Except Dilbert never mentioned the inferiority or superiority of any race, at least according to the article.

Race-ism. The ideology of race. It is the fundamental idea motivating every racially discriminatory act. One has to racially discriminate in order to formulate the question, ask the question, record the results, etc.

He mentioned moving to a neighborhood with mostly white people and how it's much better citing Don Lemon:

So that’s what I did, I went to a neighbourhood where, you know, they have a very low black population, because unfortunately, you know, there’s a high correlation between the density, and this is according to Don Lemon, by the way. So here, I’m just quoting Don Lemon when he notes that the, when he lived in a mostly black neighbourhood, there are a bunch of problems that he didn’t see in white neighbourhoods. So even Don Lemon sees a big difference in your own quality of living, based on where he lives and who is there.

That's the part I think is more damning.

Race-ism. The ideology of race. It is the fundamental idea motivating every racially discriminatory act. — NOS4A2

This doesn't tell me anything. What is this "ideology" or "idea" that you're talking about? I don't even know if you intend "race-ism" to be racism.

Some Captain Obvious statements:

Race relations are strained, with many blacks having no trust in white people in looking after black people's interests, and many whites not believing blacks full contributors to societal productivity. That has existed for as long as any of us have been alive.

I would expect that polls can be utilized to expose those fault lines, and I would expect that some of those polls may not be fully accurate. But, in any event, the answer has never been that we throw in the towel, that we declare one another hateful motherfuckers, that we avoid one another, and that we figure out how to live in different corners of the country. We actually tried that and it didn't really work out so well.

What Adams did, or tried to do, was throw fuel on the fire by reporting how poorly we might be getting along, and then explaining how now it's just time to cut ties and try to live in peacful hatefulness, together, but seperated by distrust.

I don't think things are at that point, and I don't think Adams is a force of good in our world who ought be placed in a position of exerting influence. Declaring that we all inherently hate one another and that there is no hope is neither correct nor helpful, and it just serves to worsen matters by fanning flames.

The hyphen was to differentiate between the root word and the suffix in order to illustrate what I think is the definition. “Race” means the taxonomy of race. “-ism” means ideology or doctrine. So I intend race-ism to be racism.

General question concerning this subject:

Does (non-violent) racism (dislike, mistrust, prejudice) in the minds of “white” people EQUAL the same type of racism in “black” people?

In other words:
(Does White racism = Black racism ? )

Does (non-violent) racism (dislike, mistrust, prejudice) in the minds of “white” people EQUAL the same type of racism in “black” people?

In other words:
(Does White racism = Black racism ? ) — 0 thru 9

I think I can help out on this one. There is a vast difference between the prejudice of the empowered and that of the disempowered. The very simplest illustration of this is the racist violence perpetrated by black police officers against a black man recently.

Yes. The belief in and proliferation of bad ideas can be held by anyone, regardless of what they look like.

The belief in and proliferation of bad ideas can be held by anyone, regardless of what they look like. — NOS4A2

:up:

Race-ism. The ideology of race. It is the fundamental idea motivating every racially discriminatory act. One has to racially discriminate in order to formulate the question, ask the question, record the results, etc. — NOS4A2

:roll: Mere classification is not what motivates discrimination. Greed or selfishness motivates discrimination.

To classify is to discriminate by definition.

To classify is to discriminate by definition. — NOS4A2

My poor LPs!

To classify is to discriminate by definition. — NOS4A2

So distinguishing an apple from an orange is fruitism? :brow:

Apples and oranges are different species.

The hyphen was to differentiate between the root word and the suffix in order to illustrate what I think is the definition. “Race” means the taxonomy of race. “-ism” means ideology or doctrine. So I intend race-ism to be racism. — NOS4A2

Doesn't really tell me what doctrine is being referred to here. If it simply means acknowledging the existence of different races then that's not what most people mean by "racism".

You’re missing the point. I’ve distinguished apples and oranges and therefore, according to your “reasoning”, I’m a fruitist.

Race does not exist in any biological sense, though. So it’s a superstition. So what exactly are you acknowledging? That it has been used to propel false theories? That’s exactly my point.

Call yourself what you want, but both apples and oranges are fruit. So applying your “reasoning”, discriminating between both light and dark-skinned people is humanism.

Again you’re missing the point. Mere classification is not what motivates discrimination. Greed or selfishness motivates discrimination. Can you speak to the point?

Race does not exist in any biological sense, though. So it’s a superstition. — NOS4A2

Either this is sophistry or your statement is completely wrong. If you're trying to make some other point then just make it.

Discriminating between individuals is one thing; discriminating between false taxonomies of human beings is quite another. I don’t think your point approaches the issue at all.

What’s wrong with it? that most people, including yourself, believe otherwise?

So distinguishing an apple from an orange is fruitism? :brow: — praxis

Not really, but it is quite fruit-tile (futile). If Adam and Eve had eaten an orange instead of an apple, we might all still be in paradise now. :wink: (sorry)

I think I can help out on this one. There is a vast difference between the prejudice of the empowered and that of the disempowered. The very simplest illustration of this is the racist violence perpetrated by black police officers against a black man recently. — unenlightened

I tend to agree with this sentiment, that the “two racisms” are NOT exactly equal. Of course, any racism is best avoided... all things being equal (which they rarely are).

Discriminating between individuals is one thing; discriminating between false taxonomies of human beings is quite another. — NOS4A2

How so? Both are discriminatory.

Going back to this...

Race-ism. The ideology of race. It is the fundamental idea motivating every racially discriminatory act. — NOS4A2

I imagine you believe that the "ideology of race" is the dogmatic belief in the "false taxonomies of human beings"? If so, this doesn't explain at all how this false taxonomy motivates every act of discrimination.

Green apples and red apples are of the same species, yet there's a deeply held dogmatic belief in this false taxonomy that distinguishes green and red apples. According to you this is appleism. Merely distinguishing green and red apples motivates people to perform discriminatory acts against apples. It is true that in order to discriminate against something you first need to identify it. Obviously though, it takes more than merely identifying a green apple or a red apple to discriminate against one or the other. The idea or identification alone is not a motivator.

The 'false taxonomies of human beings' is not what motivates every racially discriminatory act.

You should ask yourself what does motivate discrimination.

There is nothing wrong with discrimination qua discrimination. We can discriminate between individuals, good and evil, competent and incompetent, skilled or unskilled, and so on. But discriminating against someone on account of their membership on in a false taxonomy is, ironically, an inability to discriminate between individuals.

If it isn't the belief in racial groups that motivates the discrimination against their members, perhaps you can name something else that is.

discriminating against someone on account of their membership on in a false taxonomy is, ironically, an inability to discriminate between individuals. — NOS4A2

Not true. A full-blown nazi white supremacist, or Scott Adams for that matter, has the ability to distinguish individuals.

If it isn't the belief in racial groups that motivates the discrimination against their members, perhaps you can name something else that is. — NOS4A2

It's a bad question but I'm curious how false taxonomies motivate discrimination against others. I have no idea how you would try to explain that. Please try.

If it isn't the belief in racial groups that motivates the discrimination against their members, perhaps you can name something else that is. — NOS4A2

Because they can, and advantage can be gained from disadvantaging others.

Bottom-line cancel culture' in full effect is on display. Predictable. Like 'suicide by mod' here on TPF. — 180 Proof

Watching Adams respond to the Rasmusson Poll did seem like a deliberate career-ending act. [It's on YouTube -- The relevant video is in Episode 2027 of Scott Adams vlog, starting at 13:28] He's been doing Dilbert for about 34 years.

The Rasmusson Poll isn't a scam, but it isn't a highly rated polling organization either. Adams peevishness seemed like a 'put on' to me. Why fasten on to a third-rate poll result (automated telephone/internet polling)? His response doesn't seem sufficiently motivated by the poll itself.

I don't know anything about Adams and I've never been very interested in Dilbert. I can't tell whether he was being serious or merely provocative. Did he miscalculate the effect of his provocative statements? Don't know.

I don't much care, either. I don't own any stock in Adams or Dilbert. But provocations like his make it more difficult to have any sort of nuanced response because it drives people into extreme positions.

The hard-core damage of racism isn't done by people like Adams. It's done through national and corporate policies that have highly material consequences. If Adams wants to avoid living in close proximity to blacks, he would be making a choice that a good share of white people have made in the past and still make. The whole post-WWII housing program was a policy of multi-generational racial segregation: Urban core rental apartments for blacks, home ownership in the suburbs for whites. The official policy isn't in effect now, but the effect is on-going, and new instances of racial segregation are also on-going.

Adams saying he was going to live with other white people is hardly a remarkable stance. It's a choice that has been officially facilitated for what -- 50,000,000 American white families? 60,000,000? Many.

Cancelation is an easy response. Ask yourself: Where do the executives of the newspaper chains cancelling Dilbert live? In racially mixed urban cores, or in gated communities? In iffy-conflict zones between wealthy and poor communities, or solidly within wealthy communities?

Not true. A full-blown nazi white supremacist, or Scott Adams for that matter, has the ability to distinguish individuals.

I said discriminating against someone on account of their membership on in a false taxonomy is an inability to discriminate between individuals, not that individuals are unable to distinguish between individuals. Rather than let the individual inform their behaviors, they let the false taxonomy do so.

It's a bad question but I'm curious how false taxonomies motivate discrimination against others. I have no idea how you would try to explain that. Please try.

I'm assuming people are motivated by their beliefs. If you believe in racial taxonomies it gives reason to discriminate against its members on racial grounds. If you do not believe in racial taxonomies it does not give reason to discriminate on racial grounds.