Dilbert creator Scott Adams’ alleged ‘racist rant’ was no such thing.
Posted by John Reed on
I tried to find Dilbert creator’s Scott Adams video talk about approximately half of blacks saying in a Rasmussen poll that it is not okay to be white. I suspected the resulting accusations that he is racist were unwarranted and wanted to see the full context.
.
I was not able to find it. I DID find what appears to be maybe the one he did the next day. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mY_LYKlaiAk
.
As I suspected, he is just noting the widespread dysfunction, many bad choices, widespread lack of education, crime waves, and other pathologies in the inner-city, young, male black communities. As he says and everyone would have to agree if they were in a witness box in court, these are just inarguable facts.
.
The recent problem for candid writers or speakers like Adams is IF YOU SEE THE PROBLEM, AND YOU MENTION THE PROBLEM, YOU ARE THE PROBLEM.
.
The racist issue, when it arises, is the analysis of WHY inner city young black males are engaging in all these anti-social activities. Adams refused to get into it at all. I think it is a toxic culture.
.
I say that what Scott Adams recently said was in substance the equivalent of what former Harvard Professor Democrat Senator Patrick Moynihan said 54 years ago:
.
“Benign neglect is a policy proposed in 1969 by Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who was at the time on President Richard Nixon 's staff as an urban affairs adviser. While serving in this capacity, he sent the President a memo that suggested, ‘The time may have come when the issue of race could benefit from a period of 'benign neglect.'” Wikipedia
.
This was received with muffled grumblings from the left. It was a private memo that got leaked.
.
Was Adams tone more harsh? Yes. The tone of 2023 is far more harsh than the tone of 1969 in general. But that is style, not substance.
.
Also, attacking tone is one of the dishonest debate tactics in my How to Spot Dishonest Arguments book. It is dishonest debate tactic #80 ‘Your tone is unacceptable.’ https://johntreed.com/blogs/john-t-reed-s-news-blog/intellectually-honest-and-intellectually-dishonest-debate-tactics?_pos=1&_sid=6ca8cd01e&_ss=r
.
Adams references Thomas Sowell who discussed what he called Discrimination IA and IB and II. Basically, Sowell said II is the irrational bad stuff like you would hear out of some backwoods lying through his tooth denouncer of the intelligence and character of every person with African DNA.
.
IA and IB is what Adams is talking about. He rejects II like 99% of Americans of all ethnicity do. IA and IB are about drawing conclusions like 73% of black babies being born out of wedlock is a very bad thing or a group of young black men wearing hoodies after dark in a black neighborhood is probably something to avoid, including if YOU are black. I am not fluent in Sowell’s IA and IB discussion. I read that book Discrimination and Disparities, and I commend it to you.
.
In short. it appears clear that Adams is not a racist and did not say anything racist. Rather the rule he violated is you may not say ANYTHING negative about anything related to the black grievance movement. You do not have to be a racist to violate that rule. The succinct version of the rule Adams violated is “Shut up!” The slightly less succinct version of the rule is, “If you don’t have anything nice to say about any blacks, you may not say anything at all.”
.
It’s like that rule that blacks can say the N-word, but whites cannot. Oprah, among others, proclaimed that rule. It is like back in the Middle Ages when you could be killed for saying the earth orbited the sun. Adams merely DISCUSSED a subject that whites and Asians may not discuss. He did not say anything racist or do anything racist. He criticized blacks who misbehave, as have Bill Cosby and many other blacks.
.
It also reminds me of the time in 2020 when Bernie Sanders was making a speech when Black Lives Matter activists seized the microphone and demanded he agree that black lives matter. He responded that ALL lives matter. The BLM people went nuts.
.
It is “illegal” and “racist” to refuse to agree that black lives matter. This is First Amendment, not XIII Amendment (ended slavery). Professional victim blacks and the Left are trying to enforce a 1984-like Newspeak where whites simply may not comment unflatteringly about reparations or whether black lives matter or anything else on the now endless list of grievances and demanded compensations.
.
Furthermore, to even say anything about the SUBJECT of a large percentage of American blacks that the left does not agree with, regardless of the merits or truth of what you say, lets them call you racist and cancel you.
.
Bull! Seems libelous to me. And Adams has financial damages enough to clear the federal court minimum. It would be good if he could get this before a court where the rules of evidence apply, not political Newspeak. I expect his opponents would make obvious fools of themselves on the witness stand when forced to deal in facts, not political screaming. When was the last time they had to make a factual, logical argument. Last I heard, facts, logic, and the law were the only things allowed in US courts.
.
I have written much about these issues. I phrase things differently than Adams does to a large extent, but he never said the actual irrational racist stuff that all possessors of African DNA are deficient in some ability or character. He said he does NOT believe such. But the Left has granted themselves the right to hurl the racist label and to cancel any who dare comment negatively on large groups of blacks. It matters not what you actually say or do.
.
Adams is both morally and legally with his First Amendment rights. His accusers, however, are NOT within the bounds of Times v. Sullivan. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1963/39
.
I was not able to find it. I DID find what appears to be maybe the one he did the next day. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mY_LYKlaiAk
.
As I suspected, he is just noting the widespread dysfunction, many bad choices, widespread lack of education, crime waves, and other pathologies in the inner-city, young, male black communities. As he says and everyone would have to agree if they were in a witness box in court, these are just inarguable facts.
.
The recent problem for candid writers or speakers like Adams is IF YOU SEE THE PROBLEM, AND YOU MENTION THE PROBLEM, YOU ARE THE PROBLEM.
.
The racist issue, when it arises, is the analysis of WHY inner city young black males are engaging in all these anti-social activities. Adams refused to get into it at all. I think it is a toxic culture.
.
I say that what Scott Adams recently said was in substance the equivalent of what former Harvard Professor Democrat Senator Patrick Moynihan said 54 years ago:
.
“Benign neglect is a policy proposed in 1969 by Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who was at the time on President Richard Nixon 's staff as an urban affairs adviser. While serving in this capacity, he sent the President a memo that suggested, ‘The time may have come when the issue of race could benefit from a period of 'benign neglect.'” Wikipedia
.
This was received with muffled grumblings from the left. It was a private memo that got leaked.
.
Was Adams tone more harsh? Yes. The tone of 2023 is far more harsh than the tone of 1969 in general. But that is style, not substance.
.
Also, attacking tone is one of the dishonest debate tactics in my How to Spot Dishonest Arguments book. It is dishonest debate tactic #80 ‘Your tone is unacceptable.’ https://johntreed.com/blogs/john-t-reed-s-news-blog/intellectually-honest-and-intellectually-dishonest-debate-tactics?_pos=1&_sid=6ca8cd01e&_ss=r
.
Adams references Thomas Sowell who discussed what he called Discrimination IA and IB and II. Basically, Sowell said II is the irrational bad stuff like you would hear out of some backwoods lying through his tooth denouncer of the intelligence and character of every person with African DNA.
.
IA and IB is what Adams is talking about. He rejects II like 99% of Americans of all ethnicity do. IA and IB are about drawing conclusions like 73% of black babies being born out of wedlock is a very bad thing or a group of young black men wearing hoodies after dark in a black neighborhood is probably something to avoid, including if YOU are black. I am not fluent in Sowell’s IA and IB discussion. I read that book Discrimination and Disparities, and I commend it to you.
.
In short. it appears clear that Adams is not a racist and did not say anything racist. Rather the rule he violated is you may not say ANYTHING negative about anything related to the black grievance movement. You do not have to be a racist to violate that rule. The succinct version of the rule Adams violated is “Shut up!” The slightly less succinct version of the rule is, “If you don’t have anything nice to say about any blacks, you may not say anything at all.”
.
It’s like that rule that blacks can say the N-word, but whites cannot. Oprah, among others, proclaimed that rule. It is like back in the Middle Ages when you could be killed for saying the earth orbited the sun. Adams merely DISCUSSED a subject that whites and Asians may not discuss. He did not say anything racist or do anything racist. He criticized blacks who misbehave, as have Bill Cosby and many other blacks.
.
It also reminds me of the time in 2020 when Bernie Sanders was making a speech when Black Lives Matter activists seized the microphone and demanded he agree that black lives matter. He responded that ALL lives matter. The BLM people went nuts.
.
It is “illegal” and “racist” to refuse to agree that black lives matter. This is First Amendment, not XIII Amendment (ended slavery). Professional victim blacks and the Left are trying to enforce a 1984-like Newspeak where whites simply may not comment unflatteringly about reparations or whether black lives matter or anything else on the now endless list of grievances and demanded compensations.
.
Furthermore, to even say anything about the SUBJECT of a large percentage of American blacks that the left does not agree with, regardless of the merits or truth of what you say, lets them call you racist and cancel you.
.
Bull! Seems libelous to me. And Adams has financial damages enough to clear the federal court minimum. It would be good if he could get this before a court where the rules of evidence apply, not political Newspeak. I expect his opponents would make obvious fools of themselves on the witness stand when forced to deal in facts, not political screaming. When was the last time they had to make a factual, logical argument. Last I heard, facts, logic, and the law were the only things allowed in US courts.
.
I have written much about these issues. I phrase things differently than Adams does to a large extent, but he never said the actual irrational racist stuff that all possessors of African DNA are deficient in some ability or character. He said he does NOT believe such. But the Left has granted themselves the right to hurl the racist label and to cancel any who dare comment negatively on large groups of blacks. It matters not what you actually say or do.
.
Adams is both morally and legally with his First Amendment rights. His accusers, however, are NOT within the bounds of Times v. Sullivan. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1963/39
Share this post
1 comment
This is the video you’ve been looking for.
https://www.youtube.com/live/K6TnAn7qV1s?feature=share
Jump to 13:22 when Scott talks about the poll.