Scott Adams endorses Trump, becomes respected pundit

Yes! I’ve been meaning to watch that again.


I watched the entire series, but it’s been a few years ago now; I don’t remember the last ep.

But like Freaks & Geeks before it, it ended too soon, IMO.


I’d tell you, but it’s worth watching just the last five minutes again.

I think the actual best part is this:

Today I put Trump’s odds of winning in a landslide back to 98%. Remember, I told you a few weeks ago that Trump couldn’t win unless “something changed.”
Something just changed.

Does he think his endorsement is going to swing the election?



The last time I saw Scott Adams, he was promoting his vegetarian lifestyle. He said how much he liked shelling peas while watching TV… (I’m off now to eat some bacon.)


I can’t in good conscious give any of his work a one-star review. To do so, I feel that I would have had to have ready anything from him in the last 5 years or more.

A long time ago, I read that article by Orson Scott Card calling for “some” homosexuals to be jailed as an object lesson to the others, so I stopped reading his stories. I actually feel that’s something of a shame, as when he hasn’t writing homophobic bullshit, he was actually a fairly good writer. I stopped reading Scott Adams when he started writing prose instead of illustrating the same two jokes over and over again, and I found out many of his positions on various social issues I care strongly about to be … well, let’s just go with incompatible, shall we? I don’t find that a shame at all.


I’m sure he legitimately thinks he does, considering the other whackadoodlery.



Adams went off the deep end earlier this year when he declared that feared Clinton would assassinate him and then threatened to assassinate Trump.

I’ve never liked Adams as a person. I did enjoy his strip in the 90’s, but it got progressively staler as he became further unhinged, first with his MRA fuckery and now this election. I had a Dogbert plushy on my desk for years. It doesn’t break my heart because I don’t form attachments to artists. I do, however avoid giving awful people money and I’ve long since decided I will never give Adams another red cent.


I think that to some extent it’s hard to separate the artist from the art. I find that the less likable someone is generally, the harder it is for me to appreciate their art. Conversely, I find that even bad art, or art that has incidental regressive messaging is easier to like when I know the people behind it aren’t all that bad, or even nice decent people. I don’t find that it’s like that with more “academic”(?) disciplines, where I either like the theory and/or the data, or I don’t like the theory and/or the data. Like for all I know, Jared Diamond is a wonderful human being, but I’m not that crazy about his assessment of history. He could also be terrible, and I’m not sure that would matter to me at all.

And of course there are a lot of edge cases and cases where the line gets fuzzy. I can’t stop myself from liking Penn Jillette, because he seems like a very nice person. I can’t stand his politics, but I have a hard time not respecting him because you never get the sense he’s being disingenuous. YMMV, of course,but then again it probably helps that he hates Trump.


He is also very upfront that you don’t have to agree with him about everything and you are welcome to call bullshit on his beliefs and he is very good at ranting. Harlan Ellison is a major asshole but when he gets on a rant in an essay even if you don’t agree it is usually an enjoyable read.


I kinda feel like they’re doing that themselves, quite proudly, and Clinton is just pointing to them and going “welp”.


With Adams, I have the fortuitous situation that I thought his art was already in decline before I knew what a growing asshat he is as a person. So I kind of lucked out there.

Totally agree with you about Penn Jillette. I don’t actually mind that he’s a libertarian (I have some small l in me myself), but his style of libertarianism is facile and shallow, IMHO (though it also reflects mainstream libertarianism in the US which is in a woeful state to be generous). But yes, he seems sincere, genuine and generally a good person, the sort of person I’d love to talk magic or religion with and scrupulously avoid politics. Then again, if I isolated myself from everyone I had a serious difference of opinion with, I’d probably wind up thoroughly embubbled.

With regards to separating art from artist, I’ll just go to an extreme, albeit cliché, example. Leni Riefenstahl was a horrible human being. Her films are exceptionally good and her techniques groundbreaking. Her evil isn’t irrelevant - it’s the context of her art after all - but it doesn’t alter the skill of her films. For me, I can definitely separate the art and artist. But that’s a very personal thing and I think everyone has to decide it for themselves. Where I draw the line is at financially or materially supporting someone engaged in what I regard as evil, for instance with Adams or Card.


Also like Freaks And Geeks, it had Martin Starr. That guy’s been in everything.


I am aware.



The feminists have known Scott Adams to be a garbage fire since at least 2011.

Also this whole thread of satirical Dilberts are the best thing on Twitter right now.


I seem to have the ability to enjoy the work of someone, but not stand the person doing the work. For example, I loved Ender’s Game, but I wouldn’t piss on Orson Scott Card if he was one fire (I would probably pour gas on him). Same thing with Adams. I can like the Dilbert strips, but can cheerfully ignore him and his views.

12 Likes Forever.