Are we quite sure this isn’t satire? Because this sure looks like satire.
I am pretty sure that Dilbert is satire. In Dilbert, everybody is an asshole or a weasel, even Dilbert.
With Scott Adams, you can never be entirely sure whether he believes what he writes.
Scott Adams claims not to be sexist and objects to being quoted out of context.. Or is this more satire?
Even so, that’s not really proof he doesn’t stand behind the thrust of his statements. “Quoted out of context” is a pretty far cry from “I am making fun of sexist assholes.” It’s sort of a weasel-word for “don’t stop paying attention to me,” I think.
I think he is portraying, not condoning. And he’s making some fun of his own sexist thinking. Very human.
"Lonely boys tend to be suicidal when the odds of future female companionship are low.
So if you are wondering how men become cold-blooded killers, it isn’t religion that is doing it. If you put me in that situation, I can say with confidence I would sign up for suicide bomb duty. And I’m not even a believer. Men like hugging better than they like killing. But if you take away my access to hugging, I will probably start killing, just to feel something. I’m designed that way. I’m a normal boy. And I make no apology for it."
Give hulk sex or hulk get angry and kill. Hulk not rapist - hulk just kill with no sex.
You’d think that someone who aspires to technical proficiency would know how to execute a manual override.
You may have noticed that Scott “Dilbert” Adams is a colossal asshole.
Nope.
I’m getting satired of Scott Adams. He is no Andy Kaufman.
This one kills me. So does everyone!! Christ, WTF?
Nods. He does seem more incontinent than colossal.
I looked at the website you cited. Oh dear. I know that Scott Adams has some somewhat eccentric ideas (don’t we all), but Holocaust denial? Creationism? Do none of these people get irony? Because Adam’s writing (not Dilbert, which is satire) is mostly sustained irony. I mean, I’m English, I understand Euripides, I understand Mark Twain, I understand all the jokes in Blackadder, I ought to know. And here we have a load of people solemnly assuming that everything a humorist produces is intended to be literal fact.
Perhaps one of them will do a hatchet job on Twain, representing him as an imperialist, pro-hunting, misogynist? It’s easy to do if you take him literally and read his suggestion that we should kill all native peoples because what we will do to them if we don’t kill them will be worse. Or his brilliantly deadpan account of his experiences of tiger hunting in India.
Truly there are dark outposts of the Internet, but mutual congratulation societies for telling one another how much better they are than celebrity X - that’s depressing.
The “normal boy” gear signals the operation of unconscious male entitlement machinery.
There’s a willingness to communicate an implied right to use coercion or violence and an expectation of social validation.
When socially challenged, the tendency is to take refuge in the role of satirist, joker or misunderstood-smart-person.
Truly (psychologically) normal is (a) '… take away my access to hugging …"; and (b) I feel sad.
Spot on. Thanks!
He might also consider that being a boy at his age is a tad limiting when dating. Most women prefer men.
Then you haven’t read his blog.
I stopped following him before he even got to this level because of his constant rants about how he didn’t make enough off his posts for all of the brilliance we were so lucky to have delivered to us every few days. The guy thinks he’s the smartest man in the room no matter who else is there.
I can’t figure out if Adams is the Blogging equivalent of Andy Kaufman or he really means it. I don’t see any point of it being a joke though. Its mostly horrifying. I would like to think its parody but he’s been doing it so long. Even Colbert got tired of his parody persona.
The strange thing is that his Comics seem almost the opposite in tone and content. They continue to have a lot of great commentary at least IMHO. The comics recent riff on AI and robots has been great. Is this like another Woody Allen where the person and their art are to be judged separately?
