But he does have one.
By the way, that above comic seems awfully prescient at this point.
The real reason people like Adams and other open racists say “everyone agrees with” them is that they simply do not count certain others as people. That is, after all, the heart of racism, isn’t it?
WaPo gift link:
I think it’s not just that. It’s similar to a certain flavor of Christian that likes to tell atheists that they are not really atheists but “angry at God” or some nonsense. It’s a kind of projection, they cannot imagine how anyone else does not see things the way they do.
I think it’s worth noting that Adams does not have two stories as to why he left Pacific Bell. In fact, he has at least three; he has also claimed in one of his books that he left because he was discriminated against for being a man.
His story as to why the Dilbert TV show was cancelled has also had a few variations, though always race-focused; he claimed online that it was cancelled not exactly because HE was white, but because UPN was replacing its shows with shows about black people. (Incidentally, this was an objective falsehood; most shows UPN picked up after they cancelled Dilbert had predominantly white casts. Pointing this out on Twitter is why he blocked me.)
The indisputable fact is that Adams is a liar. He is specifically the type of liar who adapts his version of past events to whatever conveniences his needs and emotions at the moment he’s speaking (or writing.) These sorts of liars are, in fact, EXTRAORDINARILY common, and everyone is prone to it to a small degree if not the pathological extent of Adams. It’s one of the reasons you should never, ever fully believe a person’s recounting of past events that affected them, if you don’t have verification of it or know them to be extremely trustworthy.
What’s different today is that such lies can be discovered more or less in real time if they involve a public figure; it took me all of five minutes to figure out his story about the Dilbert cancellation was obviously bogus.
Love the tie touch!
No wonder he likes Trump!
I agree that most people are prone to doing that to some extent, but let’s just say that some are MUCH more prone to it than others.
They knew exactly what they were doing. Its done to trap people as, we, humans universally interpret semantic meaning fitted within a cultural context. A fact all pollsters know well.
The goal seems to disingenuously ignore the politically loaded wording of the phrase and argue its merits as an innocuous question solely in a context free environment. Ultimately this obfuscates interpretation of the respondents true feeling/desires by “cooking” the poll results.
This is (most likely) done to rile up consumers of right-wing news (like Scott Adams). The dude sacrificed what was left of his career to be a casualty of right-wing propaganda in the culture wars.
It’s too late for his Medal of Freedom, though.
I think he’s grandstanding for a future position in the next GQP government.
Perhaps ambassador to Elbonia?
-snicker-
Semi-seriously, taking his past and body of work into account, he obviously believes in the whole Dilbert thing of letting the people who ‘understand’ make the decisions. And he puts himself in the group who understands, while the majority of us are ignorant baboons. So he gets that sweet, sweet proof that he’s superior (as people say, he’s perfect company for the Muskrat and TangTrump) and would love, Love, LOVE to be recognized and put in a position of power over those who don’t appreciate him.
His comic and/or podcast may not get him that, but winning on the front lines of the culture war might.
Ah I was waiting for you to show up. So as our resident expert in cancel culture, what if your opinion of what is happening to Scott Adams?
Where that slightly differs is that Jim Crow laws were LAWS. They were generally state laws, but in many cases were municipal. The state laws were superseded by federal laws. It was a constitutional process quite conventional for a federal nation-state.
This is rather different from a situation where power is being exerted by private concerns through sheer influence. It’s hard to define where the dividing line is between “look, you just have to deal with the fact most people think you’re a shithead” and “this is getting out of hand.”
This influence is also just freedom of expression and thought. People from all walks of life are expressing the thought that Scott Adams is a loony racist asshole, and expressing the thought that maybe he can go fuck himself. It’s portrayed as restricting freedom, but what is more free than letting angry people say what they’re angry about and act the way they want in response to the thing that made them angry?
What Adams wants is the freedom to say what’s on his mind, while others keep quiet about how that makes them feel.
That is the problem isn’t it? I like to think of society as operating with a system of layers. Our fundamental layer is based on a set of axiomatic principles that relate to individual liberty. There is an interesting emergent situation when mass communication can allow individuals to act as a group that has tremendous power to do good or do harm. The conflict that arises at the fundamental level is when the ease of uniformity of action gives rise to power that de-facto eliminates liberty that would otherwise exist.
I don’t even think a solution to that is possible because I don’t think most people actually like true freedom of expression as a universal right. I think people like that freedom for themselves and their allies but grudgingly at best tolerate that freedom in others.
So what do you think about Adams?
I think it’s more a case of people with extreme beliefs not wanting to recognize their beliefs as being extreme. Racists want to believe that everyone else is as racist as they are. They just believe that other people hide their racist beliefs while they bravely say the things everyone believes out loud.
Which doesn’t make a lot of sense. If everyone held racist beliefs, there would be no reason for anyone to hide their racist beliefs. People would say racist things out loud without fear of consequences.
But racism is a set of beliefs that requires a lack of critical thinking, so this contradiction doesn’t affect racists.
I think you’re mostly right here but you’re drawing the wrong conclusion. You don’t have to do more than tolerate others’ freedom of speech. Liking what other people say is irrelevant. That’s missing the point. The whole point of freedom of speech is letting people say things you don’t like. I think of freedom of speech as a spectrum.
Speech I like — Speech I don’t like — Speech that is harmful
When you only allow the speech you like, that leads to bigotry, that leads to oppression, that leads to authoritarianism. That’s bad.
When you allow speech you don’t like, that’s true freedom of speech. That’s allowing for debate. That freedom of expression is one of the cornerstones that the United States and many modern countries are based on.
When you allow speech that’s harmful, that is where you get into the “free speech as a suicide pact” territory.
The real problem isn’t that people don’t like everything that everyone has to say. The real problem is that there are disagreements about the difference between “speech I don’t like” and “harmful speech”. The classic example is “yelling fire in a crowded theater”, but there are other things that are considered harmful. Incitement to violence. Hate speech. Dangerous misinformation. And what is harmful and what isn’t will vary from place to place, for example in the US you are allowed to promote Nazi ideology but that is criminal in parts of Europe. And it will vary depending on what your political views are. There are people that believe that speech that normalizes and supports the LGBTQ+ community is harmful, while on the opposite end there are people that believe that speech which denigrates and stigmatizes the LGBTQ+ community is harmful.
Those differences of perspective are how we get into trouble. It’s not just about not liking some speech. That doesn’t matter. It’s all about labeling the kinds of speech that are too harmful to extend protection to.
They got the wrong message when they read, “The Emperor’s New Clothes.”
They think that by pointing out what they see clear as day, everyone else will finally be able to admit that that was what they were thinking.
He had one in the animated series (though not in the TV commercial he appeared in) just out of aesthetic necessity.