Times cancelling Dilbert creator Scott Adams

[D-train]

Adams blocked me last year. I liked him in general but he started ONLY talking about Covid and it drove me crazy so a I called him out on it.

https://www.seattletimes.com/inside-the ... 77518460-1

[GL_Storm]

Adams blocked me last year. I liked him in general but he started ONLY talking about Covid and it drove me crazy so a I called him out on it.

https://www.seattletimes.com/inside-the ... 77518460-1

I guess he said something racist. Not sure how bad it was but it doesn't take much to lose your livelihood these days, especially if you have any sort of public persona.

[D-train]

Adams blocked me last year. I liked him in general but he started ONLY talking about Covid and it drove me crazy so a I called him out on it.

https://www.seattletimes.com/inside-the ... 77518460-1

I guess he said something racist. Not sure how bad it was but it doesn't take much to lose your livelihood these days, especially if you have any sort of public persona.

It is in the article.....

[GL_Storm]

I'm not super familiar with the guy, but my take from the article is that he started going down some right wing rabbit holes, probably a decade or more ago, and as he's gotten older he's become more and more vulnerable to the stovepiped, algorithmically driven media and information landscape that feeds all of us the news and commentary that our confirmation biases are most hungry for. And he's probably been rewarded for that with his YouTube show, which is itself pushed by the algorithm to viewers that are drawn to those views. It's circular.

[gil]

I'm not super familiar with the guy, but my take from the article is that he started going down some right wing rabbit holes, probably a decade or more ago, and as he's gotten older he's become more and more vulnerable to the stovepiped, algorithmically driven media and information landscape that feeds all of us the news and commentary that our confirmation biases are most hungry for. And he's probably been rewarded for that with his YouTube show, which is itself pushed by the algorithm to viewers that are drawn to those views. It's circular.

This is a great description. I don't know about Scott Adams specifically, but it's pretty easy to settle into what seems like "many voices, many opinions" that are based on what you have liked and agreed with in the past.

[gil]

Scott Adams, in his YouTube video, was citing statistics from a Rasmussen poll. Specifically, the question they asked was "Do you agree or disagree with the statement: 'It's OK to be white.'" Among black respondents, 18% strongly disagreed, 8% somewhat disagreed, and 21% where not sure.

Context matters. "It's OK to be white" is literally an innocuous statement, one that would be difficult for a normal person to disagree with. But it's been part of trolling campaign, according to Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It's_okay_to_be_white And many people realize this.

I wonder if Rasmussen (or anyone else) has ever done a poll with the question "Do you agree or disagree with the statement: 'Black lives matter.'" I think there would be a similar aspect to the results, that is, a segment of the respondents would be reacting to the context rather than the literal meaning of the words.

[douche]

Adams ran out of material (Dilbert has been around since 1989).

Adams is 65, ripe for retirement. No real reason to carry on anyway.

His net worth is approximately $50 million.

The situation is somewhat reminiscent of Jon Gruden. His profession is done with him, and he rides off into the sunset with his millions.

This would be a lot harder if you were just a middle class joe taxpayer. But for these guys, it's not a big deal. At least from a financial standpoint.

My thoughts.

[Donn Beach]

Career change, YouTube influencer, with the publicity he has a great start

[D-train]

Scott Adams, in his YouTube video, was citing statistics from a Rasmussen poll. Specifically, the question they asked was "Do you agree or disagree with the statement: 'It's OK to be white.'" Among black respondents, 18% strongly disagreed, 8% somewhat disagreed, and 21% where not sure.

Context matters. "It's OK to be white" is literally an innocuous statement, one that would be difficult for a normal person to disagree with. But it's been part of trolling campaign, according to Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It's_okay_to_be_white And many people realize this.

I wonder if Rasmussen (or anyone else) has ever done a poll with the question "Do you agree or disagree with the statement: 'Black lives matter.'" I think there would be a similar aspect to the results, that is, a segment of the respondents would be reacting to the context rather than the literal meaning of the words.

Probably because Black lives matter isn't an opinion, it is a corrupt racist Cop hating "Org".

[gil]

Scott Adams, in his YouTube video, was citing statistics from a Rasmussen poll. Specifically, the question they asked was "Do you agree or disagree with the statement: 'It's OK to be white.'" Among black respondents, 18% strongly disagreed, 8% somewhat disagreed, and 21% where not sure.

Context matters. "It's OK to be white" is literally an innocuous statement, one that would be difficult for a normal person to disagree with. But it's been part of trolling campaign, according to Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It's_okay_to_be_white And many people realize this.

I wonder if Rasmussen (or anyone else) has ever done a poll with the question "Do you agree or disagree with the statement: 'Black lives matter.'" I think there would be a similar aspect to the results, that is, a segment of the respondents would be reacting to the context rather than the literal meaning of the words.

Probably because Black lives matter isn't an opinion, it is a corrupt racist Cop hating "Org".

I'm not going to argue with your characterization of that organization, dt. But don't overstate the importance of the organization. The slogan started before that organization existed, people who have "Black Lives Matter" yard signs and bumperstickers are not always "members" of that organization, and as far as I know, "Black Lives Matter" is not even trademarked. In other words, the term/slogan is much more an opinion and social phenomenon than an organization.

But I also think you are proving my point. If there were a survey question "Do you agree or disagree with the statement: 'Black lives matter,'" there would be a fair number of white people who would disagree ... BECAUSE of that organization, because of the context.

Scott Adams was either being disingenuous or stupid. His YouTube rant used the survey results on the "It's ok to be white" question as a basis for saying that blacks are a hate group. Obviously I don't know what was in the mind of respondents, but even I know that "It's ok to be white" has a lot of baggage ... to be taken solely at face value (i.e., just like "Black Lives Matter").