He's such a joke that even LLMs make fun of him. The Gemini-generated Hacker News frontpage for December 9 2035 contains an article by Gary Marcus: "AI progress is stalling": https://dosaygo-studio.github.io/hn-front-page-2035/news
From what I understood (and I might be misinterpreting or applying a too sympathetic filter) Scott was upset because of the spread of a political ideology (identity politics) and because of its tangible impacts on society (for example DEI policies). The entire tirade against black people starts from commenting an opinion poll according to which a sizable proportion of black interviewees disagrees with the statement "it's OK to be white"- which, applied to any other ethnic group, would be pure and blatant racism. So his reaction is that of someone who's upset and disappointed at learning that he's despised by some group of people for his ethnicity, and advises to just stay away from those who harbour these sentiments.
Thanks for the context. I checked Wikipedia for more details from the slogan and here is what it says:
> In a February 2023 poll conducted by Rasmussen Reports, a polling firm often referred to by conservative media, 72% of 1,000 respondents agreed with the statement "It's okay to be White". Among the 130 black respondents, 53% agreed, while 26% disagreed, and 21% were unsure. Slate magazine suggested that some negative respondents may have been familiar with the term's links with white supremacy.
Scott was a rather intelligent person with an MBA from UC Berkeley. How do you go from a sample of 130 black people a majority who agree with the slogan and only a minority against (less than a quarter). To all black people? Is that not an extreme overreaction?
It is indeed, but I think it makes sense to see it in the context of the culture wars. You can be upset at 47% of respondents to a poll disagreeing or being unsure that it's ok to be from your ethnic group; but that compounds with being upset at the perceived folly of a cultural movement that denies this is wrong or even encourages this way of thinking. It's the usual polarization mechanism, where apparent extremism of one side is so upsetting that it fuels or justifies an equally extreme reaction on the other.
So again, I don't think it makes sense to judge these statements in a vacuum as if they were well thought and considered. They are momentary angry reactions to a perceived wrong.
I have momentary angry reactions to things. Sometimes they're quite ridiculous. As a rule, I don't put them on the internet. When, despite my better judgement, I do, I feel I have an obligation to correct the record afterwards.
> I feel I have an obligation to correct the record afterwards.
And, are you sure he didn't? While the media is full of his supposedly racist comments, it's much harder to find any follow-up. Here's one:
"[...] he offered a “reframe” to allow people to get out of what he called a “mental trap” of a worsening racial divide in America.
“We’ve literally monetized racism so that everybody can be a little bit madder at each other,” Adams said. “If you monetize racial divide, you’re only going to get more of it.”
Faulting the “energy” he put into his comments, Adams said he can understand why people came to the conclusion that he literally meant what he was saying. He disavowed racism — “always have, always will,” he said — but went on to offer “context” about other “racist” things that he approves of.
“For example, historically Black colleges. Feels a little racist, totally approve,” Adams said. “Black History Month? Feels a little bit racist to some people, totally approve. Black people should get their own month; makes perfect sense in light of American history.”
During a segment of the show where viewers call in, a Black teacher in Missouri who said she was a longtime fan of the “Dilbert” comic strip said she was hurt by the comments. She asked Adams how she’s supposed to explain this kind of rhetoric to her students.
Adams suggested she tell them to stop looking backward and start looking forward. “Tell your students that they have a perfect path to success as long as they get good grades,” he said. “[...] if they employ strategy, and don’t look backwards, just strategy, they’ll do great. Now, there’ll still be way too much systemic racism, but you’ll be able to just slice through it like it didn’t exist.” [1]
Etc. Is anyone interested in this? Apparently, no.
I'm not sure he didn't. But I would really, really like to believe he did: and I don't do a good job drawing accurate conclusions from large corpora when I really, really want to reach a particular conclusion. I'd appreciate it if somebody else did that work.
Context matters. For a more recent example consider the slogan "Black Lives Matter" (BLM) and the slogan "All Lives Matter" (ALM). Separately both are fine.
But some people, especially in white supremacist and adjacent circles, who had never used "All Lives Matter" before started using it as a response to "Black Lives Matter".
The implication was the BLM was asking for special treatment for Black people. In reality what BLM was saying was that Black lives matter too (in retrospect maybe they should have actually included "too" in the slogan), and ALM as a response to that is essentially dismissing BLM's concerns.
Semi related is why we have a Black History Month but no White History Month in the US. Every month is a de facto white history month.
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.
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].
"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.
> 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.
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?
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?
Absolutely. I consider that to be primarily Biden's fault for not announcing in advance that he would not seek a second term. After that point, I think each decision made was the best that could be done at the time to minimize the damage.
There have absolutely been cases of VPs becoming President without ever winning their own primary though, and I doubt most would describe those cases as DEI despite demographics often playing a large part in VP picks.
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).
> 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.”
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.
I believe US conservatives have done this since 1980s. I'm not sure it was deliberate at first: there's feedback. Loudly invoking "liberal bias" in 1975 most certainly got the press to reevaluate and attempt to mitigate any bias they might have shown. That was a reward for conservatives, which probably motivated more accusations of liberal bias, another round of press accomodations. It reinforced itself.
Indeed – it's why the BBC platform people like Nigel Lawson when ever they have someone to talk about the impact of climate change or the Tufton St mafia
A blind person does not have the necessary input (sight data) to make the necessary computation. A car autopilot would.
So no we do not deem a blind person to be unintelligent due to their lack of being able to drive without sight. But we might judge a sighted person as being not generally intelligent if they could not drive with sight.
Ok. So a man with a gun has the right to shoot you and kill you.
Then a policeman comes with a bigger gun and he has the right to kidnap the murderer.
Then comes a judge with an even bigger gun (the law) and has the right to lock him up in a prison.
But then the murderer gets hold of a weapon and he has the right to escape from prison.
Etc.
Maybe because most of them were born there and also their parents and grandparents?
That is called birthright and the way I see it, it applies to both groups. And the conflict will never be solved (without large scale genocide), if both groups largely negate the other groups rights.
You're right, expelling Israelis from Palestine would be a crime exactly as it's been a crime expelling Palestinians. While I believe that Jews had no right in the first place to immigrate there, this doesn't change the status of their descendants who are born there and whose families are born there.
But let's be clear on this: Jews that are not currently in Israel have no right to immigrate there. Jews that are in Israel have no right on any part of the land that isn't already part of Israel proper; and finally, Jews (exactly as much as Palestinians do) have a right to life, property and safety but not necessarily to their own political entity.
But what about Palestinians who were born elsewhere? Do they have a right to go back to their ancestors land?
To me it seems close to the arguments of the jewish who see themself as native, "just" on a larger timescale. There is no easy solution that I can see. (except letting go of fanatism)
In the case of Palestinians, "their ancestors" means their fathers or grandfathers. They still have the keys of their homes. In the case of Jews, it means some mythical ancestor of 2 thousand years ago or more.
But yes, the question of the "right of return" of Palestinian refugees is a tough one; but I think it's a distraction. The very minimum the international community should force Israel to, is to withdraw within the 1967 border and cease any interference with the territory and sovereignty of Palestinians. It won't happen because the goal of Israelis and Zionists everywhere is to conquer as much land as they can, and a constant state of attrition is the excuse they need to keep settling more ethnically-cleansed land.
No. This question shows that you have no idea of what the word "apartheid" even means (or maybe you just hope that other readers don't), and that nonetheless you are ready to use it as a retort hoping to score some kind of cheap point. Not that I haven't seen precisely this behaviour a million times on this topic, but still: pathetic.
- An official policy of racial segregation formerly practiced in the Republic of South Africa, involving political, legal, and economic discrimination against nonwhites.
- A policy or practice of separating or segregating groups.
- The condition of being separated from others; segregation
Explain to me how this does not fit bullet point 2 and 3.
From The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition[1].
reply