In a livestream on YouTube, Scott Adams said that the black people of the
United States were a "hate group", and white people should keep away from
them.
This is because a poll showed that nearly half of them didn't agree with the
phrase "It's OK to be white".
That phrase had been used by racists to argue against acknowledgment of
systemic racism or collective responsibility and things like that, and so the
black people who disagreed... were aware of that, and _not_ calling for
genocide of white people.
So the Washington Post and several other papers are dropping his strip.
While his rant could be due to ignorance, it would seem that he is unlikely
to actually be ignorant of the use of that phrase.

John Savard

On Sunday, February 26, 2023 at 10:30:25 AM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:
> In a livestream on YouTube, Scott Adams said that the black people of the
> United States were a "hate group", and white people should keep away from
> them.
> This is because a poll showed that nearly half of them didn't agree with the
> phrase "It's OK to be white".
> That phrase had been used by racists to argue against acknowledgment of
> systemic racism or collective responsibility and things like that, and so the
> black people who disagreed... were aware of that, and _not_ calling for
> genocide of white people.
> So the Washington Post and several other papers are dropping his strip.
> While his rant could be due to ignorance, it would seem that he is unlikely
> to actually be ignorant of the use of that phrase.

Now the *syndicate* is dropping him, which means, probably, that he isn't
going to be on Gocomics any more either.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/entertainment/dilbert-distributor-severs-ties-to-creator-over-race-remarks-1.6290533

John Savard

On 2023-02-27, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> On Sunday, February 26, 2023 at 10:30:25 AM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:
>> In a livestream on YouTube, Scott Adams said that the black people of the
>> United States were a "hate group", and white people should keep away from
>> them.
>
> Now the *syndicate* is dropping him, which means, probably, that he isn't
> going to be on Gocomics any more either.
>
Adams Sowing: Hell yeah, this is awesome! I rule!!

Adams Reaping: What the hell? This sucks. I'm the victim!!

--
dgold <news@dgold.eu>

On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 10:08:23 AM UTC-5, Daniel Goldsmith wrote:
> On 2023-02-27, Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 26, 2023 at 10:30:25 AM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:
> >> In a livestream on YouTube, Scott Adams said that the black people of the
> >> United States were a "hate group", and white people should keep away from
> >> them.
> >
> > Now the *syndicate* is dropping him, which means, probably, that he isn't
> > going to be on Gocomics any more either.
> >
> Adams Sowing: Hell yeah, this is awesome! I rule!!
>
> Adams Reaping: What the hell? This sucks. I'm the victim!!

Adams has been looking for an excuse to retire for a while, and
has predicted he'd do so by being 'cancelled'. He seems to have
got his wish.

Dilbert.com is still up as of this morning. He may be forced to retreat
to http://scottadams.locals.com

I'm reminded of 'Sinfest', which went from being a pleasant gag-a-day
strip to a mostly incomprehensible melange of radical feminism,
anti-woke, pro-QAnon and anti-vax weirdness, all while maintaining the
same clean and cutsey art style.

pt

On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 08:12:40 -0800 (PST), "pete...@gmail.com"
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 10:08:23?AM UTC-5, Daniel Goldsmith wrote:
>> On 2023-02-27, Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> > On Sunday, February 26, 2023 at 10:30:25?AM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:
>> >> In a livestream on YouTube, Scott Adams said that the black people of the
>> >> United States were a "hate group", and white people should keep away from
>> >> them.
>> >
>> > Now the *syndicate* is dropping him, which means, probably, that he isn't
>> > going to be on Gocomics any more either.
>> >
>> Adams Sowing: Hell yeah, this is awesome! I rule!!
>>
>> Adams Reaping: What the hell? This sucks. I'm the victim!!
>
>Adams has been looking for an excuse to retire for a while, and
>has predicted he'd do so by being 'cancelled'. He seems to have
>got his wish.

Kind of like the morons who were forcasting a culture war and, now
that its here, they are now whining because they are losing. Whine
away, guys and gals, whine away.

"National Divorce" is not their victory dance. It is an admission of
defeat.

>Dilbert.com is still up as of this morning. He may be forced to retreat
>to http://scottadams.locals.com

Up and still entertaining.

>I'm reminded of 'Sinfest', which went from being a pleasant gag-a-day
>strip to a mostly incomprehensible melange of radical feminism,
>anti-woke, pro-QAnon and anti-vax weirdness, all while maintaining the
>same clean and cutsey art style.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Feb 26, 2023, Quadibloc wrote
(in article<1362c026-e754-4bed-a7bc-e7913a24313an@googlegroups.com>):

> In a livestream on YouTube, Scott Adams said that the black people of the
> United States were a "hate group", and white people should keep away from
> them.
> This is because a poll showed that nearly half of them didn't agree with the
> phrase "It's OK to be white".
> That phrase had been used by racists to argue against acknowledgment of
> systemic racism or collective responsibility and things like that, and so the
> black people who disagreed... were aware of that, and _not_ calling for
> genocide of white people.
> So the Washington Post and several other papers are dropping his strip.
> While his rant could be due to ignorance, it would seem that he is unlikely
> to actually be ignorant of the use of that phrase.
>
> John Savard

Dilbert.com has noticed that I use an ad-blocker. (Took them long enough.)
Every ever so often I have to go through a multi-step procedure to see the
comic. Sooner rather than later I won’t bother. No, I’m not turning off
my ad-blocker.

On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 08:12:40 -0800 (PST), "pete...@gmail.com"
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm reminded of 'Sinfest', which went from being a pleasant gag-a-day
> strip to a mostly incomprehensible melange of radical feminism,
> anti-woke, pro-QAnon and anti-vax weirdness, all while maintaining the
> same clean and cutsey art style.

I wonder whether he will ever realize how deeply offensive it is to
assume that women can never be people, but must be either helpless
victims or all-powerful witches.

I particularly resent the transmogrification of Granny, the kind
proprietor of a bake shop, into a prominent member of the witch cabal.

I keep reading only in hope of seeing the author get a clue.

We haven't seen "the reality zone" in quite a while.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at centurylink dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/

In article <odasvhl1i2lbbq7m176sll23o7agefnu64@4ax.com>,
Joy Beeson <jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
>On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 08:12:40 -0800 (PST), "pete...@gmail.com"
><petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm reminded of 'Sinfest', which went from being a pleasant gag-a-day
>> strip to a mostly incomprehensible melange of radical feminism,
>> anti-woke, pro-QAnon and anti-vax weirdness, all while maintaining the
>> same clean and cutsey art style.
>
>I wonder whether he will ever realize how deeply offensive it is to
>assume that women can never be people, but must be either helpless
>victims or all-powerful witches.
>
>I particularly resent the transmogrification of Granny, the kind
>proprietor of a bake shop, into a prominent member of the witch cabal.
>
>I keep reading only in hope of seeing the author get a clue.
>
Are there examples of writers who have gone off the deep end like
that who then recovered?
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 11:21:03 AM UTC-5, Joy Beeson wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 08:12:40 -0800 (PST), "pete...@gmail.com"
> <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm reminded of 'Sinfest', which went from being a pleasant gag-a-day
> > strip to a mostly incomprehensible melange of radical feminism,
> > anti-woke, pro-QAnon and anti-vax weirdness, all while maintaining the
> > same clean and cutsey art style.
> I wonder whether he will ever realize how deeply offensive it is to
> assume that women can never be people, but must be either helpless
> victims or all-powerful witches.
>
> I particularly resent the transmogrification of Granny, the kind
> proprietor of a bake shop, into a prominent member of the witch cabal.
>
> I keep reading only in hope of seeing the author get a clue.
>
> We haven't seen "the reality zone" in quite a while.

IIRC, the 'Maga Mom' from last year's 2022 thread had more than
a little agency.

pt

On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 16:35:51 -0000 (UTC), jdnicoll@panix.com (James
Nicoll) wrote:

>In article <odasvhl1i2lbbq7m176sll23o7agefnu64@4ax.com>,
>Joy Beeson <jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
>>On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 08:12:40 -0800 (PST), "pete...@gmail.com"
>><petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm reminded of 'Sinfest', which went from being a pleasant gag-a-day
>>> strip to a mostly incomprehensible melange of radical feminism,
>>> anti-woke, pro-QAnon and anti-vax weirdness, all while maintaining the
>>> same clean and cutsey art style.
>>
>>I wonder whether he will ever realize how deeply offensive it is to
>>assume that women can never be people, but must be either helpless
>>victims or all-powerful witches.
>>
>>I particularly resent the transmogrification of Granny, the kind
>>proprietor of a bake shop, into a prominent member of the witch cabal.
>>
>>I keep reading only in hope of seeing the author get a clue.
>>
>Are there examples of writers who have gone off the deep end like
>that who then recovered?

Writers, shmiters. Are there examples of /anyone/ who has gone the
deep end like this who then recovered?
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Tuesday, 28 February 2023 at 17:32:41 UTC, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 16:35:51 -0000 (UTC), jdni...@panix.com (James
> Nicoll) wrote:
>
> >In article <odasvhl1i2lbbq7m1...@4ax.com>,
> >Joy Beeson <jbe...@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
> >>On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 08:12:40 -0800 (PST), "pete...@gmail.com"
> >><pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I'm reminded of 'Sinfest', which went from being a pleasant gag-a-day
> >>> strip to a mostly incomprehensible melange of radical feminism,
> >>> anti-woke, pro-QAnon and anti-vax weirdness, all while maintaining the
> >>> same clean and cutsey art style.
> >>
> >>I wonder whether he will ever realize how deeply offensive it is to
> >>assume that women can never be people, but must be either helpless
> >>victims or all-powerful witches.
> >>
> >>I particularly resent the transmogrification of Granny, the kind
> >>proprietor of a bake shop, into a prominent member of the witch cabal.
> >>
> >>I keep reading only in hope of seeing the author get a clue.
> >>
> >Are there examples of writers who have gone off the deep end like
> >that who then recovered?
> Writers, shmiters. Are there examples of /anyone/ who has gone the
> deep end like this who then recovered?

I'm not clear what "to go off the deep end" means - or why.
A dictionary definition is "to become furiously angry".
But we appear to be discussing "to hold and express
prejudices that society rejects".

There does come to mind Adolf Hitler, although he's mostly
unpopular again now. But he did go from crazy guy on a
political fringe, to being in government. I don't know his story
well enough to say whether he "recovered" in a personal
sense, or whether he only benefitted from society coming
round to his point of view. As may many other people with a
political aspiration and a nightmare vision for the world.

I think it can be said that the reputation of Roman Polanski
has had ups and downs over the years.

On Sunday, February 26, 2023 at 5:30:25 PM UTC, Quadibloc wrote:
> In a livestream on YouTube, Scott Adams said that the black people of the
> United States were a "hate group", and white people should keep away from
> them.
> This is because a poll showed that nearly half of them didn't agree with the
> phrase "It's OK to be white".
> That phrase had been used by racists to argue against acknowledgment of
> systemic racism or collective responsibility and things like that, and so the
> black people who disagreed... were aware of that, and _not_ calling for
> genocide of white people.
> So the Washington Post and several other papers are dropping his strip.
> While his rant could be due to ignorance, it would seem that he is unlikely
> to actually be ignorant of the use of that phrase.
>
> John Savard
There are many reasons why I should not comment on the details of this particular free speech issue, not least being that I have repeatedly stated that the problems of various subcultures in the US have no counterpart in the UK, where we have people diligently tracking down records of slave-owners, but not of former slaves (see various mangled and fact-checked quotes including "one Cartwright brought a slave from Russia and would scourge him; for which he was questioned; and it was resolved, that England was too pure an air for a slave to breathe in").

I would like to comment on the general free speech issue - is it a good idea for somebody to lose their liveihood and their access to public debate because of the views that they have expressed? One of the risks of a system which allows this is that a privileged class of gate-keepers may wield power over the democratic process by silencing stories based on fact which would otherwise affect public policy, and even sway elections. Is there any evidence of this risk materialising? One example is the silencing of the Hunter Biden laptop story. Another example is the campaign waged against the Covid lab leak hypothesis, which it appears is now credible enough to be taken seriously by the FBI and the US DOE.

On 2023-02-28 23:00, Andrew McDowell wrote:
> On Sunday, February 26, 2023 at 5:30:25 PM UTC, Quadibloc wrote:
>> In a livestream on YouTube, Scott Adams said that the black people
>> of the United States were a "hate group", and white people should
>> keep away from them. This is because a poll showed that nearly half
>> of them didn't agree with the phrase "It's OK to be white". That
>> phrase had been used by racists to argue against acknowledgment of
>> systemic racism or collective responsibility and things like that,
>> and so the black people who disagreed... were aware of that, and
>> _not_ calling for genocide of white people. So the Washington Post
>> and several other papers are dropping his strip. While his rant
>> could be due to ignorance, it would seem that he is unlikely to
>> actually be ignorant of the use of that phrase.
>>
>> John Savard
> There are many reasons why I should not comment on the details of
> this particular free speech issue, not least being that I have
> repeatedly stated that the problems of various subcultures in the US
> have no counterpart in the UK, where we have people diligently
> tracking down records of slave-owners, but not of former slaves (see
> various mangled and fact-checked quotes including "one Cartwright
> brought a slave from Russia and would scourge him; for which he was
> questioned; and it was resolved, that England was too pure an air for
> a slave to breathe in").
>
> I would like to comment on the general free speech issue - is it a
> good idea for somebody to lose their liveihood and their access to
> public debate because of the views that they have expressed? One of
> the risks of a system which allows this is that a privileged class of
> gate-keepers may wield power over the democratic process by silencing
> stories based on fact which would otherwise affect public policy, and
> even sway elections. Is there any evidence of this risk
> materialising? One example is the silencing of the Hunter Biden
> laptop story. Another example is the campaign waged against the Covid
> lab leak hypothesis, which it appears is now credible enough to be
> taken seriously by the FBI and the US DOE.

There is no "free speech issue" here.

People are free to decide whether or not they wish to associate
themselves with an asshole such as Adams.

Many are freely choosing... ...not.

On Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 12:00:05 AM UTC-7, Andrew McDowell wrote:

> I would like to comment on the general free speech issue - is it
> a good idea for somebody to lose their liveihood and their access
> to public debate because of the views that they have expressed?

While, in general, it is not, if one's livelihood depends on one's reputation,
and one has expressed views seen as noxious, as individual members of the
public are free to choose what they consume, what could possibly be done?

> One example is the silencing of the Hunter Biden laptop story.

That the mainstream news media does not choose to devote space to
utter nonsense clumsily concocted for political purposes does not seem
to me to be a bug, but a feature.

> Another example is the campaign waged against the Covid lab leak
> hypothesis, which it appears is now credible enough to be taken
> seriously by the FBI and the US DOE.

And yet the Centers for Disease Control have not joined in. Wouldn't
that be the _competent_ government agency on this issue?

I think the issue here can be expressed succinctly: can you say
"Trump appointee"?

However, be that as it may, from what has appeared in the *mainstream
media*, it is clear that the People's Republic of China _is_ to blame
for the COVID-19 pandemic. The doctors who first encountered the
outbreak in Wuhan were threatened with imprisonment for "spreading
rumors" when they initially sought to sound the alarm - thus, by the time
Communist Party officials in a position to authorize warnings about the
virus took it seriously, it had spread too far to stop.

So we had the pandemic because of the totalitarian nature of the PRC.

Given that, there is no need for speculation about unprovable theories
for which we have no evidence... and no means of obtaining any. Of
course, it _can_ be safely noted that the lab leak hypothesis has not been
_disproven_ either.

John Savard

On Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 2:41:26 AM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> On 2023-02-28 23:00, Andrew McDowell wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 26, 2023 at 5:30:25 PM UTC, Quadibloc wrote:
> >> In a livestream on YouTube, Scott Adams said that the black people
> >> of the United States were a "hate group", and white people should
> >> keep away from them. This is because a poll showed that nearly half
> >> of them didn't agree with the phrase "It's OK to be white". That
> >> phrase had been used by racists to argue against acknowledgment of
> >> systemic racism or collective responsibility and things like that,
> >> and so the black people who disagreed... were aware of that, and
> >> _not_ calling for genocide of white people. So the Washington Post
> >> and several other papers are dropping his strip. While his rant
> >> could be due to ignorance, it would seem that he is unlikely to
> >> actually be ignorant of the use of that phrase.
> >>
> >> John Savard
> > There are many reasons why I should not comment on the details of
> > this particular free speech issue, not least being that I have
> > repeatedly stated that the problems of various subcultures in the US
> > have no counterpart in the UK, where we have people diligently
> > tracking down records of slave-owners, but not of former slaves (see
> > various mangled and fact-checked quotes including "one Cartwright
> > brought a slave from Russia and would scourge him; for which he was
> > questioned; and it was resolved, that England was too pure an air for
> > a slave to breathe in").
> >
> > I would like to comment on the general free speech issue - is it a
> > good idea for somebody to lose their liveihood and their access to
> > public debate because of the views that they have expressed? One of
> > the risks of a system which allows this is that a privileged class of
> > gate-keepers may wield power over the democratic process by silencing
> > stories based on fact which would otherwise affect public policy, and
> > even sway elections. Is there any evidence of this risk
> > materialising? One example is the silencing of the Hunter Biden
> > laptop story. Another example is the campaign waged against the Covid
> > lab leak hypothesis, which it appears is now credible enough to be
> > taken seriously by the FBI and the US DOE.
> There is no "free speech issue" here.
>
> People are free to decide whether or not they wish to associate
> themselves with an asshole such as Adams.
>
> Many are freely choosing... ...not.

Indeed. Many years ago the Globe dropped the far better cartoon, "Alex" for Dilbert,
by then already well past its prime. Now they've dropped Dilbert. The creators of
neither have had their free speech impaired.

Mind you, if they bring Alex back it will be a bonus for me. Alex is best during a
financial crisis (Alex is a merchant banker) so at the moment it's only about
twice as good, for me (he stresses) as Dilbert.

William Hyde

On 2023-03-01 12:00 a.m., Andrew McDowell wrote:
> On Sunday, February 26, 2023 at 5:30:25 PM UTC, Quadibloc wrote:
>> In a livestream on YouTube, Scott Adams said that the black people of the
>> United States were a "hate group", and white people should keep away from
>> them.
>> This is because a poll showed that nearly half of them didn't agree with the
>> phrase "It's OK to be white".
>> That phrase had been used by racists to argue against acknowledgment of
>> systemic racism or collective responsibility and things like that, and so the
>> black people who disagreed... were aware of that, and _not_ calling for
>> genocide of white people.
>> So the Washington Post and several other papers are dropping his strip.
>> While his rant could be due to ignorance, it would seem that he is unlikely
>> to actually be ignorant of the use of that phrase.
>>
>> John Savard
> There are many reasons why I should not comment on the details of this particular free speech issue, not least being that I have repeatedly stated that the problems of various subcultures in the US have no counterpart in the UK, where we have people diligently tracking down records of slave-owners, but not of former slaves (see various mangled and fact-checked quotes including "one Cartwright brought a slave from Russia and would scourge him; for which he was questioned; and it was resolved, that England was too pure an air for a slave to breathe in").
>
> I would like to comment on the general free speech issue - is it a good idea for somebody to lose their liveihood and their access to public debate because of the views that they have expressed? One of the risks of a system which allows this is that a privileged class of gate-keepers may wield power over the democratic process by silencing stories based on fact which would otherwise affect public policy, and even sway elections. Is there any evidence of this risk materialising? One example is the silencing of the Hunter Biden laptop story.

The Hunter Biden laptop story wasn't silenced. Although I do know that
a lot of people are upset they didn't get to see those dick pics.

>Another example is the campaign waged against the Covid lab leak hypothesis, which it appears is now credible enough to be taken seriously by the FBI and the US DOE.

It was always a credible possibility. What is incredible is that it was
a deliberately engineered biological warfare agent. Also now that the
DOE has expressed an opinion, I'm eager to find out what the National
Mint, the Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Weights and
Measures thinks.

On Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 3:43:34 PM UTC-5, David Johnston wrote:
> On 2023-03-01 12:00 a.m., Andrew McDowell wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 26, 2023 at 5:30:25 PM UTC, Quadibloc wrote:
> >> In a livestream on YouTube, Scott Adams said that the black people of the
> >> United States were a "hate group", and white people should keep away from
> >> them.
> >> This is because a poll showed that nearly half of them didn't agree with the
> >> phrase "It's OK to be white".
> >> That phrase had been used by racists to argue against acknowledgment of
> >> systemic racism or collective responsibility and things like that, and so the
> >> black people who disagreed... were aware of that, and _not_ calling for
> >> genocide of white people.
> >> So the Washington Post and several other papers are dropping his strip..
> >> While his rant could be due to ignorance, it would seem that he is unlikely
> >> to actually be ignorant of the use of that phrase.
> >>
> >> John Savard
> > There are many reasons why I should not comment on the details of this particular free speech issue, not least being that I have repeatedly stated that the problems of various subcultures in the US have no counterpart in the UK, where we have people diligently tracking down records of slave-owners, but not of former slaves (see various mangled and fact-checked quotes including "one Cartwright brought a slave from Russia and would scourge him; for which he was questioned; and it was resolved, that England was too pure an air for a slave to breathe in").
> >
> > I would like to comment on the general free speech issue - is it a good idea for somebody to lose their liveihood and their access to public debate because of the views that they have expressed? One of the risks of a system which allows this is that a privileged class of gate-keepers may wield power over the democratic process by silencing stories based on fact which would otherwise affect public policy, and even sway elections. Is there any evidence of this risk materialising? One example is the silencing of the Hunter Biden laptop story.
> The Hunter Biden laptop story wasn't silenced. Although I do know that
> a lot of people are upset they didn't get to see those dick pics.
> >Another example is the campaign waged against the Covid lab leak hypothesis, which it appears is now credible enough to be taken seriously by the FBI and the US DOE.
> It was always a credible possibility. What is incredible is that it was
> a deliberately engineered biological warfare agent. Also now that the
> DOE has expressed an opinion, I'm eager to find out what the National
> Mint, the Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Weights and
> Measures thinks.

A person is free to associate with, or not, anyone he wishes to. How does that work if the person's books are burned, or, the modern equivalent, his internet channels are closed?

John

On 2023-03-01 3:51 p.m., John Halpenny wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 3:43:34 PM UTC-5, David Johnston wrote:
>> On 2023-03-01 12:00 a.m., Andrew McDowell wrote:
>>> On Sunday, February 26, 2023 at 5:30:25 PM UTC, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>> In a livestream on YouTube, Scott Adams said that the black people of the
>>>> United States were a "hate group", and white people should keep away from
>>>> them.
>>>> This is because a poll showed that nearly half of them didn't agree with the
>>>> phrase "It's OK to be white".
>>>> That phrase had been used by racists to argue against acknowledgment of
>>>> systemic racism or collective responsibility and things like that, and so the
>>>> black people who disagreed... were aware of that, and _not_ calling for
>>>> genocide of white people.
>>>> So the Washington Post and several other papers are dropping his strip.
>>>> While his rant could be due to ignorance, it would seem that he is unlikely
>>>> to actually be ignorant of the use of that phrase.
>>>>
>>>> John Savard
>>> There are many reasons why I should not comment on the details of this particular free speech issue, not least being that I have repeatedly stated that the problems of various subcultures in the US have no counterpart in the UK, where we have people diligently tracking down records of slave-owners, but not of former slaves (see various mangled and fact-checked quotes including "one Cartwright brought a slave from Russia and would scourge him; for which he was questioned; and it was resolved, that England was too pure an air for a slave to breathe in").
>>>
>>> I would like to comment on the general free speech issue - is it a good idea for somebody to lose their liveihood and their access to public debate because of the views that they have expressed? One of the risks of a system which allows this is that a privileged class of gate-keepers may wield power over the democratic process by silencing stories based on fact which would otherwise affect public policy, and even sway elections. Is there any evidence of this risk materialising? One example is the silencing of the Hunter Biden laptop story.
>> The Hunter Biden laptop story wasn't silenced. Although I do know that
>> a lot of people are upset they didn't get to see those dick pics.
>>> Another example is the campaign waged against the Covid lab leak hypothesis, which it appears is now credible enough to be taken seriously by the FBI and the US DOE.
>> It was always a credible possibility. What is incredible is that it was
>> a deliberately engineered biological warfare agent. Also now that the
>> DOE has expressed an opinion, I'm eager to find out what the National
>> Mint, the Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Weights and
>> Measures thinks.
>
> A person is free to associate with, or not, anyone he wishes to. How does that work if the person's books are burned, or, the modern equivalent, his internet channels are closed?

https://i1.wp.com/amptoons.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/silenced.png

On Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 7:24:48 PM UTC, William Hyde wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 2:41:26 AM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> > On 2023-02-28 23:00, Andrew McDowell wrote:
> > > On Sunday, February 26, 2023 at 5:30:25 PM UTC, Quadibloc wrote:
> > >> In a livestream on YouTube, Scott Adams said that the black people
> > >> of the United States were a "hate group", and white people should
> > >> keep away from them. This is because a poll showed that nearly half
> > >> of them didn't agree with the phrase "It's OK to be white". That
> > >> phrase had been used by racists to argue against acknowledgment of
> > >> systemic racism or collective responsibility and things like that,
> > >> and so the black people who disagreed... were aware of that, and
> > >> _not_ calling for genocide of white people. So the Washington Post
> > >> and several other papers are dropping his strip. While his rant
> > >> could be due to ignorance, it would seem that he is unlikely to
> > >> actually be ignorant of the use of that phrase.
> > >>
> > >> John Savard
> > > There are many reasons why I should not comment on the details of
> > > this particular free speech issue, not least being that I have
> > > repeatedly stated that the problems of various subcultures in the US
> > > have no counterpart in the UK, where we have people diligently
> > > tracking down records of slave-owners, but not of former slaves (see
> > > various mangled and fact-checked quotes including "one Cartwright
> > > brought a slave from Russia and would scourge him; for which he was
> > > questioned; and it was resolved, that England was too pure an air for
> > > a slave to breathe in").
> > >
> > > I would like to comment on the general free speech issue - is it a
> > > good idea for somebody to lose their liveihood and their access to
> > > public debate because of the views that they have expressed? One of
> > > the risks of a system which allows this is that a privileged class of
> > > gate-keepers may wield power over the democratic process by silencing
> > > stories based on fact which would otherwise affect public policy, and
> > > even sway elections. Is there any evidence of this risk
> > > materialising? One example is the silencing of the Hunter Biden
> > > laptop story. Another example is the campaign waged against the Covid
> > > lab leak hypothesis, which it appears is now credible enough to be
> > > taken seriously by the FBI and the US DOE.
> > There is no "free speech issue" here.
> >
> > People are free to decide whether or not they wish to associate
> > themselves with an asshole such as Adams.
> >
> > Many are freely choosing... ...not.
> Indeed. Many years ago the Globe dropped the far better cartoon, "Alex" for Dilbert,
> by then already well past its prime. Now they've dropped Dilbert. The creators of
> neither have had their free speech impaired.
>
> Mind you, if they bring Alex back it will be a bonus for me. Alex is best during a
> financial crisis (Alex is a merchant banker) so at the moment it's only about
> twice as good, for me (he stresses) as Dilbert.
>
> William Hyde
I view Alex most mornings at https://www.alexcartoon.com/ (delayed and I think with a few days missing for non-subscribers like me).

On 2023-03-01, David Johnston <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 2023-03-01 12:00 a.m., Andrew McDowell wrote:
>> There are many reasons why I should not comment on the details of this particular free speech issue, not least being that I have repeatedly stated that the problems of various subcultures in the US have no counterpart in the UK, where we have people diligently tracking down records of slave-owners, but not of former slaves (see various mangled and fact-checked quotes including "one Cartwright brought a slave from Russia and would scourge him; for which he was questioned; and it was resolved, that England was too pure an air for a slave to breathe in").
>>
>> I would like to comment on the general free speech issue - is it a good idea for somebody to lose their liveihood and their access to public debate because of the views that they have expressed? One of the risks of a system which allows this is that a privileged class of gate-keepers may wield power over the democratic process by silencing stories based on fact which would otherwise affect public policy, and even sway elections. Is there any evidence of this risk materialising? One example is the silencing of the Hunter Biden laptop story.
>
> The Hunter Biden laptop story wasn't silenced. Although I do know that
> a lot of people are upset they didn't get to see those dick pics.

The story as a whole wasn't silenced, but certainly individual tellings of
it were removed and silenced, individual posts were removed and silenced,
and Facebook and Twitter users were blocked and silenced.

And parts of this silencing were definitely politically motivated. Take
Biden's debate point:
Look, there are 50 former National Intelligence folks who said that
what this, he's accusing me of is a Russian plan. They have said
that this has all the characteristics-- four-- five former heads of
the CIA, both parties, say what he's saying is a bunch of
garbage. Nobody believes it except him, his, and his good friend
Rudy Giuliani.

You, of course, along with every other interested American, knew that
it wasn't a Russian plan (sarcasm). That within a day or two of this
statement from former intelligence folks who admitted they had no
knowledge about the laptop, we had the current Director of National
Intelligence state flatly: "Hunter Biden's laptop is not part of some
Russian disinformation campaign". Shortly thereafter, both the
Justice Department and the FBI (who had had the laptop for almost a
year) issued statements concurring with him.

Somehow, this news seemed to have not made it out to most Americans
(silenced?) All this happened before Biden's statement above (reflect
about what that means, and why Biden had to ask for extra time to
"volunteer" that statement just as the debate subject was about to
change). All told, it was an absolutely brilliant disinformation
campaign!

Chris

Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
>On 2023-03-01, David Johnston <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 2023-03-01 12:00 a.m., Andrew McDowell wrote:
>>> There are many reasons why I should not comment on the details of this particular free speech issue, not least being that I have repeatedly stated that the problems of various subcultures in the US have no counterpart in the UK, where we have people diligently tracking down records of slave-owners, but not of former slaves (see various mangled and fact-checked quotes including "one Cartwright brought a slave from Russia and would scourge him; for which he was questioned; and it was resolved, that England was too pure an air for a slave to breathe in").
>>>
>>> I would like to comment on the general free speech issue - is it a good idea for somebody to lose their liveihood and their access to public debate because of the views that they have expressed? One of the risks of a system which allows this is that a privileged class of gate-keepers may wield power over the democratic process by silencing stories based on fact which would otherwise affect public policy, and even sway elections. Is there any evidence of this risk materialising? One example is the silencing of the Hunter Biden laptop story.
>>
>> The Hunter Biden laptop story wasn't silenced. Although I do know that
>> a lot of people are upset they didn't get to see those dick pics.
>
>The story as a whole wasn't silenced, but certainly individual tellings of
>it were removed and silenced, individual posts were removed and silenced,
>and Facebook and Twitter users were blocked and silenced.

A bald assertion without appropriate citations...

As the bard wrote, 'much ado about nothing'.

On 2023-03-02 07:23, Chris Buckley wrote:
> On 2023-03-01, David Johnston <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 2023-03-01 12:00 a.m., Andrew McDowell wrote:
>>> There are many reasons why I should not comment on the details of this particular free speech issue, not least being that I have repeatedly stated that the problems of various subcultures in the US have no counterpart in the UK, where we have people diligently tracking down records of slave-owners, but not of former slaves (see various mangled and fact-checked quotes including "one Cartwright brought a slave from Russia and would scourge him; for which he was questioned; and it was resolved, that England was too pure an air for a slave to breathe in").
>>>
>>> I would like to comment on the general free speech issue - is it a good idea for somebody to lose their liveihood and their access to public debate because of the views that they have expressed? One of the risks of a system which allows this is that a privileged class of gate-keepers may wield power over the democratic process by silencing stories based on fact which would otherwise affect public policy, and even sway elections. Is there any evidence of this risk materialising? One example is the silencing of the Hunter Biden laptop story.
>>
>> The Hunter Biden laptop story wasn't silenced. Although I do know that
>> a lot of people are upset they didn't get to see those dick pics.
>
> The story as a whole wasn't silenced, but certainly individual tellings of
> it were removed and silenced, individual posts were removed and silenced,
> and Facebook and Twitter users were blocked and silenced.

Give an example.

>
> And parts of this silencing were definitely politically motivated. Take
> Biden's debate point:
> Look, there are 50 former National Intelligence folks who said that
> what this, he's accusing me of is a Russian plan. They have said
> that this has all the characteristics-- four-- five former heads of
> the CIA, both parties, say what he's saying is a bunch of
> garbage. Nobody believes it except him, his, and his good friend
> Rudy Giuliani.
>
> You, of course, along with every other interested American, knew that
> it wasn't a Russian plan (sarcasm). That within a day or two of this
> statement from former intelligence folks who admitted they had no
> knowledge about the laptop, we had the current Director of National
> Intelligence state flatly: "Hunter Biden's laptop is not part of some
> Russian disinformation campaign". Shortly thereafter, both the
> Justice Department and the FBI (who had had the laptop for almost a
> year) issued statements concurring with him.

You mean DNI, John Ratcliffe...

....the Republican appointed by Trump?

>
> Somehow, this news seemed to have not made it out to most Americans
> (silenced?) All this happened before Biden's statement above (reflect
> about what that means, and why Biden had to ask for extra time to
> "volunteer" that statement just as the debate subject was about to
> change). All told, it was an absolutely brilliant disinformation
> campaign!

So that statement by Ratcliffe wouldn't have been reported on major news
websites like:

USAToday:

<https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/10/19/russian-disinformation-not-behind-biden-emails-dni-ratcliffe-says/3712484001/>

CNN:

<hhttps://www.cnn.com/2020/10/21/politics/fbi-russia-disinformation/index.html>

The Washington Post:

<https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/fbi-hunter-biden-laptop-russia/2020/10/20/3478408a-133d-11eb-bc10-40b25382f1be_story.html>

Like those?

Oh and Ratcliffe was accused of abusing his position to benefit Trump's
campaign...

....by retired intelligence officials employed by both Democrat and
Republican presidents.

<https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/10/12/trumps-intel-chief-is-undermining-us-intelligence-he-should-resign/>

'While the 2020 debates and President Trump contracting covid-19
dominated everyone’s attention over the past week, Director of National
Intelligence John Ratcliffe has been up to no good — undertaking the
most blatant and egregious politicization of intelligence that we, two
career intelligence officers, have ever seen.'

<https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/06/politics/brennan-ratcliffe-declassifying-intelligence-clinton-russia/index.html>

'“John Ratcliffe is anything but an intelligence professional. It is
appalling his selective declassification of information. It is designed
to advance the political interests of Donald Trump and Republicans who
are aligned with him,” Brennan said of the director of national
intelligence.'

That would be John Brennan...first appointed by Bush.

On Wed, 1 Mar 2023 14:51:28 -0800 (PST), John Halpenny
<j.halpenny@rogers.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 3:43:34?PM UTC-5, David Johnston wrote:
>> On 2023-03-01 12:00 a.m., Andrew McDowell wrote:
>> > On Sunday, February 26, 2023 at 5:30:25?PM UTC, Quadibloc wrote:
>> >> In a livestream on YouTube, Scott Adams said that the black people of the
>> >> United States were a "hate group", and white people should keep away from
>> >> them.
>> >> This is because a poll showed that nearly half of them didn't agree with the
>> >> phrase "It's OK to be white".
>> >> That phrase had been used by racists to argue against acknowledgment of
>> >> systemic racism or collective responsibility and things like that, and so the
>> >> black people who disagreed... were aware of that, and _not_ calling for
>> >> genocide of white people.
>> >> So the Washington Post and several other papers are dropping his strip.
>> >> While his rant could be due to ignorance, it would seem that he is unlikely
>> >> to actually be ignorant of the use of that phrase.
>> >>
>> >> John Savard
>> > There are many reasons why I should not comment on the details of this particular free speech issue, not least being that I have repeatedly stated that the problems of various subcultures in the US have no counterpart in the UK, where we have people diligently tracking down records of slave-owners, but not of former slaves (see various mangled and fact-checked quotes including "one Cartwright brought a slave from Russia and would scourge him; for which he was questioned; and it was resolved, that England was too pure an air for a slave to breathe in").
>> >
>> > I would like to comment on the general free speech issue - is it a good idea for somebody to lose their liveihood and their access to public debate because of the views that they have expressed? One of the risks of a system which allows this is that a privileged class of gate-keepers may wield power over the democratic process by silencing stories based on fact which would otherwise affect public policy, and even sway elections. Is there any evidence of this risk materialising? One example is the silencing of the Hunter Biden laptop story.
>> The Hunter Biden laptop story wasn't silenced. Although I do know that
>> a lot of people are upset they didn't get to see those dick pics.
>> >Another example is the campaign waged against the Covid lab leak hypothesis, which it appears is now credible enough to be taken seriously by the FBI and the US DOE.
>> It was always a credible possibility. What is incredible is that it was
>> a deliberately engineered biological warfare agent. Also now that the
>> DOE has expressed an opinion, I'm eager to find out what the National
>> Mint, the Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Weights and
>> Measures thinks.
>
>A person is free to associate with, or not, anyone he wishes to. How does that work if the person's books are burned, or, the modern equivalent, his internet channels are closed?

If you are talking about the 1st amendment, that applies mostly to
forming groups:

the forming of a group, political alliance, or other organization
without any constraint or external restriction:
"it would violate their First Amendment rights of free association and
free expression"

It does not confer immunity to book banning, never mind burning, or
ejection from the internet.

And that's not noting that the 1st Amendment only applies to the
/Federal Government/ (and, by extension, the States), not to private
organizations.

And it is not a right to /force/ yourself on others.

The newspapers dropping Dilbert have the right to decide to /not/
associate with it.

As I said elsewhere, actions have consequences.

Make speeches that cause damage to the campus and you can expect to
get billed for the damages and maybe required to pre-pay a fee or be
bonded in the future. If you are allowed to speak there in the future
at all.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On 2023-03-02, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
> On 2023-03-02 07:23, Chris Buckley wrote:
>> On 2023-03-01, David Johnston <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On 2023-03-01 12:00 a.m., Andrew McDowell wrote:
>>>> There are many reasons why I should not comment on the details of this particular free speech issue, not least being that I have repeatedly stated that the problems of various subcultures in the US have no counterpart in the UK, where we have people diligently tracking down records of slave-owners, but not of former slaves (see various mangled and fact-checked quotes including "one Cartwright brought a slave from Russia and would scourge him; for which he was questioned; and it was resolved, that England was too pure an air for a slave to breathe in").
>>>>
>>>> I would like to comment on the general free speech issue - is it a good idea for somebody to lose their liveihood and their access to public debate because of the views that they have expressed? One of the risks of a system which allows this is that a privileged class of gate-keepers may wield power over the democratic process by silencing stories based on fact which would otherwise affect public policy, and even sway elections. Is there any evidence of this risk materialising? One example is the silencing of the Hunter Biden laptop story.
>>>
>>> The Hunter Biden laptop story wasn't silenced. Although I do know that
>>> a lot of people are upset they didn't get to see those dick pics.
>>
>> The story as a whole wasn't silenced, but certainly individual tellings of
>> it were removed and silenced, individual posts were removed and silenced,
>> and Facebook and Twitter users were blocked and silenced.
>
> Give an example.

I overstated it a bit. Twitter didn't remove the tweets, they merely
blocked the account until the user removed the tweets themselves.
If you want a high profile example:
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-54552101
The president also told a rally that Twitter had locked the
personal account of White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany
"for reporting the truth" after she shared details of the New York
Post's article.
Twitter confirmed that it had required Ms McEnany to delete a
tweet to regain access to her account.

>> And parts of this silencing were definitely politically motivated. Take
>> Biden's debate point:
>> Look, there are 50 former National Intelligence folks who said that
>> what this, he's accusing me of is a Russian plan. They have said
>> that this has all the characteristics-- four-- five former heads of
>> the CIA, both parties, say what he's saying is a bunch of
>> garbage. Nobody believes it except him, his, and his good friend
>> Rudy Giuliani.
>>
>> You, of course, along with every other interested American, knew that
>> it wasn't a Russian plan (sarcasm). That within a day or two of this
>> statement from former intelligence folks who admitted they had no
>> knowledge about the laptop, we had the current Director of National
>> Intelligence state flatly: "Hunter Biden's laptop is not part of some
>> Russian disinformation campaign". Shortly thereafter, both the
>> Justice Department and the FBI (who had had the laptop for almost a
>> year) issued statements concurring with him.
>
> You mean DNI, John Ratcliffe...
>
> ...the Republican appointed by Trump?

Oh, how unusual that a Presidential advisor be appointed by the President!
I never would have expected that (more sarcasm).
(Obama, Trump, and Biden all appointed their own DNI upon taking office.
DNI was started under Bush due to the failings of the CIA).
The DNI is the person supposedly in charge of all the intelligence
agencies and would be the top person who could make such a statement.

>> Somehow, this news seemed to have not made it out to most Americans
>> (silenced?) All this happened before Biden's statement above (reflect
>> about what that means, and why Biden had to ask for extra time to
>> "volunteer" that statement just as the debate subject was about to
>> change). All told, it was an absolutely brilliant disinformation
>> campaign!
>
> So that statement by Ratcliffe wouldn't have been reported on major news
> websites like:
>
> USAToday:
>
><https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/10/19/russian-disinformation-not-behind-biden-emails-dni-ratcliffe-says/3712484001/>
>
> CNN:
>
><hhttps://www.cnn.com/2020/10/21/politics/fbi-russia-disinformation/index.html>
>
> The Washington Post:
>
><https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/fbi-hunter-biden-laptop-russia/2020/10/20/3478408a-133d-11eb-bc10-40b25382f1be_story.html>
>
> Like those?

Yep. It was then buried in favor of the 50 former intelligence agencies.

I'll ask the readership here:
How many of you were aware before the election (or even after) that
the DNI, FBI, and Justice Department had all said that the Hunter
Biden laptop was not Russian disinformation?

>
> Oh and Ratcliffe was accused of abusing his position to benefit Trump's
> campaign...
>
> ...by retired intelligence officials employed by both Democrat and
> Republican presidents.
>
>
><https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/10/12/trumps-intel-chief-is-undermining-us-intelligence-he-should-resign/>
>
> 'While the 2020 debates and President Trump contracting covid-19
> dominated everyone’s attention over the past week, Director of National
> Intelligence John Ratcliffe has been up to no good — undertaking the
> most blatant and egregious politicization of intelligence that we, two
> career intelligence officers, have ever seen.'
>
>
>
><https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/06/politics/brennan-ratcliffe-declassifying-intelligence-clinton-russia/index.html>
>
> '“John Ratcliffe is anything but an intelligence professional. It is
> appalling his selective declassification of information. It is designed
> to advance the political interests of Donald Trump and Republicans who
> are aligned with him,” Brennan said of the director of national
> intelligence.'
>
> That would be John Brennan...first appointed by Bush.

That's a typical "Alan" argument from you: you have no way to attack the
message (that the laptop was not Russian disinformation) so you attack the
messenger instead. You ignore the fact that none of the criticism you cite
or that I've seen, in any way suggests that Ratcliffe will lie. And you
ignore the fact that the FBI and Justice Department supported Ratcliffe's
statement. I really don't know what you are trying to prove here!

Chris

On 2023-03-02 8:23 a.m., Chris Buckley wrote:
> On 2023-03-01, David Johnston <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 2023-03-01 12:00 a.m., Andrew McDowell wrote:
>>> There are many reasons why I should not comment on the details of this particular free speech issue, not least being that I have repeatedly stated that the problems of various subcultures in the US have no counterpart in the UK, where we have people diligently tracking down records of slave-owners, but not of former slaves (see various mangled and fact-checked quotes including "one Cartwright brought a slave from Russia and would scourge him; for which he was questioned; and it was resolved, that England was too pure an air for a slave to breathe in").
>>>
>>> I would like to comment on the general free speech issue - is it a good idea for somebody to lose their liveihood and their access to public debate because of the views that they have expressed? One of the risks of a system which allows this is that a privileged class of gate-keepers may wield power over the democratic process by silencing stories based on fact which would otherwise affect public policy, and even sway elections. Is there any evidence of this risk materialising? One example is the silencing of the Hunter Biden laptop story.
>>
>> The Hunter Biden laptop story wasn't silenced. Although I do know that
>> a lot of people are upset they didn't get to see those dick pics.
>
> The story as a whole wasn't silenced, but certainly individual tellings of
> it were removed and silenced, individual posts were removed and silenced,

We were denied dick pics! This outrage will not stand!