Dilbert Cancelled

Dilbert Cancelled after comments on race

This is the episode in question 

What he said, in response to a poll that claims that almost half of Blacks asserted that it is not OK to be white, is that makes Blacks a Hate Group and that considering the number of White people being beaten by Blacks simply for being White the besrt thing for White people to do is to stay away from Blacks, and stop trying to help. That there was no way for White people to fix the problem and that it was a problem for Blacks to fix themselves.

The response from media has been withering and his comic strip has been cancelled by hundreds of newspapers.

But none of his critics has been able to say where, in context, he is wrong.

175 thoughts on “Dilbert Cancelled

  1. His preaching that white people totally separate themselves from black people is – hmm what’s the word – oh wait, I know… “divisive.”

    Personally, I have always found Scott Adams to be a jerk but I am glad that nobody has taken away his right to free speech and the right to express his opinions no matter how odious or divisive. But, it seems, the market has spoken, he is bad for business, and now will suffer the economic consquences of what he used his freedom to say. But don’t cry for him. He will be alright. I am sure he will do very well on the “conservative” chicken salad circuit. Trashing black people is popular with that crowd.

    Liked by 1 person

          1. Irrelevant. You offering the same kind of excuses you have offered previously for others is my only point. My comment is about your repetitive nature of protecting those you agree with.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. “Having not listened to his presentation, you have no basis for an opinion.”

            I read the transcript of the part that caused him to be seen as problematic. I have read your restatement of his opinions. Were you lying?

            I am not going to watch 57 minutes of this fellow ruminating over a variety of subjects because all you have is a dodge. Nope. Not going to happen.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. There are differing opinions in print, and context includes the entire statement, and tone of voice and body language as well.

            You have no basis to impute hate based on printed snipets


          4. “You have no basis to impute hate based on printed snipets”

            Body language? Really?

            His words are all you need to understand his meaning. The words he uttered – and has since doubled down – on are racist lies and a racist solution to the imaginary problem. Even as YOU recapped his ideas I find them – at best – divisive and fully deserving of the results they got. Nobody with any authority is teaching blacks to hate whites. The poll that he cited to prove that a majority of blacks are racists was mis-represented. The idea that whites should shun blacks is not the way forward.

            Liked by 1 person

  2. The point of this is what we have accomplished with DE&I is to convince a large part of the Black population that they should hate White people, and that White people can’t fix that.

    He points out that a Black woman in an otherwise White neighborhood would not be made to feel unwelcome, but that the reverse is not true. Sucker punching and stomping a White or Asian person has become acceptable so keeping one’s distance is prudent.

    Where is he wrong?


    1. “Where is he wrong?”

      I do not believe that black people “hate” white people any more than they might have in the past. I believe that you and all the other MAGA people you put far too much weight on anecdotes. Being harassed because of one’s race has been the daily experience of ALL black people for generations, but let – anecdotally – some white people have a similar experience and it is Armageddon.

      And, of course, his divisive solution is just plain wrong. If there is hatred, the best way to ease it is to tackle the very real systemic racism that black people have to live with. Do we do that? Nope. We have leaders and even a past President denying the obvious reality of it and not only not trying to do anything about it but instead making it a taboo topic.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I think that Black people have been told it is OK to hate, but I agree that most don’t.

        But how many Germans hated Jews enough to murder them? Not many I would guess, but how many stood aside while those who did acted?

        That is what I find supportive of Adams contention. I have seen a lot of videos of late of unprovoked attacks on Whites and Asians and what really worries me is that in every case, there are plenty of other Black people present, but none of them intervene.

        Would you stand by and watch a Black person attacked and not put a stop to it?


        1. Videos you may have seen are a very poor form of evidence. But for every video of a white person suffering some sort of abuse or disrespect, there are dozens showing black people be maltreated. And that has been their reality for centuries, not something invented by TikTok.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Most of those police incidents are the result of unsuccessful attacks on the police.

            I know what a Karen is, and a search brings up videos of Karens being jerks, but I don’t see a racial component, They are equal opportunity jerks,


        2. “Would you stand by and watch a Black person attacked and not put a stop to it?”

          I like to think not. But it is not too far in the past where lynching was a form of entertainment in places like Louisiana. But we don’t want young people to know about that – too divisive.

          Liked by 1 person

        3. Anti-Semitism ran deep in Europe before WW2. That average person may not be willing to pull the trigger, but they will tune out the gunshots.

          We did.

          Liked by 2 people

        4. “I think that Black people have been told it is OK to hate, “…

          Really? That is what you think?

          Of course you do KNOW that white people HAVE been taught to hate. Not only is it OK, it is required to be truly White.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. We have spent the last 40 years telling White people hate is inexcusable and shameful.

            It is unhelpful to turn around and tell Black people that hate is proper and justified.

            Especially since the people that gave them reason to hate have been dead for decades.


          2. Who is telling people to hate? You keep claiming that is what is happening, but when it has been White people, through the KKK and other White Supremist groups, being taught to hate Blacks, Jews, Asians and EVERYONNE that isn’t white and straight, not Black people being told to hate White people, your argument is BS.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. “ Especially since the people that gave them reason to hate have been dead for decades.”

            Not really. We are still alive, and so are millions of people who lived and grew up in the 1940’s, 50’s and 60’s.

            Life was pretty rough if you were Black in the South, and no bed of roses in the North. What laws didn’t cover, gangs did.

            Assuming that some Blacks have a jaundiced view of Whites, it was not because of experience on the plantation. It was watching a lynching or a beating for disrespecting a white person. Disrespect meaning not leaving town at sunset. Or drinking from the wrong fountain. Or voting.

            That it took federal law and troops to protect the rights of 12-15% of American citizens should be a clue how bad it was.

            And those folks are not dead. In fact many are still working. Their children were taught to not trust the Whites. The grandchildren, too.

            No, it was not just slavery. But the reaction when Whites could not bear the thought of Black Americans having rights. And that was very recent history.

            Liked by 2 people

          4. “Alabama is not in South Louisiana”

            No, but your attempt to put lynching and anti-black white violence in the category of ancient history by cherry-picking a restricted part of one state was kind of joke, don’t you agree?

            Liked by 1 person

          5. The 15-20 year olds who are committing these racist assaults on White and Asian people are not old enough to remember a lynching, or a time when Blacks went to different schools, or had problems voting.

            If they hate, it’s because they were taught to do so by race baiters who profit politically by keeping hatred alive.

            They are told that when a Black criminal fights the police and loses, it is the policemen’s’ fault.

            They are told if someone has more than them, they are entitled to take it.

            Add to that a toxic childhood in a single parent matriarchal household which teaches them that men are interchangeable and expendable, and you have a subculture of feral predators.


          6. “If they hate, it’s because they were taught to do so by race baiters who profit politically by keeping hatred alive.”

            Says the diehard supporter of the Birther-in-chief. Your lack of self-awareness is epic. Your whole MAGA movement is built on stirring up racial animus. As you are doing every day with demonizing BLM, the silly blather about CRT, banning and/or whitewashing African-American History, and now blowing a few cherry-picked videos of bad behavior by black teens out of all proportion.

            Liked by 1 person

          7. “Woke word salad”

            Your lame attempt to respond tells everyone that I hit the nail on the head. The MAGA movement HAS been built on stirring up racial animus from the day the Birther-in-chief rode down that escalator to slime Mexican immigrants. And stirring up racial animus is all that fuels it to this day.

            Liked by 1 person

          8. “The 15-20 year olds who are committing these racist assaults on White and Asian people are not old enough to remember a lynching, or a time when Blacks went to different schools, or had problems voting.”

            And if Black American history isn’t taught, they will never know. Is that the plan? Cover up the fact that theses terrible things did happen to their ancestors IN THIS COUNTRY so they will stop hating?

            “If they hate, it’s because they were taught to do so by race baiters who profit politically by keeping hatred alive.”

            So their parent and grandparents did not tell the stories of what it was like to grow up Black in this country? That may not teach them to hate, but it sure puts the truth to why some do.

            Liked by 1 person

          9. “The 15-20 year olds who are committing these racist assaults on White and Asian people are not old enough to remember a lynching, or a time when Blacks went to different schools, or had problems voting.”

            Their parents and grandparents were, however. Trusting the Whites in the 50’s and 60’s was not foremost in upbringing and teaching.

            You are what your parents taught you.

            Liked by 1 person

    2. RE: “Where is he wrong?”

      Nowhere. Adams isn’t even impolite.

      Racism is a media fantasy more than a social reality in the U.S. It sells newspapers, but when is the last time any of us ran into an actual racist face to face in real life?

      Anti-MAGA bigots are far more common (and just as ugly).


  3. Dilbert is a daily read for me. It pokes fun at both sides of social issues that happen in a professional atmosphere I happen to be employed in. A couple of days ago it poked fun at the new weird pronoun demands of some people with a hilarious ending. I hope the Pilot doesn’t succom to woke. That might be the last straw for me for the fish wrapper.


    1. RE: “I hope the Pilot doesn’t succom to woke. That might be the last straw for me for the fish wrapper.”

      I gave up on the Pilot a few years ago. It was a great paper once, but it died forever in my view when it stopped taking online comments from readers (which, as I recall, is one of the reasons Dr. Tabor started this web site).

      I find that Bacon’s Rebellion is a good online replacement for the Pilot:


      Also, Kerry Dougherty’s web site:


      Scott Adams publishes Dilbert at dilbert.com.

      The Washington Post publishes a daily crossword puzzle here:


      And there is always, Web Sudoku:


      I feel bad for the Pilot. I published a couple of features there when I was young, but it went south after Guy Friddel and Lawrence Maddry left (that is, a long time ago).


    2. If someone has a preference for the pronouns they would like used to address them, how is that a problem for you people? Is it just too hard for you to be respectful of others who may be different? Apparently, it is. Not in the least surprising.

      Liked by 1 person

        1. By the logic of wokeness, forcing pronoun use on others is an act of aggression. It is actual violence against free persons.


          1. “By the logic of wokeness, forcing pronoun use on others is an act of aggression. It is actual violence against free persons.”

            So, if someone wishes to be referred to by a pronoun you think is not correct, it is an “act of aggression” for them to express their wish. Even worse it is “actual violence.”

            Not too bizarre. But then you people are always the victims.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. “If it results in someone losing their job or being forced into some kind of Woke reeducation, it is very much an act of aggression.”

            Not too ridiculous. So who is the aggressor in this scenario?

            If an employee goes out of his way to be hurtful to other employees or customers a little bit of sensitivity training is not out of order. And if they cannot clean up their act, they need to seek employment elsewhere. Who needs that kind of shithead in a workplace?

            Liked by 1 person

          3. RE: “Not too bizarre. But then you people are always the victims.”

            No victim here. I identify as a person who uses pronouns correctly.


          4. “No victim here”

            Okay, then who are you referring to as the victim of the “actual violence” you claimed when someone wants a pronoun that YOU do not find to be correct?

            Never mind. It is a rhetoricial question to make the point that once again you are talking out of both sides of your mouth. “Actual violence” without a victim is not a thing. Duh!

            Liked by 1 person

          5. Actual violence was experienced by Mathew Shepard in Wyoming, who was tortured, killed and tied to a barbed wire fence because he was gay.

            I would suggest that being asked to call someone by a pronoun they prefer doesn’t quite measure up to that.

            Even if the fence were a nice wooden one.

            Liked by 2 people

          6. “I didn’t raise the issue.”

            Yes you did. Len did not raise the pronoun issue wrt to Matthew Sheppard’s murder. He was addressing the violence towards and individual just for being gay.

            Liked by 1 person

          7. “So, you endorse a person with a delusion having the power to dictate another person’s opinion.”

            You can have any opinon you want, but an employer has a right to demand that his people behave civilly towards other employees and customers. I know you cannot understand why deliberately disrespecting another person’s preferences in this area is an issue of civility. After all you absolutely know the “correct” pronouns for everybody and by God nobody is going to make you respect someone else’s wishes. Freedumb!

            Liked by 1 person

        2. “It requires me to validate their delusion.”

          Yes, so? You validate delusions all the time. You still have not stopped validating the Big Lie.

          What ever happened to the Libertarian ideal of live and let live? It is not you role to “straighten” anybody out. IMHO.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. It is also not my role to validate anyone’s belief in the Easter Bunny.

            Nor your delusion that I support Trump’s fraud claims. I have said from the week of the election that by changing the rules of the election the election had been legally corrupted, No more.


          2. “Nor your delusion that I support Trump’s fraud claims”

            An “corrupted election” is just the Big Lie in different words. Such comments validate the delusion that Trump should still be President.

            God forbid you should treat a fellow human being decently. Far better to stay on you high horse and not validate their “delusions.” Which, by the way, without a detailed study of their genes and anatomy you have no way to know if the ARE “delusional” or merely trying to make the best of a difficult situation.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. Changing the election rules in a manner prohibited by the Federal and State Constitutions on the pretense of COVID precautions was corrupt. That is simple fact.

            It may not be reversible. but it was corrupt and people should have gone to jail.

            And again, I have a live and let live policy on transgender delusions so long as there is no attempt to involve children.

            Those who insist on lude performances before children or bringing it into the classroom should be confronted.


          4. “That is simple fact.”

            No, it is not. Your simple fact is false. There was NOTHING done ANYWHERE that favored one party over the other. Everything that was done was done to reduce the real danger of voting in person during a pandemic for EVERYBODY. Period.

            You ought to quit using the word “corrupt” until you learn what it means.
            “corrupt : having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain.”

            Liked by 1 person

          5. From Article II section 1

            “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, ”

            Doesn’t say “unless it is inconvenient or unsafe”

            So, unless the legislature has empowered some other government agency to make changes, the election must be carried out as the legislature provided,

            It wasn’t in several states and that changed the outcome. That is corrupt.


          6. Doesn’t say “unless it is inconvenient or unsafe”

            I suggest you grow up so that you have the ability to recognize your own bullshit and do a little self-editing. “Corrupt” has a meaning and this ain’t it. Nor do you have ANY evidence that ANY accomodation for the realities of the pandemic changed ANY outcome. “Facts” that you pull out of your ass do not count. I know you really, really want to believe the Big Lie but – as always – reality has that well-know liberal bias.

            Liked by 1 person

          7. Of course there is evidence.

            In several states the harvested ballots tipped the election.

            The Big Lie. as you call it, was that the count was fraudulent. I do not allege that, I said the manner in which the election was held was corrupt. And Gain does not have to be coin of the realm.


          8. “In several states the harvested ballots tipped the election.”

            Like I said, grow up. “Facts” you pull out of your ass are not evidence and they are, in my humble opinion, childish. You cannot even define what a “harvested ballot” is and have no way to count them nor to see which candidate was on them.

            Liked by 1 person

          9. “In several states the harvested ballots tipped the election.”

            Really. Which states and what evidence? And was it Republican harvesting? We know they did it in NC, got caught big time.

            Liked by 2 people

          10. “In several states the harvested ballots tipped the election.”

            You say that all of the time, but your anecdotal evidence and your vote trading within your own family is just a bogus attempt to say there was enough widespread fraud to change the outcome, without saying it your self.


          11. “In several states the harvested ballots tipped the election.”

            Prove it. And because YOU say so is NOT proof. You have NEVER been able to provide ANY proof of your assertion, just anecdotal “evidence” which would be (and has been) tossed out of courts. Opinion pieces form those who support the BIG LIE do not qualify as proof either.

            Liked by 1 person

          12. …”unless the legislature has empowered some other government agency to make changes, the election must be carried out as the legislature provided,”

            The changes were APPROVED by or enacted by the several legislatures. Stop lying about it and move on.

            Liked by 1 person

          13. Of those changes, only Missouri, Oklahoma and California were made by acts of the legislature according to Ballotpedia. The rest were made by state executive branch officials or courts.

            Unless the legislature authorized those changes, they are not valid in Presidential elections.


          14. “Of those changes, only Missouri, Oklahoma and California . . .”

            Trying to dodge the point. Let me remind you. Your claim was that only Democrats were behind these election safety measures and they were corrupt. The bullshit flag was thrown. The evidence is clear. Both Red and Blue states scrambled to keep people safe during the pandemic and their doing so was NOT corrupt.

            But okay, let’s just count the votes in those states who followed your extreme interpretation – the only ones who conducted legitimate elections with valid votes. Who won?

            Missouri 10 for Trump.
            Oklahome 7 for Trump.
            California 55 for Biden.

            Biden wins by a massive landslide – 55 to 17. So, what is your beef?

            Liked by 1 person

          15. “Show me where MI, WI, PA or Georgia’s legislature made such arrangements.”

            Virtually every state, Red and Blue, modified established dates and procedures to try to save lives during the 2020 pandemic election.


            Leave it to you people pretend there was corrupt intent in these attempts to save lives but, it seems, only in states you lost. Laughable and childish.

            Liked by 1 person

          16. The Constitution is Black Letter Law on the subject. Electors are chosen in the manner set by the legislature.

            The legislature could certainly authorize emergency measures delegated to officials, and perhaps they should.

            But if they didn’t those changes were unlawful.


          17. “Since ballots are secret that is of course, impossible.”

            So your categorical statement that several elections were tipped by harvested ballots is what? A Big Lie? Wishful thinking? Playing the troll? What?

            It is, as you now concede, not based on evidence. Oh wait, I know, “many people believe it” and that is true enough for you. Just another one of those “alternative facts.”

            Liked by 1 person

          18. Again, the weel of the election, I wrote that the election had been successfully stolen.

            In several states, the number of unlawfully cast votes was much more than the margin if victory. But there is no way to prove that the unlawful votes were all Democrat, so there is no way to unwind it after the fact.

            The GOP should have sued BEFORE the votes were counted.


          19. “Again, the week of the election, I wrote that the election had been successfully stolen.”

            Yeah, you wrote that bullshit AFTER Trump lost the election and began peddling the Big Lie. If Trump had won, there would be no such complaints. And why wait until after the election if such massive corruption was so obvious to you?

            The other day you denied peddling the Big Lie but here you go again doing exactly that. Honestly, it is kind of pathetic.


          20. “So, stating that Trump waited too long to contest the unlawful conduct of the election is now agreeing with him?”

            Your saying there was unlawful conduct is agreeing with him. Your saying TODAY without evidence that the election was “successfully stolen” is agreeing with him. And how quickly you try to ignore the fact that the only three states who conducted lawful – according to you – elections decisively elected Biden.

            Did you suggest during the week of the election that all those 47 states conducting – according to you – unlawful elections be thrown out? I don’t think so. Just states that Trump lost. Not too ridiculous.


          21. There was unlawful conduct in the election. Much of it was benign and well meaning, but still unlawful.

            In some states, the ballot harvesters were a bit to ready for me to assume there was not pre-planning to exploit the changes.


          22. “In some states, the ballot harvesters were a bit to ready for me to assume there was not pre-planning to exploit the changes.”

            You continue to embarrass yourself. You remind me of the scene in “A Man for All Seasons” when Moore realizes that Richard Rich has decided to perjure himself. He notices he is wearing a chain of office and says . . . “For Wales? Why Richard, it profit a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world … but for Wales!”

            I would say to you . . . “But for Trump!”


          23. For Trump? No, But for the Constitution, hell yes.

            Article II is explicit. There is no hazy area. Electors are selected as directed by the Legislature.

            Unless the legislature specifically delegated those emergency powers to the Executive branch, then those emergency procedures were unconstitutional.

            Perhaps the State legislatures should provide such authorization to avoid a repeat, but the 2020 election was not conducted in a Constitutional manner.


          24. “For the Constitution, Hell yes.”
            Hell no. You showed your true colors with your attempts to minimize the events of January 6th.

            There is a word relevant to your silly argument you should become familiar with. That word is “delegation.” Legislatures delegate details of implmenting law to executive agencies. That is SOP in all areas of governance.

            All fifty states have executive agencies that operate under authority delegated to them by the Legislatures. This is not hard to understand and was never an issue with anybody. Until Trump lost.

            You are too infatuated with your navel gazing. Look up and see the real world. There you will see that Biden won decisively and even more decisively in the three states that your navel tells you were the only ones to conduct Consitutionally compliant elections.


          25. “Do you have any evidence that any of the State legislatures had delegated emergency powers on elections?”

            The record in the courts of Trump’s dozens of failed lawsuits is all the evidence I need that there is no there there. Your constipated view of what is a Constitutional process to deal with a life threatening emergency is – it seems – mainly your own. And something you did not bring up until Trump lost and then only in states that Biden won.


          26. “ Changing the election rules in a manner prohibited by the Federal and State Constitutions on the pretense of COVID precautions was corrupt. That is simple fact.”

            You’re repeating that canard does not make it true.

            States had various approaches, but court decisions said it was fine. Republican legislators said so too, and then some tried the change the results of the election post facto by lies of corruption and chicanery.

            If you really believe in the Rule of Law, you also need to realize that the judiciary is a part of that. And that includes “standing” as a necessary component of lawsuits.

            By saying the election was corrupt, you are a denier. And the company you keep with those loonies doesn’t reflect well on a man of professed principle.

            Worse, you are complicit in the death threats and harassment of election workers that Trump picked out for his personal viciousness. Not by joining his shameful chorus, but silence followed by “we will never know for sure”.

            Liked by 2 people

          27. …”in a manner prohibited by the Federal and State Constitutions on the pretense of COVID precautions was corrupt.”

            Seeing how all of the safety proposals out into place were done in a BIPARTISAN manner means nothing to you? It was corrupt to do the right thing by the public, in your view.

            Liked by 1 person

          28. “Those who insist on lude performances before children or bringing it into the classroom should be confronted.”

            Who is ACTUALLY doing that? The Libs of TikTok do not represent the entire trans community and YOU KNOW THAT. But that is where you will turn.

            Story time at a library by an ENTERTAINER, who just happens to be a man dressed as a woman is not lewd in any definition. Unless your purient hatred for others takes over. I recall Milton Berle being on TV a long time ago and he spent quite a bot of time dressed as a woman. Was that lewdness in yours or your neighbor’s house?

            And PLEASE do not tell me how many trans friends you have. It is old, tiresome and does ZERO to forward your opinion. It is along the same line as saying “some of my best friends are Black.”

            Liked by 1 person

          29. I don’t know how many of the Trans community are actively performing for, or appealing to, children, but it has become common, and worse, the Trans community as a whole, along with a great deal of the woke political class are supporting them.

            That is unacceptable.

            It would also be unacceptable to bring children to a traditional strip show.


          30. “I don’t know . . .”

            No, you don’t. But that does not stop you.

            I don’t know either but I would bet my house that more children have been molested by priests and ministers than by transgendered people. Probably by orders of magnitude. When are you going to demand that the GOP quit defending these perverts?

            Liked by 1 person

          31. “What evidence do you have of the GOP accepting molestation of children by any group?”

            What evidence do you have of the Democrats accepting molestation of children by any group?
            That would be none, because the Democrats are against molesting children. Duh!

            “Christians” are the hard core of the MAGA party. They are the people whose priests and ministers are the actual molestors and “groomers.” Their making “grooming” a political issue is a cynical joke.

            If Matt Gaetz were a Democrat he would be gone. If Gym Jordan were a Democrat, he would be gone. If Roy Moore were a Democrat, he would not have been nominated to the Senate. Speaker of the House Pelosi never had to pay hush money to survivors of molestations as did GOP Speaker Hastert. If Donald Trump were a Democrat he would not have been nominated for President – we don’t like candidates who brag about sexual abuse and take pleasure in ogling teenage girls in their dressing rooms.

            Liked by 1 person

          1. “Is it respectful to encourage an adult to continue to believe in Santa Claus?”

            Your trite analogy is plenty disrespectful enough. Being transgendered and trying to make the best of it is not a joke.


          2. Gender dysphoria is a delusion, not a disease.

            The increase in reports of gender dysphoria is almost 100 fold over a decade ago. That indicates it is based in social factors, not biological causes. The increase is best explained as mass hysteria.

            The treatments given make irreversible changes with lifelong effects, so we must take great care to do no harm,


          3. “The article does not account for the more than 100 fold increase since it became fashionable”

            It is hardly “fashionable” to be sick. Duh.

            What has happened, IMO, is that the opprobrium tied to such feelings has been eased – at least among decent people – so those with the condition are far more open to dealing with it with professional help than they used to be.


          4. “Gender dysphoria is a delusion, not a disease.”

            Okay, let’s say you are correct. How is a persistent life-long “delusion” not a disease? Sounds like one to me.


          5. Stick to dentistry and anti-Democracy rhetoric., You suck at psychology.

            And wasn’t you who said he had no issue with trans people and that you were treating them? If a patient of yours who identified as male , but was born female, and that individual asked you to refer to them as he/him would you ignore their wishes and call them whatever the hell you felt like?

            Liked by 1 person

          6. Lucy never made an issue of pronouns, though I did refer to her as she simply because she was sincere and would have been in peril had she been exposed. Remember that she danced nude except for an albino python in roughneck bars. Her audience would not have reacted well to being fooled.


          7. “I did refer to her as she simply because she was sincere . . .”

            But somehow you know that every other such person is not sincere and is actually committing acts of aggression? How do you know that?

            Lucy is not the only person in danger because of how she came to be who she is. All the hateful rhetoric coming from you people puts every transgendered person in real jeopardy. You should stop.

            Liked by 1 person

          1. Try expecting people to accept what they really are and not what they fantasize they want to be but never can while violating the privacy rights ofothers.


  4. The poll by Rasmussen is kind of vaguely worded.

    Only 26% of Blacks said they agree with the line “it is not ok to be White. Another 21% were not sure. “Not sure” would be the answer if the person is not sure of the question or not sure what it means.

    The question is ridiculous.

    Follow that with “can Blacks be racist too?”.

    Shoot, anyone can be racist against any ethnic group. The real question is whether the racism affects the hierarchy of a society to benefit either the majority or a minority in power. For example, Hutus were the majority in Rawanda, but Tutsis ran the country and controlled the wealth. South Africa is another obvious example.

    Blacks are neither the majority nor in a position of dominance in America.

    If you want to prove that everybody can be racist, fine, but not illuminating. If you want to divide the country further (if that is possible), then make sure to publicize that 1/2 the Blacks said it’s not ok to be White when actually that is false when half of those say “not sure”.

    Adams stepped in a pile by taking Rasmussen at face value. But then Adams doesn’t care so long as people pay attention to him. Sort of like his hero and mentor.

    Liked by 2 people

          1. “So, if 26% of White people agreed it is not OK to be Black, and only 47% would agree it was OK to be Black, you would see no problem there”

            Didn’t read the critique of the poll provided by Adam, did you? It was sloppy beyond all recognition. Completely useless.

            The reality is that black people have infinitely more reason resent white people than white people have to resent black people. And yet we have a political movement – MAGA – based on stoking that irrational white resentment. You don’t see a problem in that?

            Liked by 1 person

  5. This opinion piece on Adams is a good take. It’s not “cancel culture”; it is “consequence culture”.


    The closing paragraphs are “mic drop” material.

    “In the minds of people like him, freedom of expression means being free to spew all the hate-filled garbage they want and in response, requiring the rest of us to bite our tongues. But that’s not how free speech works. People will and should push back against bigotry.

    In this case, Adams was not just criticized by those offended by his vile views. Publications he’s been associated with for years no longer want anything to do with him.

    This is what consequence culture looks like. If you don’t like the consequences, then don’t spew hate.”

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Obiedallah either has not viewed the entire segment or he is deliberately quoting out of context.

      There was nothing in the segment that could be legitimately called spewing anything.


      1. …”he is deliberately quoting out of context.”

        Quite an accusation. You have proof or that is what you believe based on his opinion?

        “There was nothing in the segment that could be legitimately called spewing anything.”

        Then the entire free media landscape is wrong is their assessment of what Adams said? Brilliant. Only the ever wise and wonderful Don Tabor is right.

        This is not the first time Adams has gone on a hate filled rant.

        Get off of your high horse

        Liked by 1 person

          1. Adams history is enough of a reason to ignore him. Your “group think” is just a dodge because MORE people are correct than YOU believe in judging his words. I wouldn’t watch this any more than I would watch anything with David Duke in the lead, or Oath Keepers, or any other hate-based opinion.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. There is NOTHING dishonest about Adams’ history as a bigot.

            I can comment how ever I wish whenever I wish. You can call it dishonest. I call it cutting too close to home for your taste.

            Try being honest with yourself about exactly what he said. Also about how Rasmussen’s poll was garbage and Adams used it because it fed into his preconceived hatred.

            He is entitled to say whatever he wants. The First Amendment guarantees it. Private companies are not held to 1A standards and you know that. So papers tossing his comic strip because he is spreading “divisive concepts” is a business choice.

            Youngkin and DeSantis should be embracing the consequences for Adams because they are hard set against the idea of “divisive concepts” being discussed.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. “Yet you cite no examples of a history of bigotry on Adam’s part.”

            You should Google his record before going too far down the rabbit hole of defending his odious opinions.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. “So you have none”

            I am not going to play. The Google is readily accessible to you. I offered some advice on avoiding embarrassment because I know of the problematic history of Adams’s public statements. You can take it or leave it.


          5. “So, searching there is searching in your bubble.”

            Not too laughable.
            Google’s algorithms promote useful, relevant, and accurate information. If only 3% of the first page hits are “conservative” maybe they should give up spreading “alternative facts?”


            In any case, whether the source is “liberal” or not does not change the factual material provided by a link.

            Liked by 1 person

          6. So, information that supports your narrative is useful, relevant and accurate but other views are not, even when they turn out to have been correct all along?


          7. “So, information that supports your narrative is useful . . .”

            “Useful” in this context means responsive to the inquiry.

            You really ought to man up – or is grow up – and accept that “conservative” media is a cesspool of lies, distortions, and misinformation. If they do not pop up on page one it is because they are just that.

            Even the least horrid of them – such as Fox News – are purveyors of LIES. And we know that Fox News – according to its owner – has been fully aware that the Big Lie bullshit they have been pushing for two years is nonsense.


          8. “SO, what passes for truth inside your bubble is all that counts.”

            I believe that there is an objective reality which is the ultimate source of truth. You obviously do not. If a statement conforms with that objective reality, it is true. If a statement does not conform with that objective reality, it is false. Simple really.


          9. Another word salad.

            Of course, there is objective reality.

            You just can’t find it in Google.

            Remember the fable of the blind men describing an elephant?

            The elephant has objective reality but you can’t define it from only one point of view.


          10. “Word salad”
            You are wearing that one out.
            Why not just say, “Yeah I have no sensible response.”

            “You just can’t find it in Google.”
            Patently absurd.

            You miss the point of the parable. Restricted points of view HIDE the truth. The objective reality is the elephant. You need to look at the whole picture, not just cherry-picked parts.


          11. Here is one

            “In June 2020, Adams, referring to UPN’s cancellation of the “Dilbert” animated primetime TV series two decades earlier, tweeted, “I lost my TV show for being white when UPN decided it would focus on an African American audience. That was the third job I lost for being white.” (The reality was the show’s ratings had plummeted and it was canceled after audiences tuned out.) In January 2022, Adams tweeted, “I’m going to self-identify as a Black woman until Biden picks his Supreme Court nominee. I realize it’s a long shot, but I don’t want to completely take myself out of the conversation for the job.””

            Liked by 1 person

          12. “You do realize that was a satirical poke at Biden’s promise to appoint a Black woman without consideration of merit.”

            You think lying is funny? Biden never said he would appoint “a Black woman without consideration of merit.” He said he would appoint a Black woman. In making that promise he was well aware that there are plenty of Black women dripping with merit to choose from.

            Some people just cannot believe that a black woman could possibly be as qualified as a white man for high office. They should try harder and quit whining. Elections have consequences. Biden made this promise and he kept it. Those who took offense at such a promise were free to vote for someone else.

            Liked by 1 person

          13. “Because you say so.”

            Because YOU say so?

            Your claim that it is dishonest to comment on a thoroughly reported screed is YOUR opinion. Mine is that one does not need to spend 57 minutes listening to unrelated material to be able to comment honestly. Doubly so, since YOU have regurgitated the relevant portions for this forum.

            Liked by 1 person

          14. There is NOTHING dishonest . . .

            Don’t you get it yet? “Divisive” ideas are ideas the Dr. Tabor and his ilk do not agree with. If there was any doubt, what could be more “divisive” than the idea that white people should shun black people as prescribed by Adams as the proper response to this massive but imaginary black hatred of whites. And yet these MAGATS are shocked, shocked I tell you, that so many “woke” organizations have decided to not be party to the spreading of such “divisive” ideas.

            Liked by 1 person

    1. That deluded rant has nothing to do with Adams.

      The Intercept’s sarcasm meter needs calibrating.

      For example, Adams ‘identified’ as a Black woman after Biden promised to nominate one for the Supreme Court. He pointed out that he wasn’t qualified for the job, but as merit wasn’t the primary consideration, he might still get the job that way.


      1. “Deluded rant?”

        Or spot on.

        Scott Adams said he was through “helping” black people. As if he ever has. That nonsense fits into the pattern described of white people “helping” others.

        What you cite as being mere sarcasm is at best “divisive” at worst, racist. It is based on the racist assumption that a black woman MUST be unqualified.


        1. You have the assumption backwards. Biden made it clear he would appoint a Black woman whether she was the most qualified for the position or not. The result will be that she will never be seen as qualified, even if she is.

          The Rassmussen Poll on which Scott commented said that barely half of Blacks represented by the Poll believed it was OK to be White.

          If we chose some subset of Whites. say White accountants, and only half of them agreed it was OK to be Black, would the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League not be condemning accountants as racist? Would there not be investigations of accounting schools to determine what was implanting that attitude?

          Would Blacks be rushing forward to help accountants?

          Adams made his point, I think, and he is in a position to say what he thinks and not worry about consequences. Asked if he thought his words were too provocative, his answer was

          ‘Some say I was too provocative in my communications. How has the non-provocative approach worked so far? Good results? “


          1. “You have the assumption backwards.”

            No I don’t. Your whole victimy whine is based on the bogus idea that “most qualified” is a thing. It ain’t. There is well qualified, qualified, and there is unqualified. KBJ was rated “well qualified” UNANIMOUSLY by the ABA vetting committee. There is no “most qualified” beyond that.

            As for the Rasmussen poll, it was a joke and if Adams took it seriously that is too bad for him. Maybe you should suck it up and read the critique Adam provided before making the same mistake that Adams did.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s