Kaitlyn

Without concretely proving it, antinatalism appears to have the framework to be correct, without having all the concrete required to fill the framework:

1a) There is always a negative affect before a positive affect, in regards to all humans as a whole (not necessarily to individual humans -- one person's gain can come at the expense of others). Happiness, pleasure, joy etc. (positive affect) are the result of relieving oneself/people of sadness, pain, sorrow etc. (negative affect).

For example, we don't feel relief in drinking unless we were previously thirsty. You can drink without being thirsty, but you won't experience positive affect in that. It's the preceding negative affect which allows for the creation of the positive affect.

Furthermore, when someone is relieved, boredom slowly creeps in (which is negative affect). So, even if you achieve your goals and relieve yourself of the negative affect, you'll soon be hampered by boredom! And you know what is required to counteract boredom? A goal (i.e. something that produces negative affect). So, both achievement of goals AND working towards goals creates negative affect (and only offers the chance of positive affect).

You can further compound this negativity by the existence of comparison, of which makes positive affect have a limited ceiling. In other words, because you can compare your lot in life to others, even if in isolation you would experience positive affect, you may experience negative affect if you see your lot in life as less than others (and will be particularly aggrieved if you deem this difference unfair). An example of this: people prefer being objectively poorer if they are relatively richer compared to those around them -- not everyone can be relatively richer than everyone else around them Is more always better?: A survey on positional concerns - ScienceDirect 

Thus, negative affect is guaranteed whereas positive affect is not.

Therefore, there will always be more instances of negative affect experienced than instances of positive affect experienced.

The question now becomes: despite having greater instances of negative affect, do they outweigh the fewer instances of positive affect?

1b) Per unit, negative affect outweighs positive affect

Albeit, this is an exercise in estimation, as we cannot (currently) measure and compare ever instance of positive and negative affect to have been experienced by humans (it's framework without the concrete).

But, nonetheless, we can estimate.

What do you think of drinking water? If you could flip a coin to (heads) experience your quenched thirst or (tails) to experience dehydration, would you flip the coin? According to current loss aversion theories, people would prefer not to flip the coin because they don't like risking their status quo Higgins_et_al-2018-Journal_of_Consumer_Psychology.pdf (columbia.edu) . In fact, people would be far more willing to take risks to avoid dehydration, than they would to gain a more pleasant drinking experience (perhaps a sugary beverage instead of water). Hence, we have the backing of research to suggest that per unit, negative affect outweighs positive affect.

Since per unit, negative affect outweighs positive affect, and from argument 1a we saw that there are more instances of negative affect, it follows that there is a larger value of negative affect than positive affect in life, thus human life shouldn't be brought into existence.

2) Humans are totally unable to consent to life. This problem is amplified by the entirety of the arguments above, but it's also a problem in itself.

It's morally questionable to impose upon people serious conditions (in this instance: life) without their permission. Even if you think it's a good idea, and even if the life ends up being a good one, there is guaranteed risk involved (e.g. cancer, disease, childbirth complications, death etc.) which parents impose without consent.

It would be like someone using your money to go to the casino. Would you like it if someone did that? We already know they're playing against the odds (see my above argument 1a + 1b). Even if the person were to double your money, they still used your money without your permission. They still risked your money without asking you first. This is analogous to bringing humans into existence -- no consent beforehand.

Thus, parents gambling with the wellbeing of others without their consent is immoral. Therefore, childbirth is immoral.

Most people don't seem to think about consent in regards to childbirth, but it's quite a serious issue.

Everyone who was ever born did not give consent to be alive. 

The largest issue with this is that if someone has a miserable life, perhaps even ending up killing themselves and regretting the whole ordeal, that would not only be: 1) a bad life, but 2) one that was imposed upon them. There are many variations of bad lives, too: toddlers getting cancer and dying at the age of 4, double amputation required at the 7 leading to death, being abandoned by both parents and being bashed every day by adopted parents etc. In short, there are plenty of lives we can look at and say, 'that wouldn't be a desirable life to live at all', and this is made worse by the fact that this life was forced upon them without consent.

It's also ethically dubious to bring people into existence, even if their life ends up being great. The ethical problem is that a great life isn't guaranteed, whereas suffering is. So, bringing people into existence would be effectively gambling a person's wellbeing without the person's consent, and winning the gamble. 

Even in it's simplest form, bringing people into existence is done without consent, so there is that issue, too.

I haven't ever seen a coherent, logically constructed argument that addresses this large ethical issue. I would love to read what people think.

Ever since I lost my Christian faith at a young age, I've struggled with this topic a lot. Mainstream intellectuals either don't ever address it or mangle their understanding of arguments in favor of antinatalism, so antinatalism always seemed a rather large beacon of truth to me.

Overall, I don't think human life can be argued as acceptably good. Negative affect is a prerequisite to positive affect, at least in humans (probably other sentient creatures, too). A drink of water doesn't feel good (positive affect) without first being thirsty (negative affect). In other words, you're always going to have more instances of negative affect than positive affect.

You can add to this conundrum by realizing that people generally experience more units of negative affect when bad things happen, than the inverse. We see this with loss aversion in regards to financial decisions, wherein someone will prioritize avoiding losses Prospect Theory and Loss Aversion: How Users Make Decisions (nngroup.com) You can also theorize about the best thing that could happen in life (e.g. winning a massive competition) versus the worst things (e.g. early onset Alzheimer's). 

I think a possible solution to the antinatalist argument involves humans being radically genetically engineered to not have this deprivation mechanism that has them have more instances of negative affect and experience more units of negative overall in their life. Effectively, you'd be removing the desire part of the human psychology, whatever that comprises. If tasks still needed to be done, you could replace the deprivation mechanism model with an algorithmic one, of which simply does required tasks without the need for motivation (the thing is done because it is logical to do so). I guess this new being would be far enough from a human to be considered post-human.

Another solution is to simply have humans in a dream state or virtual reality world that allows for unrealistic levels of deprivation fulfilling, of which doesn't come at the expense of other real humans (e.g. you win a gold at the Olympics in your dreams, but you don't realize than you are dreaming, so no real human actually lost and feels the negative affect). Perhaps we could even pre-program a device/human to allow the human to experience a life they think is real but is a linear progression that allows the human to feel better and better as their perceived life continues (e.g. winning the Olympics in one category, then in two in the next Olympics). The pre-programming would protect against unwanted negative affect because the perceived life is pre-determined. 

When it comes to Black and White crimes, Blacks are 34.37 times more likely to commit a crime against Whites than the inverse (87.3 / 12.7 = 6.87 ; 6.87 x 5 = 34.37 -- the White population outnumbers the Black population 5 fold) FdJBO4yXkAARgZz (1200×749) (twimg.com) . This may be indicative of Black's racial hatred for White people, but certainly dispels the myth that Whites commit more crimes against Blacks than the inverse.

For context, Blacks are also far more likely to commit crimes against Hispanics, but not to the egregious extent they are against Whites FdJBR_KWAAM7qUB (1200×742) (twimg.com) , whilst Hispanics are more likely to commit crimes against Whites than the inverse, but even close to being as much as Blacks are to Whites and Hispanics FdJBQFNXoAMA7n0 (1200×744) (twimg.com) .

Data to make graphs found here: Criminal Victimization, 2021 (ojp.gov) 

Why do Blacks commit so many more crimes against Whites and Hispanics?

No, I'm not talking about Feminism.

One of the great knowledges the West has forgotten is witchcraft. The trails of Salem are unfortunately a long-forgotten rite-of-passage of the past in places like America and England, but fortunately, the torch has been handed to many bright places, particularly South America and Africa: FjdOvsKWIAEWhLp (1105×569) (twimg.com) . Those places in particular help to make the 40% of the 140,000 polled who still (rightly) believe in witchcraft. Tunisia was the most based country with 90% of its respondents saying that they believe Hermione Granger is real. Sweden was again most cucked with only 9% realizing that their hair was knotted in the morning due to a hex casted earlier on them.

Belief in witchcraft was also found to bring many societal benefits such as: "disrupted social relations, high levels of anxiety, pessimistic worldview, lack of entrepreneurial culture and innovative activity." Seeing this, it's no wonder witchcraft is believed in droves in places like Africa and South America, both of which are thriving economically. 

The next time you see some wind moving around really fast and ripping up the street, don't think it's a cyclone, think back to knowledge lost in our Western countries and realize that it's the supernatural world sending you a sign: a stop sign.

Liberals and Conservatives both have one thing in common: their legacy medias are lie machines.

In this OP, I'm specifically going to analyze how distorted the reporting of police "violence" against Black people is.

Legacy news reports of police violence against Blacks is about 11 times greater than it is for Whites if you use mean figures, and 21 times if you use median figures: FqkorgIWYAE5NJd (1756×1170) (twimg.com) . When you couple this with the fact that there are about 3 Black deaths per 10k unarmed violent encounters with police, whilst there are 4 White deaths per 10k unarmed violent encounters, you can see the news reports vastly overrepresent police violence against Blacks. 

This overreporting probably explains the woefully inaccurate understanding many people have of police violence against Blacks. A 2019 survey asked people how many Black unarmed men were killed by police in 2019. Over half the responses from every, single political ideology said that at least "about 100" were killed, anywhere from 13-52% (depending on the political affiliation) said "about 1000", and there were even respondents who said "about 10,000" or "more than "10,000" (check the graph for yourself) FqkvBSgagAASCag (1084×1202) (twimg.com) . Depending on the database you use, the correct response ranges from 13-27 -- well over half the respondents were completely wrong, and something like a third were magnitudes of levels wrong.

Just to put that 13-27 range into perspective, things like the weather typically cause more unarmed Black deaths (56) National Health Statistics Reports, Number 76 (07/30/2014) (cdc.gov) , also Accidental drowning (591) National Vital Statistics Reports Volume 68, Number 9 June 24, 2019 Deaths: Final Data for 2017 (cdc.gov) , so too Falling (1525) (same source), and also Diabetes (14,798) (same source). 

Stop listening to legacy media.

One of the saddest things I've come across in my life is the fact that Israel isn't diverse. According to Wikipedia's demographics of Israel, 73.5% of the population is Jewish which is far too high because it only leaves room for Arabs to be 21% of the population, and the (what should be) vaunted "other" group to be 5.5% Demographics of Israel - Wikipedia . If you think Israel is already diverse enough, you are a racist bigot who supports Jewish supremacy. 

Diversity is a strength and it's awfully sad Israel hasn't learned this yet. There are many great cuisines that Arabs could offer Israel. For example, Palestinians are known to make Kebab Halabi, which is served with a spicy tomato sauce and Aleppo pepper (so hot it feels like a scimitar through your throat!) Muslim culture must also enter Israel, as we can all see the wisdom in this Quranic verse which talks about dealing with some pest (probably rabbits): "And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out". Very Progressive.

Arabs could offer other cultural diversity as well, such as the cultural understanding that Israeli land actually belongs to the Palestinians -- a unique perspective that could help Israeli Jews to be more open minded.

Israel also needs Black culture. Cultural perspectives on 'who are the true Israelites?' should be taught be Black preachers in Israeli schools to allow diverse thought to flourish (das rite). Blacks should also have quotas to all Israeli schools and high-powered positions, much like they do in the United States, to allow the racial oppression of Blacks to be overcome with tolerance and diversity. There is a serious dearth of Black representation in Israel currently, and they need to start replacing Jews with Blacks as quickly as possible to undo systemic racism against Blacks.

Hispanics should be allowed to freely enter Israel because we simply need more diversity -- Israel is just too Jewish. Asians should come in by the boatload because why not? Whites as well. Just let everyone in to create a more diverse environment for everyone to enjoy.

This is the only way to combat racism and bigotry by the Jewish supremacist state of Israel.

Freedom of speech is dead in Ireland. It has been murdered by the typical libtard 'hate speech' nonsense that allows corrupt governments and malicious people to destroy others for disagreeing with them. Not only that, but a reversal of the golden criminal justice principle of 'innocent until proven guilty' is about to take effect, too, wherein people need to explain why they have material on their devices, else they are assumed guilty. FuzJqkqX0AEbXtR (1080×1137) (twimg.com)

Ireland is about to pass a law that prevents people from having "material that is likely to incite violence or hatred against a person or group of person". What that means in practice is that if you have something that is political that refers to controversial issues on your phone or laptop, those are illegal and could be used to criminally prosecute you, because the standard for inciting violence/hatred is vague and assumes you're guilty.

If you have a picture of Hitler on your laptop or phone, perhaps used for a research project at school, you'll need to explain yourself before a judge. If you have a meme about Asians not driving well, you'll need to explain yourself before a judge. If you have a video of some African Muslims bashing people, you'll need to explain yourself in front of a judge.

Say what you want about America and its failings, but at least it has robust freedom of speech and criminal justice laws. 

African Americans, from the bottom half of the American income distribution, have had worse homicide rates than any other country in the world.

Crunching the numbers, we can see that some of the worst homicide rates (per 100,000) worldwide range from 20.8 (Dominica, 2020) to the 49.3 (Virgin Islands, 2012) FuF7chEWIAAb0ux (844×592) (twimg.com) . Most of the countries listed here are from South America, Carribean and (a few) being from Africa. South America and the Carribean are the most violent today, whereas Africa has been so in the past but appears to have improved (if African data is to be trusted, which is debatable: FuGF-N6WYA8dHjI (712×811) (twimg.com) )  FuF8yp1WAAMvQCg (850×620) (twimg.com) .

For African Americans of the 0-10 income distribution decile, their homicide rate has ranged from 86.1-117.0 homicides per 100,000, making them on average twice as bad as the worst country (Virgin Islands 49.3). The 10-25 percentiles ranged from 48.1-63.9, again making them on average worse than the worst country. Even the 25-50 percentiles ranged from 39.8-65.2, still average higher than the worst country, thus proving that at least the bottom half of African Americans, in terms of U.S. income distribution, have greater homicide rates than the worst country in the world. FuF7cgzXoAIV0nR (660×413) (twimg.com) taken from Unequal Incomes, Unequal Outcomes? Economic Inequality and Measures of Well-Being (newyorkfed.org) 

What do you think of this statistical finding? 

For various reasons, at least in the United States, men work more than women. This is true for various household set-ups. FtpheDCaYAAbi4m (640×480) (twimg.com) (taken from: The Myth of the ‘Lazy’ Father | Institute for Family Studies (ifstudies.org) ). You could argue that's unfair for men, you could argue that men are choosing to enter this arrangement voluntarily, but in any case it's what is happening.

However, the last bar caught my eye -- it was the worst gap in terms of sex inequality between men and women. When women were the sole income earners, men were working far less than anyone else in any other set-up FtnnW0lX0CYpD2Z (984×965) (twimg.com) . I'm by no means a Feminist, but this certainly appears to be an instance of genuine equality that women face. Not only are these breadwinner women working at a job infinitely more than men, but they're getting about half the leisure time these men do, too. Albeit, caregiving and housework were roughly equal, which is strange because stay-at-home mothers found ways to do far more "work" in general (see first graph), hence the smaller gap between breadwinner men and stay-at-home mothers.

So, the point of this thread is to ask this: why is this happening? Why are stay-at-home dads working considerably less than breadwinner mothers, relative to all the other possible set-ups?

Some people are far more likely to be violent than others, at least according to a recent 2023 study commissioned by FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression), but conducted by College Pulse. The sample size was enormous at roughly 45,000.

Some of the results will surprise you!

One of the most explosive findings was that Agender people, in response to this prompt: "How acceptable would you say it is for students to engage in the following action to protest a campus speaker? Using violence to stop a campus speech," the results showed that roughly 64% of them said it was at least "rarely" acceptable FuS_QjOXgAIuJZO (1176×870) (twimg.com) , whilst 38% of them said it was at least "sometimes" acceptable, and 8% saying always -- scary! FtEWsUoaUAAU65t (911×611) (twimg.com) . This places them a top of any group as being the most prone to violence over a campus speech. 

Queer/Gender fluid is the next worst category for gender having splits (at least "rarely" 49%, at least "sometimes" 22%, and "always" 4%). Non-binary and unsure gender results were only fractionally better with their splits. It should be noted that sample sizes for these groups were: 1,249 for nonbinary, 810 were genderqueer, and 411 agender.

Both males and females were the gender group least likely to cause violence over a speech, with neither group getting at least a "rarely" response more than 20% of the time, females 3% for "sometimes" and 1% for "always", whilst males were 4% and 2% respectively.

In regards to race, a surprising finding was that Native Hawaiians (at least "rarely" 36% - at least "sometimes"15% - "always" 5%) were the most likely to get violent over a campus speech, with only Middle Easterners being marginally better (35%-15%-4%). Asians, Blacks, Hispanics and Mixed races were all roughly the same and significantly less than the previous two, whilst Whites were the least prone to violence (17%-4%-1%).

Super surprisingly, with respect to religion, Buddhists were the most likely to throw hands over speech on campus (30%-10%-2%). Atheists were 2nd (24%-6%-1%). Christians were least likely (11%-3%-1%).

"Something else" was the most likely political category to be violent (29%-7%-2%). Strong Democrats were 2nd (24%-7%-2%). "Independent, lean Republican was the least likely (11%-3%-1% -- exactly the same as Christians). 

For the "field of study", African/Afr-American Studies (56%-31%-10%) Ethnicity and Race studies (52%-18%-1%) people were easily the most prone to violence.  Real Estate was the least prone to violence and the lowest group out of anything I saw (4%-1%-1%). Jewish Studies should also get a mention (8%-8%-0%).

(use this resource to play around with the data for all above categories) --> 2022 College Free Speech Rankings Data | Tableau Public 

Among many other statements, two other interesting statements were given to the students to evaluate how acceptable they are (1) "Block other students from attending a campus speech", and (2) "Shouting down a speaker or trying to prevent them from speaking on campus".

Agender (72%-41%-12%) and Non-binary (65%-33%-6%) were the 1st and 2nd worst genders for answering statement (1), with Non-binary (87%-64%-17%) and Agender (81%-55%-15%) switching places for statement (2). Males were least likely for (1) (33%-11%-3%) and (2) (58%-26%-6%).

Middle Easterners were again the least tolerant race for (1) (47%-22%-5%) and (2) (68%-37%-7%). Whites were the most tolerant for (1) (34%-10%-2%), but "other" was most tolerant for (2) (56%-27%-5%).

For religion, Agnostic (46%-15%-2%), Atheists (44%-15%-2%) and Buddhists (45%-18%-3%) were all about 1st for (1), whilst only Atheists (73%-43%-10%) and Agnostics (75%-41%-7%) were the worst for (2). Christians most tolerant for (1) (29%-9%-1%), and Orthodox Christian for (2) (55%-25%-4%).

Strong Democrats were the worst for (1) (49%-19%-3%) and (2) (77%-47%-9%). Independent, lean Republican were the best for (1) (20%-4%-1%), and Strong Republican was best for (2) (37%-13%-3%).

Field of Studies had African/Afr-American Studies (61%-32%-12%), Ethnicity Studies (61%-28%-6%), and Women's and Gender Studies (and Sexuality) (59%-25%-5%) were the worst for (1), whilst Jewish Studies took the cake for (2) (92%-37%-0%). Ethnicity and Race Studies should get a mention, too (83%-70%-22%). Robotics and Intelligent Systems were the best for (1) (13%-0%-0%), whilst European Cultural Studies were the best for (2) (18%-0%-0%).

Anyone who doesn't identity as a man or woman is likely to be against genuine freedom of speech, with the mythical agender and non-binary people the most prone to violence of any groups. Middle Easterners are not quite as bad as the mythical genders, but they certainly don't seem to support freedom of speech either, and thus are the most troublesome race. Whites seem to support freedom of speech the most and are the least likely to be violent over it. Buddhists, Atheists, Agnostics and Strong Democrats are somewhat intolerant, but not as prone to violence as Middle Easterners or the mythical genders. Christians are the most tolerant in all regards. African/Afr-American Studies and Ethnicity Studies people are almost as violent as the mythical genders but won't engage in other disrupting tactics as much (but they are still the worst from any field of study). Real Estate study people were the least violent of any group.

Another interesting recurring theme I found was that Asians were slightly more intolerant of freedom of speech than Blacks, even in regards to violence.

Finally, the worst college for freedom of speech, in accordance with the study's "2022 College Free Speech Rankings," was Columbia University by some margin, garnering an "abysmal" rating of 9.91 (the only "abysmal" rating out of 203 campuses) 2022 College Free Speech Rankings | The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (thefire.org) 

Unconditional income appears to make poor people work less, according to the research I've recently found from developed countries (Spain, Finland and Italy). As the first study I'll cover notes, developing countries are so poor that unconditional income helps things like health, educational outcomes and psychological well-being, so unconditional UBI for them might be okay, but let's have a look at UBI for developed countries.

In a paper published earlier this year (2023), Barcelona's poor people responded negatively to an unconditional UBI (roughly half the minimum wage of Spain) by having the main recipient be 20% less likely to work, whilst the household receiving the income was 14% less likely to have at least one member working. These negative outcomes persisted at least 6 months after the final UBI payment. This result appeared to be softly affected by care responsibilities of the household (i.e. taking care of children, elderly grandparents etc.) The Employment Effects of Generous and Unconditional Cash Support by Timo Verlaat, Federico Todeschini, Xavier Ramos :: SSRN

A study from Finland (Hamalainenet al. 2022) found there to be no employment effects (or "minor at best") after a year wherein unconditional income was given to a randomized group of 2000 people already on welfare benefits (as opposed the Barcelona's UBI which targeted the neighborhoods with lowest mean average income). It should be noted that this UBI handout was coupled with a "lowered participation tax rate [of] 23 percentage points for full-time employment," in other words a massive tax incentive for people to take up full-time work. Removing Welfare Traps: Employment Responses in the Finnish Basic Income Experiment - American Economic Association (aeaweb.org)

A similar Italian study conducted in Turin (Del Boca, D., Pronzato, C., and Sorrenti, G. (2021), directly compared giving conditional basic income to unconditional basic income, but only to households with children. These conditional income recipients were required to attend "mentoring courses regarding job-seeking and reconciliation between work and family tasks". 1500 people, all already eligible for welfare support and receiving it, were randomly split into three groups: (1) ones to be given conditional basic income, (2) one to be given unconditional basic income, and (3) ones who got nothing (control group). The cash transfer amounts to € 2500–3500, about 75 percent of recipients’ yearly labor income. This Italian study found that fathers assigned to the conditional basic income were 14% more likely to be employed than fathers giving unconditional income or the control group (of no income given). Interestingly, there was zero effect on mothers of any group. Conditional cash transfer programs and household labor supply - ScienceDirect 

From the three recent studies covered above, we can see that UBI doesn't appear to work at all if it's given unconditionally, even appearing to have a negative effect on aspects of employment. However, if the UBI is given conditionally with recipients being required to attend things like financial or family/work-life balance mentoring, there appear to be some positive results.

Whites and Asians seem to be far and away the best inventors, at least when it comes to America. As of 2016, 96.5% of US inventors were either White or Asian. What's more impressive is that both races outperformed their per capita percentage, with Whites (being 61.6% of the population in 2020) representing 73.64% of inventors, while Asians (being 6% of the population in 2020) representing 21.89% of inventors. It should be noted that some percentage of both figures are Jewish people (who, imo, are functionally not White), but neither the study nor Wikipedia census data accounted for that Race and ethnicity in the United States - Wikipedia 

Conversely, despite being 12.1% of the United States population in 2020, Blacks were inventors 1.635% of the time. Hispanic/Latino people made up 18.7% of the United States population in 2020, yet they were inventors only 3.692% of the time FtPVig9WcAAwVTw (738×357) (twimg.com) . This makes my face frown.

For all the talk about Asians not being very creative, it appears when you put them in countries not stifled by odious amounts of totalitarianism (i.e. a lot of their own countries), they tend to start shining with inventions. 

For all the other talk about people "Whitewashing" history or current days by excluding Black inventions: they're just not inventing very much. They're thoroughly underrepresented because they're just not inventing very much. There's a similar but slightly better story for Hispanics.

So the next time you see an invention in the United States, you can bet your top dollar that a White or Asian person was the inventor.

Other interesting notes from the paper that aren't relevant to the OP (but still interesting):

Women represent a bit under 12% of inventors, with young women only closing this gap with relative young men to about 16% (young inventor defined as age < 36).

Over 30% of inventors are foreign born, and of that over 30%, 40% of them come from either China or India.

Inventors mostly work at larger, older firms, rather than fresh start ups, although the inventions from younger firms tended to be more impactful.

Inventors tend to be closer to middle age than young age, despite the decrease in neuroplasticity.

Racial hatred of White people has been called into question recently after poll showed alarming results.

Black Americans were asked to agree or disagree with (1) It's okay to be White, and (2) Black people can be racist, too.

"It's okay to be white."53% agree, 26% disagree, 21% not sure

"Black people can be racist, too"76% of agree, 27% disagree, 8% not sure.

(tweet referencing the poll) Rasmussen Reports on Twitter: "BLACK AMERICANS ONLY: "It's okay to be white." 53% agree, 26% disagree, 21% not sure "Black people can be racist, too" 76% of agree, 27% disagree, 8% not sure." / Twitter ;

(subscriber-walled origin) Questions - Okay To Be White - February 13-15, 2023 - Rasmussen Reports®

This shocked and upset people like cartoonist Scott Adams, who wasn't expecting to encounter such racial hatred of White people (you can see his shocked reaction here) Episode 2027 Scott Adams: AI Goes Woke, I Accidentally Joined A Hate Group, Trump, Policing Schools - YouTube . This inspired him to write a Dilbert comic that got him kind of cancelled Dilbert comic strip dropped after a racist rant by creator Scott Adams : NPR .

What do you think?

Is it okay to be White?