FLE - Scott Adams, creator of the comic strip Dilbert, poses for a portrait with the Dilbert character in his studio in Dublin, Calif., Oct. 26, 2006. Several prominent media publishers across the U.S. are dropping the Dilbert comic strip after Adams, its creator, described people who are Black as members of “a racist hate group” during an online video show.
FLE - Scott Adams, creator of the comic strip Dilbert, poses for a portrait with the Dilbert character in his studio in Dublin, Calif., Oct. 26, 2006. Several prominent media publishers across the U.S. are dropping the Dilbert comic strip after Adams, its creator, described people who are Black as members of “a racist hate group” during an online video show.
The Bulletin, like many other newspapers across the country, is no longer running Dilbert by cartoonist Scott Adams, because of racial comments he has made recently. The cartoon's distributor, Andrews McMeel, has stopped distributing the strip. It is now unavailable.
Several prominent media publishers across the U.S. are dropping Dilbert, they announced over the weekend, because Adams described people who are Black as members of “a racist hate group” during an online video show.
The daily strip will remain blank until a new comic strip can be selected. That is where you, our readers come in. This is a perfect time to let us know what comic strip you would like to see replace Dilbert. And while you are at it, let us know which strips you like or no longer care for.
In the coming days we hope to get a full comics survey out to readers, but it will take some time. Likewise the Sunday Dilbert cartoon has already been published two weeks in advance, so it will not disappear until mid-March.
As a white person, if somebody asked me "Is it okay to be white" my response would simply be "Do I have a choice?" Same answer if they asked me is it's OK to be black. It's a poorly posed question and for anybody to take it seriously shows an overwhelming lack of judgement. For Scott Adams to not only take it seriously but then interpret what the results actually mean (which I think is "nothing") and turn it into some type of racist condemnation is reprehensible.
The people who asked the question should never have asked it. If they want to find out how black people feel towards whites just ask them THAT instead of wrapping it inside some ridiculously obtuse question whose answer tells you nothing.
In response to another article: "because of the respect for the scientific consensus developed by the experts in each field. The consensus works so well because anybody with the right training can independently test it."
As a PhD Engineer, you indirectly admit you don't know clinical research or applied science. Engineering doesn't require to my knowledge, basic science, but you can call yourself doctor. You then go on to type a bunch of high sounding sentences, but ultimately say nothing at all related to what I wrote. That's called loquaciousness and is vapid suggesting more you have more confidence than competence. Why do you think I don’t provide my credentials? Because I don’t expect to persuade people using my credentials and rely solely on my arguments.
Science is not an endeavor in consensus, it is developed by debate using logic and evidence. Science is an epistemological endeavor to discover the truth, not declare truth and squash dissenters as you attempt to do. To top it off, you missed my point - the challenge is for anyone to cite a high quality, gold standard research article showing masking works in children. That's not ignorance on my part, it's ignorance on yours. If you had studied the history of science, you would know that many ideas initially thought to be truth turn out to be completely wrong. Why has there been no debate and those who have different points of view demonized in the last 3 years?
Where have the experts been wrong? Do you remember when Fauci said masks didn’t work and then 6 weeks later said they did? Well then, where’s the science? Did Fauci have an immaculate conception, and delivered a beautiful little bouncing baby mask study? Then there’s the lab leak conspiracy, lack of effectiveness of masking, closing down schools, masking children, vaccinating men under age of 40 and children in general, lack of vaccine effectiveness to stop transmission, natural infection and the 6 foot rule? If that’s what you mean by consensus, then why do we need enemies?
Finally, anything related to covid has not been adequately researched, thus no consensus is even possible: the sciency thing to do, instead of listening to those who are supposedly more educated is to debate and argue based on facts, which are clearly inadequate. Experts these days suck and as one of them, I get to see behind the curtain. All recommendations from Fauci were univariate proscriptions, whom you probably believe is science. He policed and didn’t debate. He proclaimed and then silenced those who disagreed. That’s not science sir.
I wonder why Scott Adams is censored for remarks outside of his comic strip but Donald Trump never was for far more damaging messages for our whole country.
Is there a specific Dilbert cartoon that you find offensive? Or is it that he should be shunned and punished for expressing his personal opinion in a different forum? Personally, I find many Doonesbury cartoons offensive but I am not calling for him to be cancelled.
As Editor of the Bend Bulletin, your job should be to ensure your readers are exposed to the widest possible range of speech and thought. Your decision to cancel the Dilbert strip shows that you instead cater to those who want to marginalize free thought and free expression.
People who don’t want to read the Dilbert column are free to skip over it. But there are people who are not offended by Dilbert and find it humorous. Your decision means that the majority of your readership (the normal people in our society) can no longer read that column locally.
Because of your ‘woke’ decision, I will no longer subscribe to your paper. Cancel my digital subscription immediately.
I think this is a good decision by the Bulletin. Scott Adams has labeled an entire race a "hate group." That is racist. It is also ignorant. A business like the Bulletin has the right to decide who it will do business with. Adams has a right to his views, but there are consequences when it comes to business. I think he believes what he says and is paying the price. That's life.
I agree that Scott and The Bulletin can do as they please and Scott is accepting that his comic is being canceled. So, for me, that is off the table.
I also agree he did say blacks as a group are part of a hate group and was being overly broad. He later refined it to apply to the 47%, one shouldn’t assume individuals are hateful and we should all treat each other civilly at an individual level. I would cast stones at his imprecision, but aren’t we all? So, in your opinion, is he more likely a racist or was he simply imprecise?
The most important point that seems to be is that 47% of blacks aren't able to able to completely agree, "It's okay to be white.". The obverse question is, "Is it bad to be white?" and the 47% agree or aren’t sure, when they unequivocally should disagree. In other words, the poll question is really asking people of all colors if they are racist and it appears 47% of blacks are, but there are still quite a few people of all races that are bigoted as well. Based on this poll, black Americans have the highest degree of racism against whites, and in my opinion, all racism is unacceptable. When we accept racism anywhere, we should expect an increase of racism everywhere.
If you are able to view Scott’s video, what does he say at the end that blacks are not doing that would help them and thus why he is no longer willing to help?
On a positive note, 53% of blacks agree that whites are okay, which is quite important to keep in mind.
Interestingly, only 51% of Democrats and 73% of Republicans agree strongly with the question, and should be 100% in my opinion. That means that 27% of Republicans and 49% of Democrats don’t believe being white is okay, which is crazy as well. The take home message is that there is a very large group of people, white and black, democrat and republican, who have a deficiency of self insight. For me, this overall isn’t a black vs. white issue, it’s an issue of people with overly simplistic and negative views based on where one falls on the skin tone spectrum compared to those of us who value all human life. I don’t want to associate with any person who can’t strongly agree it’s okay to be any skin color.
The Bulletin is furthering false claims of racism by choosing to pull Dilbert, but I prefer they do as they please so I know who I am dealing with. So, what do you say, is being white okay?
I would add that you missed Scott was responding to the Rasmussen poll about blacks essentially being racist towards whites and therefore a hate group. So, in your opinion, a white person calling out black people for their racism is the on who is racist? Isn't that cognitively dissonant? No need to answer for my benefit.
I vote to keep Dilbert. It has been my favorite comic from the very beginning.
I have followed Scott intermittently over the years. Based on my impression of how he approaches things and what he says in general about racial issues, the interpretation that what he said as "racial"/racist doesn't sound correct. So, I looked up the clip and then watched his interview with Hotep Jesus, who is a self described, former black nationalist. Scott was referring to a Rasmussen poll that posed the question, "Is it okay to be white?", which found that 53% of blacks agree, and of course 47% either don't have an opinion or disagree with the question. At least for me, the most reasonable interpretation is that his comments aren't at all racist. I interpret his statements to mean that if there are people that you perceive are likely to discriminate against you, avoid them. Race is a part of the discussion as this is a hot, social topic of the day and needs to be discussed, not cancelled by our "brave, empowering" local paper.
The question I have is how can anyone believe it is not okay to be any race or even have difficulty answering the question? Of course, if people don't believe it is okay to be who you are based on your skin color, how do you argue that isn't hateful, as Scott said? Just think if white people said, "it isn't okay to be black?". Those people would be immediately and appropriately denounced and Gerry would have no problem seeing the racism. But he inexplicably can't see that around 47% of blacks in the poll have problems with white people, based solely on skin color, are potentially racist.
My pre-disposition is to believe what Scott said isn't racist as it is a life lesson that I have learned and applied to white people who don't share my work ethic, certain personal values, and difficult people in general. I avoid anyone that I believe will bring me down, and such individuals, thus far, have all been white. Race has never been a consideration personally. The corollary is go where you are accepted, which is a no brainer. If you are black, reasonably well educated, why would you not apply for a job at a fortune 500 company, which have been trying, relatively unsuccessfully, to hire blacks for decades over a non-fortune 500 company? You will be hired over a more educated and experienced white person, and at an individual level, I wouldn't fault you for taking the job. But racism doesn't fix racism. If you get that fortune 500 job, pay goes up, why wouldn't you leave the high crime neighborhood, even if it is black? Of course you would and it means nothing about how you see other black people.
In briefly looking at this poll, it does appear that the majority of people aren't racially divided, and is why I am bothering to write this response as the poll comports with my perception: we as a nation are actually much more aligned than divided. The above editorial also reinforces my perception that the media is pushing the belief that we are more racially divided than reality and experience would support. Gerry said Scott made "racial", not racist, comments. I would interpret this statement that it is unacceptable for a person with white skin to say anything about other races at all, even if not racist, about non-whites. Which implies whites should have racially based speech limitations: oh the hypocrisy coming from a paper who pushes back against judges preventing reporters from covering cases. Even though Gerry is white, that is still bigoted, and suggests he knows that what Scott said wasn't racist.
I'm afraid you have missed the point and need to read what Adams has said. He has labeled an entire race a "hate group." That is both racist and ignorant.
Don't be afraid, I didn't miss the point. If you listen to his interview with Hotep Jesus, he offers a wider description of what preceded the controversial statements. He was talking about career success: don't go where they don't like you. He also did say that based on his experience of trying to help black people that it ended in him being called racist, so he concluded he will stop trying to help black people. Don’t you think it would be important if someone as well known as Scott Adams, a self described liberal, is saying things like this that there is a conversation we should be having that we aren’t?
If you really want to know, listen to the initial podcast and the Hotep interview. He doesn't, and clearly hasn't in the past, judged people by their skin color. His point is that, according to the poll, 47% of black people do judge white people and are thus racist: I agree. If white racism is bad, then black racism is bad, no matter how contorted the excuses are. Black racism is the most apparent form of racism in modern society today, yet, whites and blacks don't want to discuss it. Denial doesn't make it go away, just worse.
So far as avoiding people who hate you, one can substitute a myriad of other categories other than race. What is very odd to me is that people like you, assuming you are white, and Gerry apparently agree that it isn’t okay to be white. Personally, I agree that is okay to be any skin color, which means that skin color itself is irrelevant. People have many other characteristics that are more important than skin color. Why are so many people so fixated on skin color? If you really think it through, our obsession on skin color is more harmful compared to the racism that does exist.
Finally, note how I don’t make a personal attack on you, Gerry or anyone else. I argue the points and your skin tone doesn’t really matter to my arguments. On the other hand, your ideas and what you say are completely open to criticism.
See my response above. In short, since 47% of black people in this poll appear to be racist and I can't differentiate them from the other 53%, depending on the situation, I very well may stay the h*ll away from them. Further, if I am dealing with another person of my social caste, who believes it isn't okay to be white, I will shun them as well.
Question: should you avoid people who state they hate you? Answer: yes. Is this a universal truth or is this only true of one race and racist if it is another group?
Do you agree that racism by any group is unacceptable, or does that depend on skin tone?
Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism
that is degrading to another person. Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness
accounts, the history behind an article.
The Bulletin news app is superfast, easy to use and gets you right to the news you want. When it's local Central Oregon news you can’t get anywhere else, our team will make sure you are in the know.
Get The Bulletin on iPhone®, iPad®, Android™ or Kindle
(15) comments
As a white person, if somebody asked me "Is it okay to be white" my response would simply be "Do I have a choice?" Same answer if they asked me is it's OK to be black. It's a poorly posed question and for anybody to take it seriously shows an overwhelming lack of judgement. For Scott Adams to not only take it seriously but then interpret what the results actually mean (which I think is "nothing") and turn it into some type of racist condemnation is reprehensible.
The people who asked the question should never have asked it. If they want to find out how black people feel towards whites just ask them THAT instead of wrapping it inside some ridiculously obtuse question whose answer tells you nothing.
In response to another article: "because of the respect for the scientific consensus developed by the experts in each field. The consensus works so well because anybody with the right training can independently test it."
As a PhD Engineer, you indirectly admit you don't know clinical research or applied science. Engineering doesn't require to my knowledge, basic science, but you can call yourself doctor. You then go on to type a bunch of high sounding sentences, but ultimately say nothing at all related to what I wrote. That's called loquaciousness and is vapid suggesting more you have more confidence than competence. Why do you think I don’t provide my credentials? Because I don’t expect to persuade people using my credentials and rely solely on my arguments.
Science is not an endeavor in consensus, it is developed by debate using logic and evidence. Science is an epistemological endeavor to discover the truth, not declare truth and squash dissenters as you attempt to do. To top it off, you missed my point - the challenge is for anyone to cite a high quality, gold standard research article showing masking works in children. That's not ignorance on my part, it's ignorance on yours. If you had studied the history of science, you would know that many ideas initially thought to be truth turn out to be completely wrong. Why has there been no debate and those who have different points of view demonized in the last 3 years?
Where have the experts been wrong? Do you remember when Fauci said masks didn’t work and then 6 weeks later said they did? Well then, where’s the science? Did Fauci have an immaculate conception, and delivered a beautiful little bouncing baby mask study? Then there’s the lab leak conspiracy, lack of effectiveness of masking, closing down schools, masking children, vaccinating men under age of 40 and children in general, lack of vaccine effectiveness to stop transmission, natural infection and the 6 foot rule? If that’s what you mean by consensus, then why do we need enemies?
Finally, anything related to covid has not been adequately researched, thus no consensus is even possible: the sciency thing to do, instead of listening to those who are supposedly more educated is to debate and argue based on facts, which are clearly inadequate. Experts these days suck and as one of them, I get to see behind the curtain. All recommendations from Fauci were univariate proscriptions, whom you probably believe is science. He policed and didn’t debate. He proclaimed and then silenced those who disagreed. That’s not science sir.
I wonder why Scott Adams is censored for remarks outside of his comic strip but Donald Trump never was for far more damaging messages for our whole country.
Is there a specific Dilbert cartoon that you find offensive? Or is it that he should be shunned and punished for expressing his personal opinion in a different forum? Personally, I find many Doonesbury cartoons offensive but I am not calling for him to be cancelled.
Mr. Obrien,
As Editor of the Bend Bulletin, your job should be to ensure your readers are exposed to the widest possible range of speech and thought. Your decision to cancel the Dilbert strip shows that you instead cater to those who want to marginalize free thought and free expression.
People who don’t want to read the Dilbert column are free to skip over it. But there are people who are not offended by Dilbert and find it humorous. Your decision means that the majority of your readership (the normal people in our society) can no longer read that column locally.
Because of your ‘woke’ decision, I will no longer subscribe to your paper. Cancel my digital subscription immediately.
I think this is a good decision by the Bulletin. Scott Adams has labeled an entire race a "hate group." That is racist. It is also ignorant. A business like the Bulletin has the right to decide who it will do business with. Adams has a right to his views, but there are consequences when it comes to business. I think he believes what he says and is paying the price. That's life.
I agree that Scott and The Bulletin can do as they please and Scott is accepting that his comic is being canceled. So, for me, that is off the table.
I also agree he did say blacks as a group are part of a hate group and was being overly broad. He later refined it to apply to the 47%, one shouldn’t assume individuals are hateful and we should all treat each other civilly at an individual level. I would cast stones at his imprecision, but aren’t we all? So, in your opinion, is he more likely a racist or was he simply imprecise?
The most important point that seems to be is that 47% of blacks aren't able to able to completely agree, "It's okay to be white.". The obverse question is, "Is it bad to be white?" and the 47% agree or aren’t sure, when they unequivocally should disagree. In other words, the poll question is really asking people of all colors if they are racist and it appears 47% of blacks are, but there are still quite a few people of all races that are bigoted as well. Based on this poll, black Americans have the highest degree of racism against whites, and in my opinion, all racism is unacceptable. When we accept racism anywhere, we should expect an increase of racism everywhere.
If you are able to view Scott’s video, what does he say at the end that blacks are not doing that would help them and thus why he is no longer willing to help?
On a positive note, 53% of blacks agree that whites are okay, which is quite important to keep in mind.
Interestingly, only 51% of Democrats and 73% of Republicans agree strongly with the question, and should be 100% in my opinion. That means that 27% of Republicans and 49% of Democrats don’t believe being white is okay, which is crazy as well. The take home message is that there is a very large group of people, white and black, democrat and republican, who have a deficiency of self insight. For me, this overall isn’t a black vs. white issue, it’s an issue of people with overly simplistic and negative views based on where one falls on the skin tone spectrum compared to those of us who value all human life. I don’t want to associate with any person who can’t strongly agree it’s okay to be any skin color.
The Bulletin is furthering false claims of racism by choosing to pull Dilbert, but I prefer they do as they please so I know who I am dealing with. So, what do you say, is being white okay?
I would add that you missed Scott was responding to the Rasmussen poll about blacks essentially being racist towards whites and therefore a hate group. So, in your opinion, a white person calling out black people for their racism is the on who is racist? Isn't that cognitively dissonant? No need to answer for my benefit.
I vote to keep Dilbert. It has been my favorite comic from the very beginning.
I have followed Scott intermittently over the years. Based on my impression of how he approaches things and what he says in general about racial issues, the interpretation that what he said as "racial"/racist doesn't sound correct. So, I looked up the clip and then watched his interview with Hotep Jesus, who is a self described, former black nationalist. Scott was referring to a Rasmussen poll that posed the question, "Is it okay to be white?", which found that 53% of blacks agree, and of course 47% either don't have an opinion or disagree with the question. At least for me, the most reasonable interpretation is that his comments aren't at all racist. I interpret his statements to mean that if there are people that you perceive are likely to discriminate against you, avoid them. Race is a part of the discussion as this is a hot, social topic of the day and needs to be discussed, not cancelled by our "brave, empowering" local paper.
The question I have is how can anyone believe it is not okay to be any race or even have difficulty answering the question? Of course, if people don't believe it is okay to be who you are based on your skin color, how do you argue that isn't hateful, as Scott said? Just think if white people said, "it isn't okay to be black?". Those people would be immediately and appropriately denounced and Gerry would have no problem seeing the racism. But he inexplicably can't see that around 47% of blacks in the poll have problems with white people, based solely on skin color, are potentially racist.
My pre-disposition is to believe what Scott said isn't racist as it is a life lesson that I have learned and applied to white people who don't share my work ethic, certain personal values, and difficult people in general. I avoid anyone that I believe will bring me down, and such individuals, thus far, have all been white. Race has never been a consideration personally. The corollary is go where you are accepted, which is a no brainer. If you are black, reasonably well educated, why would you not apply for a job at a fortune 500 company, which have been trying, relatively unsuccessfully, to hire blacks for decades over a non-fortune 500 company? You will be hired over a more educated and experienced white person, and at an individual level, I wouldn't fault you for taking the job. But racism doesn't fix racism. If you get that fortune 500 job, pay goes up, why wouldn't you leave the high crime neighborhood, even if it is black? Of course you would and it means nothing about how you see other black people.
In briefly looking at this poll, it does appear that the majority of people aren't racially divided, and is why I am bothering to write this response as the poll comports with my perception: we as a nation are actually much more aligned than divided. The above editorial also reinforces my perception that the media is pushing the belief that we are more racially divided than reality and experience would support. Gerry said Scott made "racial", not racist, comments. I would interpret this statement that it is unacceptable for a person with white skin to say anything about other races at all, even if not racist, about non-whites. Which implies whites should have racially based speech limitations: oh the hypocrisy coming from a paper who pushes back against judges preventing reporters from covering cases. Even though Gerry is white, that is still bigoted, and suggests he knows that what Scott said wasn't racist.
I'm afraid you have missed the point and need to read what Adams has said. He has labeled an entire race a "hate group." That is both racist and ignorant.
Don't be afraid, I didn't miss the point. If you listen to his interview with Hotep Jesus, he offers a wider description of what preceded the controversial statements. He was talking about career success: don't go where they don't like you. He also did say that based on his experience of trying to help black people that it ended in him being called racist, so he concluded he will stop trying to help black people. Don’t you think it would be important if someone as well known as Scott Adams, a self described liberal, is saying things like this that there is a conversation we should be having that we aren’t?
If you really want to know, listen to the initial podcast and the Hotep interview. He doesn't, and clearly hasn't in the past, judged people by their skin color. His point is that, according to the poll, 47% of black people do judge white people and are thus racist: I agree. If white racism is bad, then black racism is bad, no matter how contorted the excuses are. Black racism is the most apparent form of racism in modern society today, yet, whites and blacks don't want to discuss it. Denial doesn't make it go away, just worse.
So far as avoiding people who hate you, one can substitute a myriad of other categories other than race. What is very odd to me is that people like you, assuming you are white, and Gerry apparently agree that it isn’t okay to be white. Personally, I agree that is okay to be any skin color, which means that skin color itself is irrelevant. People have many other characteristics that are more important than skin color. Why are so many people so fixated on skin color? If you really think it through, our obsession on skin color is more harmful compared to the racism that does exist.
Finally, note how I don’t make a personal attack on you, Gerry or anyone else. I argue the points and your skin tone doesn’t really matter to my arguments. On the other hand, your ideas and what you say are completely open to criticism.
Here's a quote:
"the best advice I would give white people is to get the h*ll away from Black people." - Scott Adams
Keep defending him if you'd like.
(Dilbert isn't funny anyways)
See my response above. In short, since 47% of black people in this poll appear to be racist and I can't differentiate them from the other 53%, depending on the situation, I very well may stay the h*ll away from them. Further, if I am dealing with another person of my social caste, who believes it isn't okay to be white, I will shun them as well.
question: Is it okay to be white?
Good decision. Outing yourself as a racist should have consequences.
To the Bend Bulletin Editorial staff:
Question: should you avoid people who state they hate you? Answer: yes. Is this a universal truth or is this only true of one race and racist if it is another group?
Do you agree that racism by any group is unacceptable, or does that depend on skin tone?
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.