votes, in a smaller state, for a decisive 70% win in his Senate race. Harris was a joke of a candidate who was obviously unelectable outside of a deep blue state, but she was forced on us so the DNC could virtue signal. It was a slap in the face to every qualified Democrat, many of whom would have had a chance to defeat Trump (a low bar if there ever was one). Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_history_of_Kamala_Harris https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_history_of_Kamala_Ha... https://www.ppic.org/publication/immigrants-in-california/ https://www.ppic.org/publication/immigrants-in-california/

kstrauser 10mo ago

> he was reacting to a poll according to which a sizeable proportion of black people disagreed with the statement "it's ok to be white". The context of that poll was an alt-right uplifting of the phrase "it's OK to be white", as though they were being oppressed and were finally removing the yoke of hatred they'd endured. A similar poll might ask about the phrases "not all men" or "me too". In isolation, who could possibly have a problem with either of those?, but these things aren't taken in isolation. I'd be curious about a followup question like "is it acceptable for someone to be white", which is asking the exact same question, on the surface, but in context is asking something completely different.

culi 10mo ago

the CATO Institute, of all orgs, did a good piece on this https://www.cato.org/commentary/dilbert-cartoonist-scott-adams-was-not-canceled# https://www.cato.org/commentary/dilbert-cartoonist-scott-ada... > It’s worth noting that Adams, once a moderate libertarian/ Republican but more recently a purveyor of far-right paranoia, has long reveled in provocative statements (for instance, that a Joe Biden victory in the 2020 election would lead to Republicans being hunted down). In this case, he was responding to a Rasmussen poll asking whether people agreed with the statement, “It’s okay to be white.” Among Black respondents, 26% said they disagreed either strongly or somewhat, while 21% weren’t sure. From this, Adams deduced that nearly half of all Black Americans don’t think it’s okay to be white and presumably hate white people. > In fact, in addition to doubts about Rasmussen’s sampling methods, the question itself is misleading. “It’s okay to be white” is a slogan long used as a seemingly innocuous “code” by white supremacists and popularized by internet trolls a few years ago. Most likely, many Black people in the survey had some vague knowledge of this background or realized they were being asked a trick question of sorts. More than one in four white respondents (27%) also declined to endorse the statement. > Adams could have acknowledged his error. Instead, he dug in his heels, improbably claimed that he was using “hyperbole” to illustrate that it’s wrong to generalize about people by race, and seemed to take pride in his “cancellation” (which he can afford financially). He has also found a troubling number of more or less mainstream conservative defenders, including Twitter owner Elon Musk and highly popular commentator Ben Shapiro. On Twitter, Shapiro acknowledged that Adams’ rant was racist — only to add that “if you substituted the word ‘white’ for ‘black’ ” in it, you would get “a top editorial post at the New York Times.”

Auracle 9mo ago
To call the whole "it's ok to be white" thing "code" is a reach. The whole point of it was to call out the hypocrisy and, potentially, racism of anyone who was offended by such a benign statement. That's not code, and it was extremely obvious at the time the intent.
- culi 9mo ago
  It started as a trolling campaign in 2017 from 4chan's /pol/. It spread outside of 4chan mostly due to David Duke and The Daily Stormer. It might have some history even longer than that because in 2001 it was used as a title track by a white power music group called Aggressive Force and was also found in 2005 fliers by United Klans of America