The cancel-culture wood chipper goes for 'Dilbert'
The cancel-culture wood chipper goes for 'Dilbert'
Whoops! Scott Adams is in trouble for expressing dismay that a Rasmussen poll showed that an ultra-minority of African-Americans (47% to be exact) do not think that "It's OK to be White," and therefore insisting that White people should consider "moving away from them."
No violence. No armed revolt. No "supremacy" this and that. No racial slurs expressed. While only removing some of his emotive profanities, just consider moving away.
"Moving away" is an action as peaceful and inoffensive to the natural order of things as when Black Americans had a well conceived notion that a better life awaited them — outside the Jim Crow south — with higher-paying factory jobs in the north.
Second-class citizenship, poor economic prospects, or feeling deeply disliked by many of your neighbors for your immutable characteristics — like ethnicity or skin color — can be powerful motivators to switch geographical locations.
After all, if we are to truly believe this Rasmussen poll results at face value, isn't "moving away" a logical response to the realization that nearly half of a specific group of people may not even be "OK" with your existence? A "hate group" as such?
Well, no. Not if you are an American of European extraction. That's racist.
The "Dilbert" Fallout
As the ChatGPT-grilling website "AI Wokeness" expressed in a recent article, there isn't much turning back when today's dogma dictates that you are now that pinnacle of persona non grata in the United States.
To be labeled a "racist" is a branding so foul, you shouldn't even be trusted with telling people that New Zealanders drive on the left side of the road. (Yes, that's how serious the modern tar-and-feathering goes with a sufficient amount of woke programming.)
And now the "racist" Scott Adams — for daring to suggest that White people should "move away" from African-Americans for what should indeed be troubling poll results — is experiencing his three-decades-and-running comic strip "Dilbert" being removed from prominent national newspapers.
He'll more than likely never be invited back on any number of television stations and podcasts, among other marketing platforms and sources of revenue.
Mr. Adams can — thankfully — weather the storm, financially speaking. He is 65 years old and independently wealthy from decades' worth of his past endeavors. But for a young cartoonist who was new and yet successful in the trade, this would be life-altering fallout.
As The Spectator pointed out in a somewhat recent article, free speech has become a privilege only for the rich. The poor or middle class cannot afford not to self-cancel.
The takeaway from this whole story is another prime example of an objective truth in the Anglosphere: if you lack the sufficient number of victim points — of which the straight, White, male, Christian or non-affiliated, native English-speaking, able-bodied, non-immigrant and "cisgender" Scott Adams has none — your margin for error to survive speaking against any far-left social agenda dwindles toward almost nothing.
What the pundits on CNN and MSNBC have said about White men — while continuing to keep their corporate jobs — has been atrocious compared to what Mr. Adams said.
Post a Comment