One of many creative people whose work I love and who have some questionable aspects. I'm sorry he's suffering and dying young (IMO). The Dilbert strip was genius.
On the off-chance he ever sees this, I am grateful to him as the vector through which I acquired the mental model that systems beat goals (the key to many types of success is consistently repeated action — the activity, not the lagging indicator of results). (Book: How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big.)
The phrase "it's ok to be white" has implicature (by maxim of relevance) and associations (by how the phrase originated and is used in practice) beyond its literal meaning. You can disagree with making that statement without thinking it's not okay to be white.
What in particular has been debunked, and by what?
> If it was co-opted, then why [...]
I wouldn't say it was "co-opted" - as far as I'm aware it originated as and still mostly is an alt-right slogan.
> [...] then why did 49% of blacks take a neutral to supportive view of the phrase in the poll? Explain that.
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.
A better-designed poll could separate out those two issues, asking about both the statement's literal meaning and what it implies, but instead it's kind of mushed together dependant on how the respondent chose to interpret the question.
"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?"
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.
In the same stream he also said he moved house to get away from black people and "I'm not saying start a war or anything like that ... I'm just saying get away."
He's also questioned Holocaust numbers, claimed the Dilbert tv show was cancelled because he is white, predicted that Republicans would be hunted down after Joe Biden won the election, and tried treating his cancer with ivermectin.
Aggressive cancer like that is a shitty way to go and I feel for him, but let's not pretend he's a reasonable, well-adjusted person.
are we still denying that Black america has a crime problem in 2026? So you’re saying Scott isn’t “well adjusted” because he doesn’t want to live in the ghetto? Do you call black people who move away from the ghetto “unreasonable” or just White people?
Scott Adams didn't move from a ghetto, he moved to get away from black people. The presence of black people does not a ghetto make.
There are though absolutely places with a large black population which have serious crime issues, but you see similar crime rates in impoverished areas that are predominantly white. Calling it a problem in black America makes it seem like a black problem when that is correlative rather than causitive. Poverty is the core.
Historical inertia, past (though fairly recent) laws, etc... are part of a complex story of which the result is poverty among a specific demographic (though not limited to that demographic of course - the extractive mining towns in Appalachian areas created parallel stories of systemic poverty in predominantly white regions).
The prompt was whether blacks leaving black neighborhoods would be labeled racist. The assumption is that although it is categorical racism, nobody would call the act racist.
As for crime, it's such a messy topic, though, recheck. I can easily find a lot of studies showing black communities having higher gun homicides, etc. after controlling for wealth (which you disagree with).
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 exposing the wounds.
Depending on the group in poverty, it may manifest as gun violence, physical violence without guns, domestic violence, theft, stimulant abuse, opiate abuse, and a myriad of other things.
i.e. if your cultural wound is to feel powerless, a gun may make you feel powerful; in charge.
If the wound is anxiety, you might choose to numb out.
Controlling for wealth only gets you so far because it is a single dimension.
(making two replies to separate topics) ... So as for switching topics... maybe? I meant that the comparison of black people moving from a ghetto isn't a good comparison just because they're literally moving away from a black community. They're not moving away from blackness, they're escaping a physical location tied to all kinds of negative risks.
I think I would call the act racist because what makes it racist is tied to intent. But one could argue otherwise I suppose. That's just my take.
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.