Guest post: Single incidents or patterns of behavior?
Originally a comment by Sackbut on ACTUALLY you’re the racist.
This is a complicated issue to me.
I read what Adams said, and I think the way it’s being presented in the media is inaccurate. I don’t like Adams, I think he’s proven himself to be a jerk in oh so many ways, but I think that one quoted bit has a point, even if it’s a strained one.
I used to serve as a moderator on a couple of online discussion forums. One issue that came up frequently was whether to deal with individual posts or with patterns of behavior. For instance, to tell if Oswald is attacking Beatrice in violation of the rules, do we need to show there is a single post from Oswald that constitutes an attack, or can we look at a whole bunch of posts from Oswald that indicate a pattern of harassment, even if the single posts don’t cross some line?
I think Adams’ comment seems sufficient as a “last straw” for the pattern of objectionable statements from him; in and of itself, it seems insufficient. As an advocate of the “pattern of harassment” viewpoint in the past, I’m OK with the newspapers deciding to drop his strip on that basis.
What did he say? He noted that a survey showed 53% of black people agreed with the statement “It’s OK to be white”, meaning that 47% disagreed or were unsure; if nearly half of black people don’t think it’s OK to be white, he claimed, then “that’s a hate group”. He elaborated further on that basis. It’s a strained point, it doesn’t acknowledge “unsure”, is misses the implications and history of “It’s OK to be white”, and it is insufficient basis for his “advice” to “stay the hell away”, but it’s a point. Mind you, I find casual designation of any group as a “hate group” problematic, given the way “hate group” is bandied about. But nearly half of a population saying “it’s not OK to be gay” or “it’s not OK to be atheist” or whatever would certainly be a concern.
I don’t agree with Musk’s statement, that US media is now “racist against whites and Asians”. Partly this is because I don’t think I share the same meaning of “racist” that he uses, and because I don’t think it’s the media that he’s really talking about. Jay Caspian Kang, an Asian writer who used to have an opinion column in the New York Times, wrote a number of cogent pieces about college admissions and high school admissions, and about how Asians were discriminated against in an effort to deal with Asian over-representation. I don’t think that’s “racism”, and I don’t think that’s the media. This discrimination was used as a wedge in the effort to dismantle affirmative action. Some opponents think affirmative action is a good thing badly implemented, some think it’s a bad thing in and of itself. Musk’s statement gives me the impression he thinks any means of taking race into account in school admissions is “racist” (in his terms) and therefore bad. I don’t agree either that it’s “racist” or that it’s bad, but I can see that many ways of taking race into account are clumsy and problematic.
An agreeable post. I think in Adams’ case, the way he addressed the fallout is telling. By blaming the big bad media and trying to spin (unsuccessfully) what he said into something else, he is either ignorant of the bigoted views he put forth, or just doesn’t care. I can’t relate to his comics and think they are dry and unfunny, but I’ve also never worked in an office full of cubicles. I don’t think it’s unreasonable at all to withdraw financial support, when the guy can’t even admit, given the considerable fallout, that he might be a bigot, and instead starts mealy mouthing, denying, and blaming others. The one incident might be a teachable moment, or a learnable one, but if he’s going to arrogantly double down and try to play it off as something else, then no. I don’t have much patience for that. Evidently some editors don’t either.
And, of course, it isn’t a violation of his free speech. He can still speak, and draw his cartoons, but the newspapers, which are private entities and not organs of government, are free to choose which cartoons they carry. The First Amendment applies to governmental institutions. For instance, the college where I work is a public college; we are bound by the First Amendment. That doesn’t mean I have to give good grades to every student regardless of the ridiculous answer they write.
In private industry, the rules are different. And a newspaper isn’t going to want to carry any cartoonist (or other content-creator – ooh, I hate that phrase) that loses them money.
Right, and not only loses them money, but I sure wouldn’t want anyone who unapolagetically harbors that kind of attitude representing my company. Take the train.
Or unapologetically, lol. I also don’t have a lot of patience for my own typos.
Reaing #1 and #2 I realise where the TRAs are copying some of their arguments from. The TRA movement is parasitic; it produces nothing of value itself, it merely attaches itself to genuinely social fairness movements and copies everything they say with a ‘trans’ slant. It also explains the weird TRA version of the Pride flag, and the inexplicable addition of the brown and black chevrons as if neither brown nor black people can have same-sex attraction so can’t be included in the rainbow. They really are showing that they hide behind anti-racist arguments and pretend that the same applies to them, the wealthy and powerful white AGPs pushing children ahead of them into the gender abattoirs.
Ophelia, thanks for making this a guest post.
iknklast @ 2
What you say is correct, but it’s the same form of argument by people who claim that preventing gender-critical people from keeping jobs or speaking engagements does not constitute censorship, because they can still speak, it’s just consequences, it’s private business. I find the argument disconcerting. They are all ways people can use to prevent others from expressing views they don’t like. I’m not an absolutist, I think some viewpoints are problematic and may deserve restriction, but I don’t find arguments based on the form of restriction rather than the type of viewpoint compelling.
Your last sentence is dead-on: a newspaper is not going to want to carry a writer or cartoonist who loses them money. That, unfortunately, is how markets work, and even good people who are unpopular are going to cause newspapers to be boycotted.
twiliter @ 1
I don’t think it’s important whether the term “bigot” applies to him, and I don’t think it’s important that he agree it does.
I do think it’s important that he has made many troubling statements and expressed many outrageous views over the years, and that this latest incident is sufficient impetus to finally withdraw his comic from circulation. His holding these views is less important than his frequent public expression of them.
It doesn’t surprise me that he doubles down; he thinks he’s right. I’d expect nothing less. I think he has a point, a small one, but it seems pretty clear he’s annoyed at the “advantages” handed to black people (who of course have no disadvantages, everybody can see that) /sarc .
If the requirement for being a published cartoonist is that he agree with certain views, I think a lot of cartoonists would be cast out.
Maybe some of what I’ve said here doesn’t make sense. I said it’s a complicated issue for me.
I think it’s worth noting that “it’s ok to be white” is a bit of a dogwhistle — that specific phrase has some usage among white nationalists — so that phrase probably provoked a response that a phrase like “white people should feel ashamed of themselves for being white” wouldn’t.
But even putting that aside, if your response to a poll showing that roughly half of a racial group holds views you don’t like (and really, that’s only by counting the “not sures”) is to say that you are going to avoid ALL members of that race…. that seems kinda racist?
I mean, presumably Adams would object to black person condemning all white people on the basis of a poll showing that some non-trivial percentage of whites hold offensive views. He would no doubt piously proclaim that you have to judge people as individuals, and condemn the racist whites but not all whites, and that it’s racist to do otherwise. So I’m not sure why Adams can justify condemning ALL black Americans for the views of a minority of them.
Sackbut, it may be used that way, but it is simply a true statement. Yes, there are situations where speech is prevented that we like, but the whole idea of speech rights is a legal question, not a moral one. The observation is important because it is the actual legal interpretation that matters in the end.
This is why TAs are able to shut down GC speech, because they suggest or imply it will harm the business’s bottom line. Understanding this is crucial to fighting against our silencing. The real approach, rather than scream Free Speech in places it doesn’t apply is to turn the tables. There are enough GCs to have the same impact – impact their bottom line. We can even do it without screeching or threatening violence; we can simply notify them that we will not support them if they are shutting down honest debate.
As for the idea of free speech, if it is to apply to our speech, it must apply to Scott Adams as well. His speech is bigoted and nasty, but if speech that we like is protected, even when it is believed to harm trans-identified individuals, then it must be allowed when it is perceived to harm other groups. But since the newspapers are private businesses, they are allowed to ban his cartoon, There is no law that says they have to carry it, any more than there is a law that they must carry Doonesbury.
I think this blog post by Popehat is a useful discussion of categories he refers to as “free speech rights,” “free speech culture,” and “speech decency.”
Sack @6 You’re right of course, I tend to present things in an oversimplified way. I just mean that if you don’t do the introspection required to see your own shortcomings, like being a bigot for example, and unapologetically express those kinds of attitudes in public, that it’s bad for business, and not just monetarily speaking. It doesn’t surprise me in the least that he’s been dropped, even for that one case if he either doesn’t care, or is ignorant of the fact.
Screechy @7 Kinda? More than kinda I think, but yes, the question is vague and it’s questionable what people mean by “OK with” in the first place. I also agree with Adams’ right to say bigoted things, that’s how we know who they are, but we don’t have to pay them or platform them simply because of those rights. He’s perfectly within his rights to express those opinions.
Or what Ikn said @8, this is the way it is. Musk has a point in his wanting to let opinionated and possibly offensive debate happen, but that doesn’t mean these allowed opinions have any merit or value.
Screechy @ 9
Thanks for the link, that’s indeed a very useful blog post from Popehat.
Screechy @ 7
“It’s OK to be white” is definitely a dogwhistle, and Adams either is being slick or is ignorant.
Re avoiding all black people: I agree that’s a drastic suggestion.
To be as clear as possible: Adams’ comments are all kinds of wrong, but I do think he has a small point in saying that there is a problem if nearly half of a population thinks your demographic group is “not OK”. That’s a point. It doesn’t work for “It’s OK to be white”, it doesn’t make that population a “hate group”, it doesn’t work for racial groups in general, it doesn’t justify staying away from all members of a population, but it’s a point.
iknklast @ 8
I agree with everything you wrote except that I don’t think we’re talking so much about free speech rights per se, but more about the moral issues. The Popehat blog post linked in #9 I think makes these points quite well.
Sackbut @11,
I mean, sure, one can be troubled by the results of that poll and express that concern in a non-racist way. Adams didn’t. If someone tells me “some [slur] cut me off in traffic yesterday,” and I express disgust at the slur, it’s not a defense to say “but I totally had a legitimate grievance about being cut off in traffic! Are you saying it’s ok to cut people off?”
Quickly generalizing from “some people with characteristic X do bad things” to “Xs are bad” is kind of how racism works for the most part. Very very few racists are of the cartoonish I-hate-every-single-member-of-that-race variety. There’s a reason why phrases like “one of the good ones,” and “I have many black friends” are disfavored cliches.
I saw this POLITICO article:
Rapid demise of ‘Dilbert’ is no surprise to those watching
It makes the point that the strip has become unfunny, and that it veered from office humor into social commentary in line with Adams’ views. It gives two example jokes, one of which I thought was reasonable, the other one not so much. It discusses how Adams has high visibility on many platforms, and this makes it impossible to ignore what he’s been saying.
So, supporting the idea that this is a “last straw” event in a long series, rather than reaction to a single event. To me, that’s important.
Screechy @ 12
I don’t disagree with what you say here (except possibly that “nearly half” is not “some”). I just sometimes prefer to focus on a different point.
Even beyond the white supremacist angle, “It’s OK to be white” is a clear effort to claim that privilege is not a thing–kind of like “Not all men” is.
Privilege is a weapon you cannot put down. I’m a white male. Our racist and misogynistic society has given me a pair of guns, superglued to my hands. I don’t want them. I sure as hell don’t want to use them. But the moment I allow myself to pretend that they are not there is when I start to do harm–not because I’m firing them0, but because the people in the room who can see them–people of color, women–have to assume that I MIGHT. (Have you noticed how little we hear about Schroedinger’s Rapist since the TRAs started their takeover of the Left? Yeah, that’s not an accident.)
So yes, if I were Black in this country (or most of the West, I suspect, but we’ve got it real bad here), I’d be inclined to say, “No, it’s not ‘OK’ to be White. It’s something you have to remain aware of, any time you’re in my presence.”
That said, I think it’d be totally fine if Adams stayed as far away from Black people as possible. I suggest Antarctica, unless we can just shoot him into orbit.
This discussion and its parent thread were really interesting to me. Unfortunately I was travelling and working all day so have come to this late. The good side of that is that others have made many of the points I was going to make.
I have to say Coel, I am surprised at the stance you’ve taken on a couple of these related issues now and previously. You’ve demonstrated perfectly good ability to research and think critically on other issues.
Screechy has made the point a couple ofd times in this discussion that the ‘It’s OK to be white’ phrase has it’s origins in white supremacy groups. That alone makes it a pretty problematic hill to die on, even if pretty much all us whiteys would otherwise shrug our shoulders and say ‘sure it is.’ On top of that, the poll looks suspect as hell. On top of that Adams misrepresented the figures he lumped together. On top of that he has a history of being a MAGA troll. On top of that, maybe, just maybe, a greater proportion of the black respondents were more aware and repulsed by the origins of the phrase than white respondents. Black people do tend to be more aware of and sensitive about racially charged political statements and attitudes FOR FREAKING GOOD REASON.
As for the argument that racism is largely gone and it’s a watered down version of what it was, well, sure. There aren’t as many lynchings as there used to be. But the sins of the past don’t evaporate and cease to have impact unless they’re actively corrected. Indentured slavery, indentured labour, inability to vote denial of education, travel, work, housing, healthcare. laws designed to entrap, punish and force into labour black people as a feature. Tulsa. Fucking Tulsa for gods sake. The effects of lifetimes of this shit don’t vanish. They form the sludge that mires people and enables those with the will to do it to sneer and blame the victims because of the exceptions who succeed.
In its original form in academic legal circles CRT was all about studying laws that had persistent lasting negative race based effects. What us lay people call systemic racism. It’s still alive and well, but has spread so that it’s not just laws, it’s the fabric of our society and the air that we breathe. you can choose not to see it, but that’s not being colour blind, it’s just blind.
I can also honestly say that I have never met, in 58 years, someone who was race colour blind. Plenty of people try not to be actively racist for sure. A fair few even bend over backwards to over compensate. But that’s not being race colour blind.
@Rob:
OK. Any specific criticisms? I’m happy to discuss.
Is this a reply to me? Notice that I’ve said nothing about Adams, and rather little about the poll or the phrase.
So can we have an open, straightforward and evidence-based discussion about mechanisms for ongoing harm?
You make claims here, but they’re rather vague and not supported by evidence or an account of mechanisms.
This does actually matter, since, if we’re going to remedy any ongoing disadvantage then understanding the mechanism is necessary.
If kids born in the 2000s are being harmed by the legacy of the past, we need to understand why, because understanding why is crucial to rectifying things.