Scott Adams endorses Trump, becomes respected pundit

[Medievalist]

@anon61221983

She’s a fantasy character of what a woman “should” be in Adams opinion - not a reflection of reality and how we actually exist in the world.

There are exactly zero admirable characters that are what anyone should be in Dilbert. That’s the whole point! Alice is the finest and most admirable of them and she’s thoroughly deplorable. At one point she starts working interns to death routinely as a cost control measure. She drives her fist entirely through the bodies of people who she finds mildly annoying and murders people routinely for being stupid. She overworks herself and expects morons to appreciate it. She shows no solidarity for her gender or social class - not even for other engineers, who are her preferred associates - and she has utterly execrable and self-destructive taste in men. She’s only smart in very specific ways, just like Wally is.

If you’re not getting the comic, it’s perfectly reasonable to say that’s because the comic sucks and it’s not funny. (Perhaps my own sense of humor is terrible, I can accept that, but humor is subjective.) Nonetheless saying Alice is what Scott Adams wants women to be is demonstrably false.

@anon15383236

But when they base it on misogyny (like Adams does), that’s okay with you?

When they base it on a unilateral disdain and contempt for the entire human race, it’s okay with me. Interpreting that as being targeted specifically and only at women is not my interpretation.

[manybellsdown]

@Medievalist

Exactly. In my world, how people behave matters, and since I have a science-based perspective on evidence, my own personal direct observations must take precedence over hearsay. This can often result in error, but far more often will not.

The fact that you say he’s a super nice person to you is only hearsay to us, and therefore we judge him, logically, on his body of work and not your emotional appeal.

[alahmnat]

@Medievalist

Caricaturing himself as an arrogant technodweeb is a part of his humor, just like Colbert’s old caricature of himself as a self-assured right wing fanatic.

This “oh he’s just being satirical” defense gets trotted out a lot for people who say and do appalling things and then get called on it (Adams, Trump, Coulter…), and it fundamentally misunderstands the purpose and the execution of satire. For satire to work, it has to echo the actual attitude or concept effectively enough to sound accurate, while simultaneously actually lampooning that thing. Colbert’s right-wing pundit act was great satire because the first half of his setup was mimicking right-wing talking points, followed by a conclusion that took those talking points to some slightly off-kilter conclusion to call out how absurd they were. For example, Colbert’s character claimed not to see race, which is a stupid thing a lot of right-wing pundits like to say right before they make a racist comment, but he would then follow that up by taking it entirely literally, asking his guest if they were in fact black. That is satire. Just saying “I don’t see race” with a straight face is not. If all you do is spout MRA rhetoric and never pivot to the joke, you’re not being satirical, you’re just espousing MRA rhetoric. There’s no humor in just saying what an asshole is also saying; that just makes you another asshole (especially when other assholes glom onto you for what you’re saying and you don’t make any effort to tell them you’re actually making fun of them). The humor comes in tearing the asshole down with their own words, which is what Colbert did and what Adams isn’t doing.

[anon61221983]

@Medievalist

If you’re not getting the comic

This is entirely irrelevant to his repeated misogynistic blog posts, which as @nemomen and I pointed out, he often just doubled down on. Maybe I don’t “get it”, but you are still ignoring literally EVERYTHING I AM SAYING TO YOU about being a woman. Him making all the characters deplorable doesn’t mean that the character wasn’t created as a misogynistic trope. That’s the problem there. [quote=“Medievalist, post:144, topic:88241”]
Nonetheless saying Alice is what Scott Adams wants women to be is demonstrably false.
[/quote]

And what about all the other women he writes?

Once again, why do you think you are in a more advantaged position to suss out misogyny than me, or any of the other women here? Why is your engagement with sexism somehow more rational than mine?

[chenille]

@Medievalist

But as far as I can see, nobody here but me has attempted to deal directly with the man honestly and fairly without preconceptions - it’s all vilification based on interpreting the writings of a humorist as if he were writing completely humorlessly.

It looks the opposite to me. You are presuming that as a cartoonist and comedian, nothing he writes should ever be taken as reflecting on him. Yet even in his books Adams would sometimes say there is a part he’d like you to actually consider, like with his weird (discredited) alternate physics ideas. He makes it plain he means to share insights as well as jokes.

Most of what’s been brought up here is his blog, and except for some obvious jokes it gives every indication it is supposed to be an extension of that, him hoping to share his insights. None of his public comments, like what you see on his twitter or his response to the odd sockpuppeting case some years ago, seem to oppose that notion. I really doubt he would actually appreciate your defending him by, in essence, saying that nothing he does or says should ever be taken seriously.

Without the presumption that none of his public persona is ever in earnest, then that’s not you defending him, only insisting there is a better Scott back where nobody sees. Meanwhile the rest of us aren’t inventing some vilification, only trusting that he is a good enough writer to make his intentions clear. That you should call the one fair or respect and the other a caricature seems exactly backwards.

[anon61221983]

[Medievalist]

@manybellsdown

The fact that you say he’s a super nice person to you is only hearsay to us, and therefore we judge him, logically, on his body of work and not your emotional appeal.

As is your right, your privilege and your responsibility. I would expect you to do no different!

@anon61221983

you are still ignoring literally EVERYTHING I AM SAYING TO YOU about being a woman.

No, I’m not. I’m acknowledging your right to your beliefs and your interpretations, listening to you and trying to provide affirmation of that right. I am supporting you and your speech.

I don’t have to give up my own perspective and beliefs in order to respect yours and listen to what you have to say.

@anon61221983

And what about all the other women he writes?

They’re all deplorable. Unambiguously and universally (but especially Carol).

Just like his male characters. And also his non-gendered characters.

Misogyny, as I understand it, is treating women differently, in a bad way. Scott Adams represents everyone - not just humans, but robots, cats, dogs, and rats too - badly.

 

BTW, this is a direct quote from my link of one hour ago that literally nobody bothered to click on yet:

Anything that makes people that angry is worth doing again. --Scott Adams, 2004

[stand]

@hotel

Surely someone who deliberately convinces me that they are an asshole just is an asshole…

Sure but I think there is a bit of a difference between someone who is expressing a perhaps asshole-ish opinion that they actually hold and someone who is just saying something that he knows will get a rise out of people and garner attention (i.e. a trolley). The later type of person should just be ignored, the former might be worth engagement.

[Melizmatic]

@Medievalist

explaining why nothing that’s been said here is changing it.

No one here is trying to change your opinion, not that I can tell.

Lots and lots and lots of other people think dude acts like a douchewad, a lot of the time; based upon numerous things he’s said and written.

You apparently do not, based upon actual personal knowledge of the man ( I presume, I have to admit to only skimming much of this argument, as it’s getting rather tedious, verging on ‘white knighting.’)

But regardless to how the individual in question treats you personally, that does not in any way invalidate the opinions which others have of him.

@Medievalist

Scott Adams represents everyone - not just humans, but robots, cats, dogs, and rats too HIMSELF - badly.

FTFY

His personal perception of people and his fictionalized anthropomorphic characters are a projection of his own issues and personal bias, not a “representation” of others.

He reps no one but himself.

[alahmnat]

@Medievalist

BTW, this is a direct quote from my link of one hour ago that literally nobody bothered to click on yet:

Anything that makes people that angry is worth doing again. --Scott Adams, 2004

I’m pretty sure that “mak[ing] people angry” is not a solid benchmark for good behavior.

[Medievalist]

@Melizmatic

I have to admit to only skimming much of this argument as its getting tedious.

That seems like direct proof of high intelligence.*

I’m only responding to people’s posts directed at me, and things people are saying about me. I think my viewpoint has already been thoroughly explained, honestly.

@Melizmatic

But regardless to how the individual in question treats you personally, that does not in any way invalidate the opinions which others have of him.

I thoroughly agree, and have repeatedly said so.

I don’t have to change my opinion in order to respect those of other people. I’m not like that; I dig diversity of opinion and avoid echo chambers.

 

* Adams-related joke - Scott Adams insists that anyone who agrees with him is not only highly intelligent, but also exceptionally good-looking. Those who disagree are called “induhviduals” and are genetically inferior in every way. It’s a schtick.

[chenille]

@Medievalist

I’m acknowledging your right to your beliefs and your interpretations, listening to you and trying to provide affirmation of that right. I am supporting you and your speech.

@Medievalist

But as far as I can see, nobody here but me has attempted to deal directly with the man honestly and fairly without preconceptions - it’s all vilification based on interpreting the writings of a humorist as if he were writing completely humorlessly.

See, this is the thing. You keep saying you are only offering your perspective and respecting others – but then you keep saying our perspective is unfair, complaining about vilification and how we must be ignorant of things he’s written, making references to political purity and lynch mobs. It’s double-dealing.

[anon61221983]

@Medievalist

I don’t have to give up my own perspective and beliefs in order to respect yours and listen to what you have to say.

Clarify then: Do you think you understand misogyny better than those of us who have experienced it, because you bring distance and rationality to the topic? If you think you understand that better than I do, please say so.

@Medievalist

They’re all deplorable. Unambiguously and universally (but especially Carol).

I think that fact that his most “deplorable” character is the low paid secretary says volumes to his mindset about gender in the work place.

[Melizmatic]

@alahmnat

I’m pretty sure that “mak[ing] people angry” is not a solid benchmark for good behavior.

Aye.

If we really want to go to extremes as to why that’s such a shitty philosophy in general:

Colonization/exploitation
Slavery
The Trail of Tears
The Salem Witch Trials
Jim Crow/Segregation
The Bombing of Pearl Harbor
Japanese Internment
Etc.

All those horrific incidents/institutions really pissed a LOT of people off, and still do.

Yes, that was an extreme example, but again that quote is a really shitty antisocial philosophy.

[Medievalist]

@anon61221983

Do you think you understand misogyny better than those of us who have experienced it, because you bring distance and rationality to the topic?

No, I certainly don’t. As I’ve said, I believe in the scientific method, which weights personal observations higher than any other. If one has experienced mysogyny, one should be assumed to have greater knowledge of it than one who has not.

But using the same reasoning I do think I can understand a person better than those of you who have not read that person’s entire oeuvre and corresponded with said person on occasion. He doesn’t just caricature women dismissively, he does it to every single category he addresses (including Indian-Americans, BTW, and people from the Pacific Midwest).

@anon61221983

I think that fact that his most “deplorable” character is the low paid secretary says volumes to his mindset about gender in the work place.

That’s the most deplorable regular female character. The most deplorable regular character is arguably Wally, but the pointy-haired boss is also far more deplorable than Carol.

There’s some one-off or limited run characters that are even worse than any of the regulars, of course. They are of many genders, social classes and species.

In re: my comparison to Colbert:

Colbert: But folks, nothing has me more confused than the transgenders. They’re everywhere, from Rupaul’s Drag Race, to Glee, to those Transformers movies.
 
Colbert: Hey, hey. Optimus, you were born a robot, it doesn’t matter if inside you feel like you’re a truck.
 
–The Colbert Report, February 18, 2014

Colbert was vilified for that. Based on the assumption that he is his schtick. I don’t agree; his persona (at the time) was an exaggerated caricature of his own conservative, catholic, white, male reality. That was his income stream; but not everyone is amused (I love Colbert; like Adams, he shows what is wrong with certain ideas by championing them).

[anon61221983]

@Medievalist

No, I certainly don’t.

Then please stop dismissing us, because that’s precisely what you’re doing, whether you mean to or not. Stating that something is satire doesn’t mean it’s still not problematic.

@Medievalist

But using the same reasoning I do think I can understand a person better than those of you who have not read that person’s entire oeuvre and corresponded with said person on occasion.

Quite a few of us have, actually. Many of us read the comic, some of us have read his books, and even his blog. I used to get his mailing list posts and read them. You’re assuming that because we don’t agree with you about what he’s said in his blog posts that we are not up on his work.

[alahmnat]

@Medievalist

I believe in the scientific method, which weights personal observations higher than any other.

That is literally the opposite of how the scientific method works. If you have data points from a thousand different researchers saying X, but your observations say Y, odds are good that you’re the outlier, not the thousand other researchers who performed experiments that you didn’t personally witness.

[Melizmatic]

@anon61221983

You’re assuming that because we don’t agree with you about what he’s said in his blog posts that we are not up on his work.

Again, I may have misunderstood, but I thought it was implied that Medi knows the guy personally; which, if that’s the case, may explain not only his bias, but why he seems so emotionally invested in this argument.

[anon61221983]

Sure. But at some point, whatever Adams is IRL becomes irrelevant, though, because we’re not talking about his personal life, but his work. If someone thinks that misogyny or racism is bad, but continues to deal in misogyny and racism in some way in their public life, we can’t just dismiss that because his friends and family say that they are good people, yeah?

Whether @Medievalist knows Adams personally, IDK. He hasn’t been clear on that (to my mind), just noted that he’s a big fan and is a completist in having read his work.

[nemomen]

@Medievalist

But using the same reasoning I do think I can understand a person better than those of you who have not read that person’s entire oeuvre and corresponded with said person on occasion.

I’ve watched Scott Adams with a mix of horror and amusement for a long time. He’s got a mediocre intellect but has persuaded himself he’s brilliant by virtue of a successful comic where the funny part of the content’s mostly created by reader submissions of work horror stories. This has led him down a very sad path that’s all too easy to mock.

I don’t read the comic any more, and haven’t commented on it. I read the blog at times, though not regularly, since it’s too hard to stomach in large doses. He’s shockingly gullible and incapable of admitting error no matter how obvious it is he’s wrong. His repackaging of MRA ideas and reiteration of MRA ideas on the blog is all I’ve been discussing, and there’s no greater context that changes the meaning of that particular saga of misogyny. There was no joke in those posts, no punchline, no insight other than his imagined insights into why income inequality isn’t real, and other insights into the inferiority of women in various ways. I’m a dude, but you don’t need to be a woman to see that garbage was straight-up misogyny, and my understanding of his character and persona from having watched him with grim fascination only reinforce that view.