Elon Musk defends racist tirade by Dilbert creator Scott Adams

Gyre said:
Feel free to justify what you said if I'm wrong.
Click to expand...
Let me put it another way, if you know pressing a button has a 30% chance of something bad happening to you.
While having a 70% chance of nothing happening. Will you press it?

The point is, if you know there is a group of people withing a group of people that hate you. Do you try and avoid the subgroup (Knowing full well it is impossible to identify the subgroup)? Or the group as a whole?

Ask yourself is what he is saying not applicable to many other situations? Because it is race it is now by default wrong think. Avoiding does not mean hate.

Avoiding sharks by not going in the sea. Does not mean you hate the sea.

It's an analogy. It is not that I agree with him but that I understand why he said what he said.
To just do NPC think and condemn him is dumb.
 
Gyre said:
Now you're generalizing too? Because it means something to some people, it's okay for white pride to mean something to some white people? Being born into your sex and race is the bare minimal a person can do and isn't some great achievement. You might as well pat yourself on the back for having green eyes or ginger pubes.

"Pride" events are just historical victories over oppression - race is hardly anything worthy itself.
Click to expand...

You should go tell MNS attorneys the same thing.

1672245540018.jpg

What is good for the goose will unleash hell on earth for the gander.
 
Cray said:
So you are basically saying that the large percentage of people who voted "not sure" (21 %) are just idiots and that the people who voted against the statement (26%) are all racists, that there can't be any other explanation for why those people chose to vote the way they did...
Click to expand...
That's pretty accurate imo. Blame the whole campaign pushing this narrative for their confusion. You're not doing the situation any favours. Great tie-in with Scott's comment about education don't you think?

Why are you so keen to explain away 26%? There are usually crossover between question categories, so there can be some overlap between the two.
If the poll has statistical significance, which is the one main critique, you realise how many people this would be? That IS in fact a very big problem.
 
Gyre said:
Good thing we can only imagine the one and actually witness the other.
Click to expand...
How is that a "good thing". When targeting and victimization is fine in one direction but not in the other?

HOW?
 
MikeaMatrix said:
Let me put it another way, if you know pressing a button has a 30% chance of something bad happening to you.
While having a 70% chance of nothing happening. Will you press it?

The point is, if you know there is a group of people withing a group of people that hate you. Do you try and avoid the subgroup (Knowing full well it is impossible to identify the subgroup)? Or the group as a whole?

Ask yourself is what he is saying not applicable to many other situations? Because it is race it is now by default wrong think. Avoiding does not mean hate.

Avoiding sharks by not going in the sea. Does not mean you hate the sea.

It's an analogy. It is not that I agree with him but that I understand why he said what he said.
To just do NPC think and condemn him is dumb.
Click to expand...

So your point, in another analogy, is that a woman shouldn't go out with a man because he will have a 30% chance of being an abuser/rapist merely on the merit of being male?

Also, with that same logic, because we are white and whites implemented apartheid, we have a high chance of implementing Aaprtheid if we ever get a majority into government again?

I understand what he said, it's stupid. You judge people as individuals and on their own merit. You don't buy a car blindly because it's a certain brand, it could be falling apart.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sjm
Gyre said:
Sometimes, it takes years before there is a female winner or female representative in something. The same thing for gay people, black people, disabled people, etc - so historically, it's a pretty big thing when somebody is the first to do something. There are also people that feel marginalized(and Scott's rant is just proof that he views a whole group differently, so it's not exactly a lie).

"Pride" events are people that fought for their rights, not people celebrating a skin tone or their private parts. If people had not fought, they may not have had rights today either.

Also, what 5 people do is not representative of what the next 5 people do, or their attitudes. So if you see one person doing something, don't judge the next person by what that person did.

If the whole country rioted over the shampoo ads, there wouldn't be a country left. You see what you want to see.
Click to expand...
There are literally annual awards ceremonies celebrating the black race. Months celebrating the black race. Been going on for years so it's still a big thing many years after the first black people won.

It is celebrated when white characters are transformed into black characters. It's all about celebrating and being proud of skin colour.
 
Kieppie said:
That's pretty accurate imo. Blame the whole campaign pushing this narrative for their confusion. You're not doing the situation any favours. Great tie-in with Scott's comment about education don't you think?

Why are you so keen to explain away 26%? There are usually crossover between question categories, so there can be some overlap between the two.
If the poll has statistical significance,
Click to expand...
That is a big if.. According Washington post, the results are from 113 black respondents, seems a very small sample size to me.

If black people really feel that way about white people then at the very least you would need more than one, one-sentence question to determine it and I would expect a far larger sample size.
 
MikeaMatrix said:
Let me put it another way, if you know pressing a button has a 30% chance of something bad happening to you.
While having a 70% chance of nothing happening. Will you press it?

The point is, if you know there is a group of people withing a group of people that hate you. Do you try and avoid the subgroup (Knowing full well it is impossible to identify the subgroup)? Or the group as a whole?

Ask yourself is what he is saying not applicable to many other situations? Because it is race it is now by default wrong think. Avoiding does not mean hate.

Avoiding sharks by not going in the sea. Does not mean you hate the sea.

It's an analogy. It is not that I agree with him but that I understand why he said what he said.
To just do NPC think and condemn him is dumb.
Click to expand...
You are imposing a false choice.

Option 3: avoid people who make race a core part of their identity. Which means you get to interact (in the US for example), with 79% of the population. Good enough for me.

Same thing goes for South Africa. Avoid the race Marxists like the EFF, ANC and anyone who calls themselves a progressive and you can interact very happily with 80% of the population.
 
Gyre said:
So your point, in another analogy, is that a woman shouldn't go out with a man because he will have a 30% chance of being an abuser/rapist merely on the merit of being male?

Also, with that same logic, because we are white and whites implemented apartheid, we have a high chance of implementing Aaprtheid if we ever get a majority into government again?

I understand what he said, it's stupid. You judge people as individuals and on their own merit. You don't buy a car blindly because it's a certain brand, it could be falling apart.
Click to expand...
NPC think in full effect.

I just said, I do not agree with him, but I UNDERSTAND WHY HE SAID IT.
Does the elevator not go to the top floor?

We do not condemn black people for being afraid apartheid will happen again.
Why do we condemn him?
 
Gyre said:
So your point, in another analogy, is that a woman shouldn't go out with a man because he will have a 30% chance of being an abuser/rapist merely on the merit of being male?

Also, with that same logic, because we are white and whites implemented apartheid, we have a high chance of implementing Aaprtheid if we ever get a majority into government again?

I understand what he said, it's stupid. You judge people as individuals and on their own merit. You don't buy a car blindly because it's a certain brand, it could be falling apart.
Click to expand...
That is a naive understanding though.
Making decisions is complex (just ask a woman what they want for supper). People are very happy to use an imperfect proxy. Some proxies are ok, like a car brand. After all if your Toyota packs up after 200km it isn't really that big of an issue in the grand scheme of things. Other proxies, like race/tribe are almost always a bad thing.

The lesson of world history is that people have identified that using race/tribe as a proxy almost always ends up doing something bad for society. It has never resulted in anything positive.

Look at SA's own miserable history. Look at BEE, which is relatively benevolent in terms of what it does, but it has still absolutely destroyed SOEs and private businesses.
 
konfab said:
You are imposing a false choice.

Option 3: avoid people who make race a core part of their identity. Which means you get to interact (in the US for example), with 79% of the population. Good enough for me.

Same thing goes for South Africa. Avoid the race Marxists like the EFF, ANC and anyone who calls themselves a progressive and you can interact very happily with 80% of the population.
Click to expand...
I fully agree. As this is a much more realistic approach.
I just said I understand why someone in the US may choose to avoid them entirely instead.
 
MikeaMatrix said:
NPC think in full effect.

I just said, I do not agree with him, but I UNDERSTAND WHY HE SAID IT.
Does the elevator not go to the top floor?

We do not condemn black people for being afraid apartheid will happen again.
Why do we condemn him?
Click to expand...

I also understand why he said it, he said it coz he is a dumbfk. If you are judging somebody(before you know anything about them) purely based on race, it IS a phobia.

We here on MyBB DO condemn people for thinking Apartheid will come back, because there is no evidence for it and it allows the ANC to run rampant out of fear and ignorance. People cause REAL harm with their idiotic beliefs.
 
Gyre said:
Go tell them, I won't stop you. It's stupid, it may be a marketing gimmick but it undermines people's identity.
Click to expand...
I personally would not be a part of such advertisement but let us say there is a company which has only 100% LGBTQ+ people as owners and they put up a advertisement like that, would you consider it stupid or marketing gimmick only?

As for myself, I won't really consider it silly as of today. But fast forward few years if/when there is hardly any stigma attached to it, then I will consider it silly so my stance is likely to change on evidence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X