Dilbert creator Scott Adams may have inadvertently cancelled himself by telling white people to get the hell away from black people labelling them as a hate group based on the results of a Rasmussen poll which revealed how black people responded to the question, “what do you think about the statement its okay to be white.” The poll result showed that from the 130 black respondents who took the poll 26% disagreed with the statement, 21% were not sure whether they agreed or disagreed, and 53% agreed with the statement.
Scott Adams looked at this poll and concluded that almost half of black people thought it was not okay to be white, hence the need to get away from them as this showed that they are a hate group. First, what does the question even mean? What did the respondents think they were responding to? I have no idea of knowing, but I would like to posit that in a worst-case scenario, those who disagreed with the statement held negative views about white people.
Let us assume that this poll is a true reflection of black feelings towards white people. I have had conversations with a few African Americans who say the poll likely resembles what is obtainable amongst African Americans. On the assumption that the poll is accurate and to be charitable to Scott Adams if half of a group has negative feelings towards you, it’s a perfectly reasonable proposition to say, stay away from them, but the catch is, that’s not what the poll data reveals. The poll data if anything reveals the opposite of what Scott Adams claimed it to be.
The majority of black respondents 53% thought it was okay to be white, the minority 26% thought otherwise and given American racial history, those numbers don’t seem outrageous. That leaves 21% who were not sure. Adams decided to add the 21% who were not sure to the 26% who disagreed with the statement. He in effect turned a neutral into a negative. This is most uncharitable of Adams, to say the least.
Based on this misrepresentation of statistical data, I think Adam’s conclusion is not only wrong but sinister, which brings into question what his motivations were. This type of hyperbolic language is dangerous and feeds into the narrative that black people hate white people and want to harm them. Many whites would see this as a confirmation of such feelings which will in turn build resentment and hatred towards black people and we can see how this can perpetuate racial animosity.
Even if this poll revealed that half of black people hold negative views about white people, a case can be made for the position that it is not much of a big deal, the reason being that people often hold negative opinions or views about another group and never act on such negative opinions, so even if this were true, chances are, for most black people, it doesn’t go beyond how they feel about white people. I suspect that a similar percentage of white people hold negative opinions about black people too, but the vast majority as well don’t act on those feelings.
Scott Adams and many on the right claim that despite the backlash, nobody has been able to say that he is wrong. Well, I say this boldly, Scott Adams is wrong. He is wrong in drawing such conclusions from a faulty premise. If the data showed that almost half of black people held negative opinions about white people, I’d have no problem with his recommendation; at most I’d think it’s a stupid recommendation, but not an invalid one. But his recommendation is both stupid and invalid.
Scott Adams has stated as part of the validation for his recommendation, the proliferation of videos showing black people being violent against white people. He sees this as proof and confirmation of his interpretation of the poll. What he fails to see is the selection bias and manufactured chaos going on.
Let’s use a favourite example on the right to make a point. Police shootings of black people. When black people make the claim that they are being hunted by the police based on videos circulating on social media of police killing unarmed black men, the right puts on their very critical and analytical hat and break down the data to prove that that is not the case. They quote that there are millions of police interactions in the US every year and that only a few of such interactions lead to lethal outcomes, they then conclude that the problem is an exaggerated one. I agree with them, they are right.
But this is exactly why I’m bemused that they do not use the same argument or extend the same charity to black people when videos of them beating up white people are being shared on social media. There are more than 40 million black people in America, and there are millions of interactions between white and black people in America every year, the majority of those interactions are peaceful. How do they fail to see this? How does Scott Adam not see this? I mean it’s the same argument as with the police shooting of black people, yet they validate one and reject the other.
People are not as objective as they think they are, they would ignore evidence that contradicts their held beliefs and embrace similar evidence if it supports their belief. If I were to ask Scott Adams if he’s ever been a victim of black violence, he’d probably say no, and most white people would probably say no too, so where does this notion that black people have ramped up their attacks on white people come from? In fact, these attacks may have been the same for decades or may be coming down, but with the multiplying power of social media, the problem can be made to seem worse than it truly is. A more discerning person would have seen through that.
Scott Adams after the fact has tried to play off his statements as sacrificing himself just so the contentious racial conversation can be had. I call BS on that, the conversation has been ongoing for decades, he’s not the first neither will he be the last to broach this contentious topic of black and white relations in America; as if that’s not a major theme of American political discourse already. His self-ascribed martyrdom will do nothing in the grand scheme of things, it would not significantly move the needle of racial tensions in any direction, the only thing it has achieved was to fuel his hubris in thinking that by being provocative he would spark a discussion that would lead to a resolution of America’s racial issues.
His comments would soon be forgotten, and life would go on as usual.
Charles Ekokotu (Pharm. D.) is a bibliophile, prose fiction writer, poet, and playwright. His first self-published novel, Hotel Shendam—a crime fiction novel featuring a debate on race and colonialism—is available on Amazon. A very fun read! Grab a copy now!
Follow Charles Ekokotu on
Is it actually possible, morally, to be ‘neutral’ on the question of whether it’s okay to be white or any racial or ethnic group? Not according to what clearly seems to be Adams’ take on the poll question. ‘Not sure’? Anything less than a full throated ‘yes, of course’ it’s okay to be white, black, Jewish, Indian, etc. to me is automatically suspect. The question itself is a non starter, racist even to ask, and constitutes a kind of trap, given current racial discourse around such politicized concepts as ‘whiteness’ and the ever expanding definition of ‘white supremacy’. Thus, to be charitable to those on the fence, it’s only acceptable if they were simply unsure what the question meant. Perhaps Adams should have considered that, but we only know their literal position and it’s not unreasonable to draw a worst case conclusion. Ultimately, though, I think it’s Rasmussen that should be cancelled for asking the question at all. It’s pure poison.
Cultural differences and preferences aside, holding "racial" or sex identities as our prime filter for how we judge each other leads to only to destructive social and civic feelings.
All people when viewed in groups have better and worse, smarter and not so smart, morally good and bad people which overlap when mapped against the other groups. We must judge each interactive experience and each individual as just that..individual.
Yes, as you state, Adams reacted needlessly to the poll but, IMO, the poll was needless too.