Scott Adams, the extremely successful American cartoonist, posted a melancholy tweet the other day to his 2.7 million followers: “Dilbert has been cancelled from all newspapers, websites, calendars, and books because I gave some advice everyone agreed with”.
Ah, cancellation, the Black Death of the new millennium, scourge of everyone who is not racist/sexist/anti-LGBTQIA+ but who has an opinion everyone agrees with and isn’t afraid to share it.
Adams’ opinion, expressed in an online video, has been reported globally in abbreviated terms: that Black people are “a hate group” and that white people should “get the hell away” from them.
That is not entirely fair to Adams; his point was a little more nuanced. He was discussing a poll that had reported that only 53% of Black Americans surveyed agreed with the statement “It’s OK to be white” (26% disagreed and 21% weren’t sure).
Adams was dismayed, saying that “if nearly half of all Blacks are not OK with white people… that’s a hate group. I don’t want to have anything to do with them. And I would say, based on the current way things are going, the best advice I would give to white people is to get the hell away from Black people…because there is no fixing this.”
See? Not racist at all; the racists are the Black people who don’t like white people. As Adams explained post-cancellation (his cartoons have been dropped by pretty much every media outlet in the world in the past few days), he was merely “advising people to avoid hate”.
The free speech purist might here argue that Adams does indeed have a point: he wasn’t calling for violence or vilification of Black people, only reacting to what he saw as racism directed at him (or rather, his people) and taking up a defensive stance accordingly. Not to attack them, but to get away from them. Like running away from a white supremacist wielding a gun.
Which would be fine if we were prepared to park our intellects long enough to ignore the obvious: Adams was operating directly from the dog-eared playbook of white supremacists.
We’ve had the same here: recall Pauline Hanson on the floor of the Australian Senate in 2018, putting a motion that the chamber should acknowledge “the deplorable rise of anti-white racism and attacks on Western civilisation” and that “it is okay to be white”. The Coalition senators supported her motion, which was only narrowly defeated 31 votes to 28.
Richard Di Natale, then the Greens leader, correctly observed at the time that the slogan “It’s OK to be white” had a “long history in the white supremacist movement”.
Five years later, that hasn’t changed. Adams couldn’t credibly claim ignorance of the true significance of the slogan, even if he didn’t personally already have a track record of racist commentary. Which he does.
He was fully aware, therefore, that the poll was itself a racist provocation, akin to asking Jews if it’s OK to give a straight-arm salute. That more than half of the Black respondents actually agreed with the proposition is the extraordinary thing.
The trope of anti-white racism is not new, of course, and is seeing one of its frequent re-emergences at the moment in the lower depths of the Voice debate where one can find Andrew Bolt, rolling out his tired “It’s racist, I tells ya!” whine at any suggestion that the “first” in First Nations should ever be afforded a meaning.
Reverse racism, as it’s often also called, is not a thing that exists outside the brains of actual racists. Everyone has racist moments, to greater or lesser degrees, but the essential element of truly toxic racism — assumed racial or ethnic superiority — only lives in those who punch down. Sure, some Black people hate white people, like plenty of Ukrainians are presently hating Russians, and it’s not hard to see why. That isn’t a basis for equating their feelings with those of racial supremacists.
But, whatever. Inescapably, you wouldn’t think to say what Adams said unless you already hated — or, to be more precise, existentially feared — Black people, and were just looking for an excuse to mask your racism with logic. Banal, transparently disingenuous logic, as it happens.
To be clear, Adams hasn’t been cancelled at all, despite his plaintive moaning. His comic strip, commercial deals and royalty flows have been cancelled, by companies that no longer wish to be associated with him because he’s a racist. That’s their right, as it was his right to say what he said.
Adams can, and no doubt will, go on tweeting to his followers, buoyed by the personal support of Elon Musk — whose take on the story was that it’s the media, not Adams, who are the racists.
Hot tip: if you do find yourself agreeing with Adams’ advice, you’re a racist too.
What I find is a bigger problem is the polarisation of … nearly everything! It’s nearly impossible to have a reasoned discussion anymore – on anything, racism being one of them. “You’re either for us or against us” seems to be the new norm – if you don’t fully agree with us you are ..xyz!
Not conducive at all to solving problems – invariably leads to conflict as 2 intransigent sides dig in on their beliefs and opinions.
So, what side of racism deserves “reasoned discussion”?
All 27? Then deal with the schismatic heretics.
Rinse & repeat.
I’m a white female, I feel hard done by because I want to be anything other, but, I’m stuck with my genetics. I’m not powerful, important, special or valued in any way. I’m just a person with no reason to be noticed. I’ll live and die like anyone else who has no property, no family, no money in savings or superannuation and no reason to think I should above anyone else. I wish I could say I feel hard done by genetically but no one will hear me because of my white forbearers.
in here you’re just words JC. we’re all of exactly the same colour, race, ethnicity, sexuality, gender, age, height, weight, shape, physical ability, attractiveness, volume, reach…power, importance, specialness and value. that’s what makes words so cool. and why need to keep them alive and kicking. all of them, in any combination we can think of.
no sooking. you’re doing just fine in here.
PS: thank your english teachers.
mansplaining away a womans pov and assuming you speak for her – oh great arbiter for the powerful
erm, my words = my PoV, not JC’s. and wtf is it with pretty much everything being ‘mansplaining’ nowadays?? (and what’s left over is ‘gaslighting’). and btw, ASL, why did you only single out JC’s gender ID pltx marker? both she and I referenced – me directly or her by implication – pretty much the lot. the truly weird thing is…you’re the one stressing JC’s supposed gender inferiority & I’m the one insisting it’s non-existent. I mean…what just happened to feminism, this last decade or so? when did it turn itself inside out?
Waddawe want?
THE RIGHT TO BE VICTIMS!
Wheddowewunnit?
NOW, YESTERDAY, FOREVER, ALWAYS, ALL THE TIME!!
I just don’t get it, Andy SL. but you knew that already, obv! chrs
Why thank my English teachers?
Mind you, a number of teachers- lecturers, had some sort of belief in me eventhough I had no clue how to construct a sentence or paragraph to start. At 28 I had no idea about an intro, body or conclusion. A synopsis sounded like a foreign disease that sinners got. I fundamentally taught myself how to spell and understand grammar. I did my HSC at 28, got into Macquarie Uni and wondered how the hell I got there. I left after 1 semester. I went to Qld uni of technology a couple of years later and did my 1st 2 years of psychology. I did my 3rd yr bar 2 subjects. Words have meaning depending on perception and interpretation provided you can read and comprehend the words in a sentence.
Just because we don’t understand another’s words does not mean there is no meaning. It just means the observer does not know how to interpret. Yes I understand there is really no physical dynamics here but our words are meant to represent our physical and hence our intellectual experice of the world. Otherwise it’s mumbo jumbo for everyone.
What would be the point of words without the intent of communication and learning.
Hear hear.
Yes, sorry, I did mean generic language/literary/comprehension etc teachers (inc parents, books, yourself…etc)…ie ‘thank whoever/however you’re now to read and write and communicate. I do daily! Coz…here we are, being equal. Billions of people are stil functionally illiterate. And that’s not even considering who doesn’t have online access…and leisure time to join the great humn convo, etc. chrs JC
Agreed JR, acquisition of literacy and the modes that allow it, is an immense global issue. The isms run wide, deep and high. Some isms are put forth which bury other more important isms. Once upon a time educationalism was touted as the the great leveller of positive life outcomes. Today it is an ism itself. On the balance education and access to it does not always lead to positive life outcomes. We can all lose everything without a moments notice be it our own doing or nothing at all to do with ourselves.
This is still the wild wild west. Best to
strap ourselves to the horse or whatever mode of transport we can access to communicate or maybe communication is the new ism.
Maybe the quick have no relevance anymore just like the dead as it was once put forth from Hollywood.
No clue.
Maybe I should start a revolution because I have an education but i have no clue and it’s not fair. Hands up! Chrs JR.
every little daily revolution helps! 🙂
and your point is?
The question, if reversing it will improve anything.
Define “balck” and “white” for me first.
I have an ancestor who sailed into the newly created colony of Queensland, with a contract to sail the mail. passengers and supplies up the Queensland coast from Brisbane to Normantion and back.
He arrived with his 2 ships,a spare skipper and crew, a signed contract and his white blonde haired, blue eyed wife.
Oh, did I mention he was the product of a a red haired blue eyed Scottish male Grenadian landholder and a former Creole slave, with the skin colour of dark coffee, frizzy black hair worn in a plait and bright blue eyes. He had his birth certificate, baptismal certificate and ships captain’s paper.
He was considered white, as he was legitimate.
Ask this cartoonist to explain this matter, to my satisfaction.
I suspect that he is an upper class white who has never ventured out of his gated community and certainly never had a gao year working in Africa.
Asok began as a commentary on EB2-3 visas (the US scam migrant equivalent) and retains some elements, years on even though he is now fully acclimated.
The once edgy Simpsons have expunged Apu despite his having become a firm favourite, especially after including Mrs Nahasapeemapetilon.
Every ethnic group contains some racists. Always have always will. While his words are concerning so is that poll. How about we all just get along. The vast majority of people take others as they find them
His words are “concerning”? They’re repugnant. Way to attempt minimisation.
Way to be a drama queen. I notice you certainly minimised the poll figures by not mentioning it at all. Well done
Really ? It’s a fairly well known racist dog whistle, just like “all lives matter”.
Fitty bucks says the polling organisation leans conservative.
You’ve just won $50! Send invoice to Mr Adams.
So, just to be clear, you do NOT believe that “all lives matter”?
Ergo, some lives must matter more than others – what is the criterion, melanin content?
I agree with your sentiment. But it’s easy to say ‘how about we all just get along’ when you’re not the one being maligned. To ‘just get along’ for many people involves swallowing their pride and accepting their place in the hierarchy. Would you be happy to do that if you were a member of a marginalised group?
I actually am but I don’t think of myself that way. Some people like me occasionally some don’t.. I think everyone experiences that
Moi aussi.
The problem with these types of surveys is that there can be a lot of meaning in the question.
Is it OK to be white? or Is it OK to be White?
Do you respond with of course it’s ok, it’s a skin colour, or do you pause and think, are they asking if its OK to be White, where you blink at seeing a black man driving etc.
“How about we all get along?” said the thief to the descendants of the people he robbed, and whose institutions of discrimination ensured that the descendants of the people he robbed would be killed and imprisoned at a much higher rate and die younger and poorer than those who benefited from the theft.
Let’s just forget the last 150 years without acknowledging the reality of those last 150 years, eh? (And we haven’t even touched on compensation, reparation or levelling-up lest we be banned by the heirs of the thieves for promoting a white elephant known in paranoid circles as the ‘white replacement theory.’)
I agree and apologies and reparations need to be made and history recognised. But even then will that fix the issue. I suspect there are people on both sides of any issue who will never get along. So being a simple guy I say how about we all just try to get along. I suspect with the other things would then occur
You do realize Adams is American not Australian?
Been in the dispossession game for at least twice as long…
Weird. I put a lot of thought and effort into two well-expressed, carefully argued comments which were sensible, far from (either) extreme and designed to move the discussion forward. They spent about 20 hours in the pending tray marked “Awaiting for approval” (surely that should be either “awaiting approval” or “waiting for approval”?) before being disappeared without explanation. When you look at many of the comments which remain up on the page and apparently got cleared without fuss or delay, you can only scratch your head.
Anyway, if at first you don’t succeed…
To summarise, the point I was trying to make is that Scott Adams wasn’t born evil and has in fact done good work for the progressive cause over a long period, albeit in the workplace context rather than on the big-story issues. Yes, he’s cynical. Yes, he’s blokey. Yes, the language he uses wouldn’t earn him a Distinction in a Cultural Studies assignment. But for just those reasons he gets through to the kind of people whom the long-faced, self-righteous, preaching Left can’t reach. If the Left is ever to become an effective political force (I increasingly despair of it, but still care enough to keep trying), it needs to bring people like that on board. So it’s no cause for self-congratulation on the part of the orthodoxy-sniffers that he’s been convicted, purged and allowed to fall into the welcoming arms of the Right.
Two things about this article made me commit the Sin of Anger. The first was that it was absolutely superfluous. One look through the correspondence makes it clear that Crikey’s readership, or at any rate the vocal part of it, is crammed with people who already agree furiously, often without even bothering to read the offending item, that Adams is RACIST, and hence very very very very very ideologically unsound, and hence deserves to be PURGED. What was the point in another article telling them what they already believed?
What made me even more cranky was the logical slide by which Michael moved straight from the (slightly contestable) proposition that Scott Adams was dreadfully, dreadfully ideologically unsound, and thus wicked, to the much broader conclusion that anyone trying to insert any nuance into the discussion or locate it in a context must be equally RACIST and just as much in need of PURGING – because why else would anyone want to criteek the CORRECT LINE? I expect that of a second-year undergraduate, but I’d have expected a more balanced and evidence-driven input from a very experienced barrister.
It’s really the old fallacy of the excluded middle, the idea that either you’re 100% on the CORRECT LINE or you’re objectively pro-fascist. I once thought that had gone out with Comrade Stalin, but it seems to be back in full vigour, except that this time it hasn’t got the Red Army, the NKVD or the Communist International to back it up.
you make some good points about the issue however i would like to suggest you stop the label “left “; there are philosophies which suggest such a liberal is a free thinker – labels and cheap amateur bullet point and limiting labels are blunt, reactive and ultimately create greater division than that they purport to uphold- fear of the other and human mistrust is sadly a human classic fear and ones foibles cant be solved via polemics These serve to dumb down our collective abilty to listen and act compassionately for all
The distinction between left and right still holds good, though like many things you recognise when you see them, it gets very hard to pin down as soon as you try to work out a definition.
I grant it’s got a lot harder to tell which is which in the last few years. On the one hand we’ve seen the loopy far right stealing the rhetoric, ethos, iconography and mobilisation techniques of the left (see Convoy to Canberra), on the other you have the counter-racists (self-styled “Anti-racists”) who set out to fight racism by using the language, the tactics and the mindset of traditional racism. And somewhere in between you have populist movements like the Five Stars whom we originally took to be anarchists (i.e. hard left) but who ended up going into coalition government with the hard racist right once they were elected. And don’t even start me on the NSW Libs…
That makes it all the more important to cut through to the substance of what they’re ultimately after, which is where the difference still lies and still matters, even if it doesn’t align as closely as it once did with political party labels. It’s hard to sum up in a reply to a reply, and I can only suggest you read up on it a bit more. At least in this country we’re lucky to have Murdoch always with us to remind us authoritatively which issues the Right cares about, and with rather less accuracy, which belong to the Left.
But youre perfectly happy to use labels and shorthand when it comes to your monolithic opponents.
Guy Rundle freely uses the term left and there’s not a peep. Seems you’re just derailing the discussion with “objection your Honor”
Your comment would carry more weight if it wasn’t so hypocritical.
Please expline.
You are accusing someone of jumping to extremes while doing the same thing yourself (“PURGING”, “pro-fascist”, etc).
It’s a joke, Joyce. Also called irony. I’m taking the piss out of the orthodoxy-sniffers by putting those words in their mouths. (“Actually it was not mice, it was shells”.)
Don’t even try the Dilbert books. You wouldn’t get them at all.
Uh, ok. Hard to understand why something that didn’t happen made you angry, then.
Since it appears you need everything spelt out, here’s a more detailed response.
The Reason I put words like RACIST in block caps (along with FASCIST and more recently TOXIC) is that they have become words which are SHOUTED at people, as part of CALLING them OUT, and no longer have much if any place in respectful, reasoned discussion. “Racism” is admittedly hard to avoid even there, as there don’t appear to be any less emotive synonyms, except “racialism” which alway puts me in mind of Mr Hilter. (“I am not a r-r-racialist, BUT – and it is a BIG but…”) But the convention seems to have arisen that once you’ve persuaded yourself you have sufficient reason to shout “RACIST!!” at someone, that should be the end of the discussion; whereas in my fusty, scholarly and no doubt prolix opinion, it should be just the beginning.
The words I’ve mentioned, in the process of degenerating into shouted abuse, have steadily lost such meaning as they once possessed and can now effectively mean just about anything the speaker wants them to. Just like “woke”, or as I wrtote earlier, “race”.
Yes. Happens to me regularly.
However, I’m not sure what point you’re making in this particular case outside of a general knee-jerk reaction to someone saying “racist”.
Adams said “blacks are a hate group”, in addition to generally contemptuous comments (“I identify as black because I want to be on the winning team”).
Any suggestion that someone this politically engaged does not understand the dogwhistle context of “it’s OK to be white” is laughably disingenuous.
Complaining about a lack of “discussion” while being oblique and abrasive is a bit rich. Speak plainly, you might get more takers.
My orignal point, which the Keepers of the Correct Line so clearly miss, is that Scott Adams is not in any true sense politically engaged – or at least, he wasn’t up to now. This might sound at variance with what I wrote earlier about his having done good service to the progressive cause, but the truth (again overlooked by many political tragics) is that it is possible to oppose authoritarianism while operating in a context that is not capital-P political. This was much more commonly understood in the days when the Left had a stronger base in unionism.
So the things you’ve labelled as Crimespeak are in fact pretty accurate reflections of the way the world looks to those who have not had the privilege of a four-year degree course in Poststructuralism and Water to persuade them of their own ineffable moral superiority over their benighted forebears. Once upon a time the Left saw such perceptions as a starting-point from which to talk politically ambivalent people around to their point of view, eventually drawing strength from direct experiences which could otherwise so easily have led them down the opposite track – which is what now appears to have happened to Adams.
How much easier just to issue yet another Condemn form, resolve never to speak to them again, and go back to arguing only with people who agree with you on all but the finest points of dogma! But of course this approach is comforting only if you are content with remaining politically ineffectual, and expect nothing better.
Oh, and I don’t argue obliquely. I say exactly what I mean, and spell out my arguments in exhaustive, maybe even pedantic detail to make sure the intent is absolutely clear. This is obviously a source of irritation to some readers who have a five-second attention span and would much prefer to go away with a pocketable aphorism or slogan – though I can sometimes provide those too, where the matter justifies them. Of course my arguments often take more thought to make sense of than what you’re used to reading, but that’s because they tend to be more original, more nuanced and more complex than “Four legs good, two legs bad”.
So the things you’ve labelled as Crimespeak […]
There are a lot of things going on only inside your head.
You are the person here preventing any possibility of discussion, not me.
You are the person presenting an extremist position.
You are the person engaging in slippery slope and ad hominem fallacies.
Again, the suggestion that Scott Adams does not know the dog-whistling context of “it’s OK to be white” and therefore is reasonably projecting a literal interpretation (which, pedantically would still be incorrect) of the survey question, is laughable.
He said something racist. You could argue whether he’s doing it as part of an “anti-woke” or “contrarian/devil’s advocate” statement, or whether it’s a convenient facade over what he really thinks, but that’s not really the point.
It remains difficult to understand or interpret what your point here is, other than a knee-jerk reaction about somebody getting called racist when you think they weren’t.
I covered the offending survey in my original posting that got censored, but thought others had dealt with it adequately by now. But just to clarify (for the benefit of others, not you):
I don’t think anyone contests the proposition that the survey in question was poorly designed (research instrument design and interpretation is one of my porfessional specialisations) and maliciously intended, and that the “It’s OK to be white” question was a trick one, meant to be understood one way by respondents and a different way by readers of the results. The idea was presumably that all the black respondents would have followed the “race” debate attentively enough to know about the “dog-whistling” use of the expression, and would respond in the negative, which could then be used by Murdoch, the Republican hardliners and the racist Right in general as “proof” that all black Americans hated all white Americans .
What was interesting (to me at least) is that it didn’t work out that way. A majority (small but clear) of the black respondents agreed with the statement, and only a quarter disagreed. The interpretation I put on that response is that at least half those who responded hadn’t been following the debate/beatup, and reacted to what the words specifically said – a perfectly reasonable statement to anyone, regardless of colour, except a really hardline ideologue or counter-racist. Scott Adams actually deserves some credit for picking up this apparent anomaly (albeit without the explanation), even though it undermined the case he (or his prompters) had been trying to make.
We need to bear in mind that by the time Adams improvised this interminable ramble, his views had indeed shifted towards the racist Right – though how far is unclear. My original concern – again, this was made clearer in my original censored posting – was about how he got there, and whether it was inevitable. My argument is that had those black activists he approached been prepared to receive him more tactfully and deal with his misconceptions patiently and one at a time, they might well have come to view him as an asset to their cause, and his politics would have moved that way instead. It’s pure speculation, of course, but it’s as much within the realms of possibility as the apparently favoured proposition that Scott Adams was evil all along and beyond redemption.
“It remains difficult to understand or interpret what your point here is, other than a knee-jerk reaction about somebody getting called racist when you think they weren’t.“
Surely that’s precisely what the article, and much of this subsequent argument, is all about. Hardly a trivial matter, when “RACIST” is the most insulting thing anyone can be called these days, at any rate within the Hall of Mirrors. And I doubt whether you will find many readers who agree with you that I’m the one doing the knee-jerk; or indeed, that my viewpoint is extremist, or that I’m the one resorting to ad-hominem arguments.
And I would quietly point out that I’ve made a large number of highly relevant, cogent and mostly original points, all with implications that go well beyond the individual case of Scott Adams to the really big issue of why the extraparliamentary Left seems to be achieving so little traction in the broader community, at a time when its core membership (mostly within the universities) is bigger than it’s been since the 70s and the case for radical progressive socioeconomic reform is the strongest it’s been since the GFC; whereas I’ve yet to see a substantive argument from you.
I did address your much-recycled point about the “It’s OK to be white” beatup in my reply yesterday, which I’m afraid remains in the editorial Esky (a)waiting for someone to clear it. I’ve no idea why this keeps happening to me, while your trolling goes straight through to the page without hindrance or delay.
Commiserations – the ‘Awaiting for Approval’ is tedious, and worse, there seems no consistency involved in decisions. I assume that the moderating of comments is carried out without human intervention, hence the results.
However, your post was well worth the wait – a spot on analysis of both the article, the author and the ‘orthodoxy-sniffers’.
Better enjoy it while you still can, Anodyne. I did another sober, reasonable response to Andy Smart Lady, arguing that there was still a difference between Right and Left, and it still mattered, even if it has been getting steadily harder of late to tell which is which. It was still up on the page when I switched my PC off last night, but looking in just now, I find that it too has been picked up with tongs and moved to the “Awaiting for approval” cabinet.
I scanned it carefully for Crimespeak, and the only thing I could find that might offend the Ideologically Pure was a passing reference to the Counter-racists, who according to Michael don’t exist because the CORRECT LINE says they oughtn’t to. That sort of reasoning always reminds me of that 17th-century natural philosopher who took his students down to the beach to draw a dead whale, only to find that nearly all of them had drawn it with ears, because the Authours had always shown whales with ears, and one should always trust Authoritie over the evidence of one’s own senses. But I mustn’t get ahead of myself, as I don’t know if this really is the problem.
Thanks Doug for articulating – in probably too many words mind you – my response to Michael’s article. Or in my own words, with reference to Michael’s last sentence: “Good-oh. That’s what we need to improve the debate – more polarisation and name-calling.”
“What was the point in another article telling them what they already believed?” Because people pay good money to be fed a constant diet of opinions that match their own.
Andrew Bolt and Fox do it for the right. Crikey and most of its journalists do it for the left.
It pays the bills.
And lowers the tone and value of journalism as reportage of the agora with every drip,drip drip – which eventually wears away the hardest stone.
“the poll was itself a racist provocation”. There’s nothing wrong with being ignorant of the fact that “it’s ok to be white” has been used by racist movements… and answering, yes.
I guess the people answering, unsure, did so because they felt it was the only answer that wasn’t racist. I wonder if anyone decided not to take part in the survey at this point.
So we’re left with the 26% that said no – it’s not ok to be white. A ridiculous answer that’s not worth getting upset about.
Scott Adams explains his reaction to the poll on a 2 hour video, posted to YouTube channel Hotep Jesus, on 26th February. A much better way to judge him than accepting the lazy assumptions of Michael Bradley above.
Who wants to listen to him rave for 2 hours?
The bane of opinion polling (never mind the dire record in prediciting elections or anything else) is the (putative) belief that vox populi, vox dei.
This only applies because Man made god(s) in His Own image – as the Oirish would stay, “You can’t get there from here” or, for tektypes, GI/GO.
Junk food, junk infotainment, junk work, junk lives – why is anyone surprised by the result?
The actual poll question was: Do you agree or disagree with this statement: “It’s OK to be white.”
So for anyone – and I suspect a large fraction of the black population is – aware of the racist dogwhistle this statement typically represents, “disagree” is neither explicitly nor implicitly a judgement on whether or not it’s OK to have white skin.
Scott Adams, being by all reports – not least his own – a reasonably intelligent chap, would be well aware of how this phrase is commonly used, and quite capable of deducing that people disagreeing with it would be mostly disagreeing with its use as white supremacist catchcry, rather than disagreeing with its literal interpretation.
Imagine my complete lack of surprise upon looking into the polling organisation and find #3 on its “Top Stories” is titled “Not ‘Woke’ Yet? Most Voters Reject Anti-White Beliefs“
Fair call. Would have been nice to see some commentary on Kanye West’s antisemitic ranting Michael.