Dilbert loses newspapers, publishers, distributor, and possibly its website

[EEVblog]

Unless you're a black man actually living in the U.S. I don't think you have any idea of how bad the systemic racism is. Sure, it's not as bad as in the days of slavery and Jim Crow, but it's still pretty bad.

It's so bad you can become President, or a supreme court judge.

The key to overcoming it is to avoid anyone or any group who wants you to see yourself as a victim. "Just get the hell away" from that as Adams would say. And that has been one of his focusses recently in teaching people this. A good general life strategy.

[EEVblog]

Just checked, Twitter subscription now available. I'm going to join to get Dilbert Reborn.
EDIT: Just joined, it was AU$5/month. Not sub tweets yet, must have just got approved.

[james_s]

It's so bad you can become President, or a supreme court judge.

The key to overcoming it is to avoid anyone or any group who wants you to see yourself as a victim. "Just get the hell away" from that as Adams would say. And that has been one of his focusses recently in teaching people this. A good general life strategy.

There is no systemic racism in the US, it's a myth perpetuated by people that look at statistics, starting out with a conclusion and extrapolate data that is not there to fit the conclusion they started with. Does that mean there is no racism? Of course not, but it isn't systemic. Laws apply equally to everyone, and cases where someone of one race gets a stiffer sentence than someone of another race that get pointed out as evidence of systemic racism usually have more to the story, for example the person with the light sentence had a clean record prior to the crime in question while the one that got the stiffer sentence has multiple felonies. Black people that apply themselves are just as successful as white people. Asians and Indians which also have dark skin are statistically more successful than whites, which kind of blows a hole in the whole "America is a terrible place for people with dark skin" myth.

[james_s]

One thing I do object to is judging past people by today's standards. If you do that, then you have to condemn Thomas Jefferson because he was a slave owner - and that obviously overrules everything else he did. Doesn't it?

I strongly object to that too, and people DO condemn Thomas Jefferson for that reason.

A ridiculous example of that which is local to me, I live in King County, it was named after William Rufus King, however around 20 years ago a group of local politicians without a vote from the people decided to retroactively change the namesake to MLK and the county seal to a picture of him because William King was a slave owner. Now I have nothing at all against MLK, in fact I quite admire him, but he visited King County briefly only once in his life and he had NOTHING to do with founding it. King County is located in the state of Washington which was named after our first president George Washington who like many in his class at the time also owned slaves. I have joked that they should change the namesake of my state to Denzel Washington except I don't say that too loudly because I don't want anyone getting any ideas.

I am very bothered by people attempting to erase and revise history by quietly making edits like this. I don't know much about William King nor do I go out of my way to honor him, but the county was named after him, he did live here and was influential at the time, and to change the namesake in modern times for nothing more than political correctness is tantamount to lying. I think it's totally unreasonable to assume that any of us today, had we grown up ~200 years ago in a region where slavery was commonplace and widely seen as acceptable would have some innate belief that it was horrible and wrong. It's unfair to judge historical figures against modern cultural standards. We are all products of our environment and upbringing, morals and ethics are taught, not innate and everything is relative.

[tggzzz]

One thing I do object to is judging past people by today's standards. If you do that, then you have to condemn Thomas Jefferson because he was a slave owner - and that obviously overrules everything else he did. Doesn't it?

I strongly object to that too, and people DO condemn Thomas Jefferson for that reason.

A ridiculous example of that which is local to me, I live in King County, it was named after William Rufus King, however around 20 years ago a group of local politicians without a vote from the people decided to retroactively change the namesake to MLK and the county seal to a picture of him because William King was a slave owner. Now I have nothing at all against MLK, in fact I quite admire him, but he visited King County briefly only once in his life and he had NOTHING to do with founding it. King County is located in the state of Washington which was named after our first president George Washington who like many in his class at the time also owned slaves. I have joked that they should change the namesake of my state to Denzel Washington except I don't say that too loudly because I don't want anyone getting any ideas.

I am very bothered by people attempting to erase and revise history by quietly making edits like this. I don't know much about William King nor do I go out of my way to honor him, but the county was named after him, he did live here and was influential at the time, and to change the namesake in modern times for nothing more than political correctness is tantamount to lying. I think it's totally unreasonable to assume that any of us today, had we grown up ~200 years ago in a region where slavery was commonplace and widely seen as acceptable would have some innate belief that it was horrible and wrong. It's unfair to judge historical figures against modern cultural standards. We are all products of our environment and upbringing, morals and ethics are taught, not innate and everything is relative.

My nearby city has a proud recent tradition (over a couple of hundred years old) of riots that have occasionally changed the law of the land. The latest were over a slave transporter, Colston, who was also a city benefactor - his statue was dumped in the harbour, and his name is slowly being erased from locations.[1]

The local unelected city elders (think local Freemasons on steroids) repeatedly refused to allow explantory plaques to be attached to the statue's plinth. I'm not sure of the reasoning, but they probably didn't want attention brought to their past activities.

My preference would have been to have plaques everywhere associated with Colston, and to use them as a trigger for discussing the city's inglorious past. Now those triggers are missing, it will be easier to forget history. Not, I suspect, what the protestors and SJWs were aiming for.

[1] i suspect that in part Colston was merely a "Marlon Brando trigger", i.e. "Hey, Johnny, what are you rebelling against?" "What've you got?".

[Zero999]

Unless you're a black man actually living in the U.S. I don't think you have any idea of how bad the systemic racism is. Sure, it's not as bad as in the days of slavery and Jim Crow, but it's still pretty bad.

It's so bad you can become President, or a supreme court judge.

So, so bad, they even get the privilege of being able to say things whites can't, without consequence.

I find it odd how anyone claiming systemic racism exists in the US, can't provide any objective data to support it. All they do is cherry pick statistics which show poorer outcomes. Unequal outcome is not proof of oppression.

[james_s]

I find it odd how anyone claiming systemic racism exists in the US, can't provide any objective data to support it. All they do is cherry pick statistics which show poorer outcomes. Unequal outcome is not proof of oppression.

It's not odd at all, it's expected. Objective data to support it does not exist, so they have to cherry pick statistics and ignore any data that doesn't support their conclusion. They start out with the conclusion first and then search for data to support it.

[tggzzz]

I find it odd how anyone claiming systemic racism exists in the US, can't provide any objective data to support it. All they do is cherry pick statistics which show poorer outcomes. Unequal outcome is not proof of oppression.

It's not odd at all, it's expected. Objective data to support it does not exist, so they have to cherry pick statistics and ignore any data that doesn't support their conclusion. They start out with the conclusion first and then search for data to support it.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Nonetheless deniers (of anything) choose to ignore that.

[coppice]

I find it odd how anyone claiming systemic racism exists in the US, can't provide any objective data to support it. All they do is cherry pick statistics which show poorer outcomes. Unequal outcome is not proof of oppression.

It's not odd at all, it's expected. Objective data to support it does not exist, so they have to cherry pick statistics and ignore any data that doesn't support their conclusion. They start out with the conclusion first and then search for data to support it.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Nonetheless deniers (of anything) choose to ignore that.

But its supposed to be a HHHUUUUGGGGEEEE problem having a MMMAAASSSIIIVVEEE impact on the lives of millions. They really can't quote any hard evidence? Is it hiding behind the elephant over there?

[tggzzz]

I find it odd how anyone claiming systemic racism exists in the US, can't provide any objective data to support it. All they do is cherry pick statistics which show poorer outcomes. Unequal outcome is not proof of oppression.

It's not odd at all, it's expected. Objective data to support it does not exist, so they have to cherry pick statistics and ignore any data that doesn't support their conclusion. They start out with the conclusion first and then search for data to support it.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Nonetheless deniers (of anything) choose to ignore that.

But its supposed to be a HHHUUUUGGGGEEEE problem having a MMMAAASSSIIIVVEEE impact on the lives of millions. They really can't quote any hard evidence? Is it hiding behind the elephant over there?

I can't quote any solid evidence that being short is an impediment to becoming a political/corporate leader. Nonetheless, there are sufficient anecdotes to indicate it is the case.

My father used to say that if you found a company being run by a short person, invest in it - because that person has probably got something extra over most CEOs. Nowadays I'd s/short/female/, by the same reasoning.

[james_s]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Nonetheless deniers (of anything) choose to ignore that.

Yes it is. If something is systemic then there is going to be loads of evidence, that's virtually the definition of a systemic problem, it is widespread, repeatable and thus easily studied, if there is not evidence then it's not a problem worthy of discussion.

I'm not ignoring it, I'm asking for evidence. Show me the data, racism is a very serious accusation, and if somebody is going to make that accusation they had better have something to back it up. If it is anywhere near as serious and widespread as claimed then there should be mountains of evidence, thousands and thousands of cases where the same circumstances led to different outcomes. Show me even a few dozen cases where people of different races under all the same circumstances had different outcomes, that should be easy, if it's a systemic problem then surely there must be loads of incidents so sourcing a few clear cut examples should be easy.

[james_s]

I can't quote any solid evidence that being short is an impediment to becoming a political/corporate leader. Nonetheless, there are sufficient anecdotes to indicate it is the case.

I can. This has been studied many times and is widely known to be true.

https://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug04/standing\
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/tall-people-more-likely-to-be-successful-in-life-study-find-a6919431.html\

There was a study on dating sites as well, although I can't find the one I'm thinking of, they tried making two otherwise identical profiles for a man, one shorter than 6' and another over 6' and the taller guy got way more responses. Height shouldn't matter but it obviously does. Being short is an impediment to almost everything related to social standing. That doesn't mean of course that short men are in a hopeless situation, but they certainly are at a measurable disadvantage.

[EEVblog]

Got my first two Dilbert comics through Twitter subscriptions, works well.
585 views. So presumably he has that many subscribers already.
I'm not sure there is a way actually see how subscribers someone has?

[tszaboo]

I find it odd how anyone claiming systemic racism exists in the US, can't provide any objective data to support it. All they do is cherry pick statistics which show poorer outcomes. Unequal outcome is not proof of oppression.

It's not odd at all, it's expected. Objective data to support it does not exist, so they have to cherry pick statistics and ignore any data that doesn't support their conclusion. They start out with the conclusion first and then search for data to support it.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Nonetheless deniers (of anything) choose to ignore that.

On the other hand,  extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
All I see it is "I feel this way"s and statistics that reduce problems to one dimensions, while other dimensions have much higher role in the outcome.

They made a psychological study quite a while ago. A makeup artist made a scar to the subjects face, showed it to the subject with a mirror, then removed it from the face. Then they had the subject have conversations with others, and they had to rate their feelings about prejudice and negative emotions. They overwhelmingly reported that people were staring at the scar, and they were rude to them. While they had nothing on their face. Victim mentality, where none exists.
Look it up yourself, Dartmouth university scar study.

[Zero999]

I find it odd how anyone claiming systemic racism exists in the US, can't provide any objective data to support it. All they do is cherry pick statistics which show poorer outcomes. Unequal outcome is not proof of oppression.

It's not odd at all, it's expected. Objective data to support it does not exist, so they have to cherry pick statistics and ignore any data that doesn't support their conclusion. They start out with the conclusion first and then search for data to support it.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Nonetheless deniers (of anything) choose to ignore that.

But its supposed to be a HHHUUUUGGGGEEEE problem having a MMMAAASSSIIIVVEEE impact on the lives of millions. They really can't quote any hard evidence? Is it hiding behind the elephant over there?

I can't quote any solid evidence that being short is an impediment to becoming a political/corporate leader. Nonetheless, there are sufficient anecdotes to indicate it is the case.

My father used to say that if you found a company being run by a short person, invest in it - because that person has probably got something extra over most CEOs. Nowadays I'd s/short/female/, by the same reasoning.

You're talking about bias, which is different. It's true that taller men tend to rise to positions of power, probably due to the fact taller men are feared more. That doesn't mean short men are systemically oppressed. Systemic oppression is when the system i.e. laws and institutions are obviously set up to oppress a certain group. Examples of this were Nazi Germany and South Africa under Apartheid. This objectively doesn't apply to black people in the 21^st century US. If anything many institutions discriminate against whites and Asians in favour of black people by means of affirmative action. It's also true that African immigrants to the US do better than whites. There are far too many confounding factors.

[coppice]

I can't quote any solid evidence that being short is an impediment to becoming a political/corporate leader. Nonetheless, there are sufficient anecdotes to indicate it is the case.

Odd example to choose, as most aspects of leadership have quite a bit of research data to support or shoot them down. I can't quote any off hand, but I remember seeing multiple papers on this particular topic. Being taller correlates quite well with being smarter. The reasons aren't well understood, but that is well supported by research. So, when you look at other factors in leadership you need to allow for that, and try to isolate whether it is tallness in itself leading to leadership success. There is research which looks specifically at whether people are more likely to obey someone taller, regardless of more meaningful qualities of leadership, which finds they actually are.

[abeyer]

You're talking about bias, which is different.

Is it? The lack of a single well-defined meaning of the terms we're using is part of the barrier to ever reaching any common understanding here. That's certainly one possible interpretation, but lacking said definition, my default interpretation of the word would tend to consider common widely-held biases to be a "systemic" factor, too.

Examples of this were Nazi Germany and South Africa under Apartheid.

...and race-based "redlining" laws and policies in property purchasing/financing, which weren't fully banned in the US in some form or another until about 50 years ago. So there are certainly people living today (and likely even posters on this board) whose ability and decisions in buying property were directly or indirectly impacted by this. Given that a significant percentage of growth in personal wealth in the US over the last 50 years has been in real estate ownership, it seems disingenuous to completely discount that.

[coppice]

...and race-based "redlining" laws and policies in property purchasing/financing, which weren't fully banned in the US in some form or another until about 50 years ago.

I often see redlining laws described as race based, but everything I've actually read about them says they were affluence based. They affected broke people of all races, and the US has a lot of broke white people.

[abeyer]

...and race-based "redlining" laws and policies in property purchasing/financing, which weren't fully banned in the US in some form or another until about 50 years ago.

I often see redlining laws described as race based, but everything I've actually read about them says they were affluence based. They affected broke people of all races, and the US has a lot of broke white people.

They were both, and more, religion was another popular one, and I'm sure there were others... Redlining wasn't only race-based, but it certainly included race, and more so the farther back you go. More recent laws were less explicitly race-based in their language, but no less so in their intent, in many cases. And it's still largely socially acceptable now when you talk about affluence... there are communities today with property covenants that legally forbid selling land for less than some minimum price.

[james_s]

...and race-based "redlining" laws and policies in property purchasing/financing, which weren't fully banned in the US in some form or another until about 50 years ago. So there are certainly people living today (and likely even posters on this board) whose ability and decisions in buying property were directly or indirectly impacted by this. Given that a significant percentage of growth in personal wealth in the US over the last 50 years has been in real estate ownership, it seems disingenuous to completely discount that.

There is no denying that blacks and various other groups have experienced some pretty horrible treatment in the USA, slavery is one example, the treatment of the Irish and the Chinese immigrants back in the 1800's is another, one of the more recent atrocities was pushing everyone of Japanese descent into relocation camps during WWII, and redlining was absolutely a thing that did at times directly involve race. But as you said, this was abolished half a century ago, well before I was even born and it is not fair to blame me in any way for things people that look like me did before I came into the world. A lot of people have been screwed over the years and got the short end of the stick, at times this affected some groups more than others but there is no group that has never been affected. Bottom line is life isn't fair, sometimes people get cancer or some rare disease and die, sometimes even kids. There is no possible way to make life fair, and treating some groups unfairly today to make up for some other unfairness in the past is just going to create more problems. It is virtually impossible to take any given individual and calculate a real world value on the impact of all past discrimination and unfair treatment toward them. What we CAN do is strive to not discriminate NOW, and to do everything possible to ensure equality of opportunity, for everyone.

[abeyer]

But as you said, this was abolished half a century ago

You say that like it's "a long time ago in a galaxy far far away"... when in reality that's exactly when someone retiring at 70 today would likely have been establishing a family and looking for their first home. Even if that's not you, it's likely your parents or grandparents.

it is not fair to blame me in any way for things people that look like me did before I came into the world.

Who blamed you? Certainly not me, nor anyone else here that I saw. Laying blame (or assuming it, for that matter) is seldom a productive means to solving a problem. But so is denying that the problem exists at all, as several other people seemed to be doing upthread.

[james_s]

But as you said, this was abolished half a century ago

You say that like it's "a long time ago in a galaxy far far away"... when in reality that's exactly when someone retiring at 70 today would likely have been establishing a family and looking for their first home. Even if that's not you, it's likely your parents or grandparents.

it is not fair to blame me in any way for things people that look like me did before I came into the world.

Who blamed you? Certainly not me, nor anyone else here that I saw. Laying blame (or assuming it, for that matter) is seldom a productive means to solving a problem. But so is denying that the problem exists at all, as several other people seemed to be doing upthread.

How long ago does something have to be before we can leave it in the past? Any time before I was born is as good as "a long time ago in a galaxy far far away" from my perspective. Can't get much more removed from a situation than "I didn't exist yet". Also are everyone's past grievances fair game or do only certain things count?

If you're asking me to do anything at all beyond simply not discriminating then you are blaming me. If I'm not to blame then I should not have to take any remedial action.

[abeyer]

If you're asking me to do anything at all

Again, who here asked you to do something? You seem to be having an argument with someone who isn't here.

[EEVblog]

I'm enjoying my new Twitter subscriber Dilbert strips. Wally is currently in jail, arrested by the FBI for pre-crime, and he has a Bing AI lawyer.

[james_s]

If you're asking me to do anything at all

Again, who here asked you to do something? You seem to be having an argument with someone who isn't here.

Nobody *here* asked me to do something, we're not talking about people here, we're speaking in general terms about something that is occurring in society. If you don't think there are people blaming others for being white, engaging in "reverse discrimination" and expecting concessions to be made then either you're not paying attention or you're being deliberately obtuse.