Its most radical, irrational fringe, like the irrational radical fringe of virtually any group hell-bent on pushing their view on others whether that view is fair/good/agreeable or not, may be not that much different. Not numerous but oh how noisy. Kind of like the difference between all-the-Muslims vs Daesh/ISIS.
That. A fairly important factor behind my gradual loss of interest of caring for the planet as a whole.
I can see it working in harsher ways on some (and milder on yet others, you get a continuum of response intensities, together with other stimuli or lack of that modulate the responses). Plus there is the pain of rejection (keep in mind that the neural circuitry for processing social rejection response and physical pain is partially shared), which can further complicate the situation; some just withdraw due to the risk of further pain when the risk-reward turns out to be not worth the risk, some snap back after a while like an animal that keeps being poked with a sharp stick, some become apathetic like those dogs in experiments with randomly administered pain.
It doesnât start that way, usually. May end there over long time of wearing down.
I have to admit that I havenât lived with that personally, and Iâm not trying to dismiss the pain of rejection. However, there are many ways to be involved in a community, and Iâve met many men and women who have fulfilling lives where they are connected to society without having a partner.
At the end of the day though, a lot of violence is done by young people under 30 who havenât had the time to get worn down. Many of these people actually have partners, but are less connected to the wider society or are more connected to a less positive sub-group. I realise that being rejected has a significant toll and can lead to a withdrawal from society, but I think some of this has to do with excessive pressure to be in a relationship as a way to be part of society.
Iâve read a good portion of his blog in the past. This is what I think goes on in Scott Adams mind every time he says something:
âMy view is correct. If you were as smart as I am it would be as self-evident to you as it is to me, but since youâre not Iâll try and explain it to you. If you canât even understand that Iâm afraid youâre just too dumb.â
Itâs like heâs incapable of stating on opinion without mansplaining it to you.
First of all, kudos to the creator of this tumblr for somehow making Dilbert funny.
Secondly,
None of us can ever rule out the possibility that Scott Adams is a Kaufman-esque comedian with his blog, just as we canât rule out the possibility that he is Kaufman himself. But if the point of Adamsâ blog was to fool me into thinking he is a painfully arrogant, misogynist asshole, then I guess the joke is one me? I have to assume that if Scott Adams doesnât care to tell us what he really thinks then he doesnât care that we think he really is what he appears to be. In fact, if he is doing some kind of parody, then the joke is truly on the people who defend him.
I will avoid any protracted debate on the subject as follows: Dilbert is not funny. This is not a matter of difference of opinion, it is objective fact. With every other thing in the world, some people may appreciate it and other people may not. With Dilbert, you can either be correct that it is not funny, or wrong and think that is it.
Iâm not directly familiar with very much of Adamsâ blog material but I suspect he could always use the âitâs just a jokeâ defense and claim that the people who are complaining are the butts of the joke. The safest course for a newspaper editor will always be to disavow the blog material and pretend to stand up for free expression by pointing out that the cartoons are different. Plus, there are long-term contracts in place that will easily outlast an internet outrage event.
You say this with such conviction that I have no choice but accept your conclusion.[quote=âdaneel, post:49, topic:70641, full:trueâ]
Ah, youâre a Garfield person.
[/quote]
Before I put together my âobjectively not funnyâ position, I was actually going to go with âless funny than Garfield.â
There are a couple of ways to make Garfield as funny as MRA Dilbert, though. http://garfieldminusgarfield.net/ does a decent job. Itâs been a long time, but I seem to recall reading only the middle panel resulted in some pretty funny Garfields as well.
I donât share the proportion of your Dilbert-dislike, but Garfield? Garfield. Itâs much better with all the commentary removed, along with Jon and Odie and anyone other than Garfield. Just that godamn cat, and a blank canvas. Then it works pretty well.
My particular comic hell: Family Circle combined with Beetle Bailey. If the paper features archived Bloom County, then it automatically gets a comic pass for whatever other filth mucks up its pages.
This is just a hypothetical - But Iâm amazed that someone who thinks heâs very smart & is having so much trouble getting laid comes up with the brilliant plan of making women think heâs creepy and might be abstractly threatening violence on them to coerce sex.
Here, decades later, that cow tools Far Side still leaves me scratching my head. I donât know what Gary Larson was thinking when he made it, and I sure donât know why itâs funny, but for some reason it is.
Itâs a typical fallacy that runs all through the menâs rights and red pill communities, though is by no means limited to them:
Assume youâre smarter than most everyone else (any subjective reasoning here is sufficient)
Because you are so smart, your opinions must be correct. If you were wrong, you obviously wouldnât think that way. Because you are so smart.
If anyone disagrees with you, they must be wrong, and therefore they must be dumber than you are. Such opinions are not worth your time, and can therefore be dismissed out-of-hand.
