Scott Adams endorses Trump, becomes respected pundit

[Melizmatic]

@anon61221983

whatever Adams is IRL becomes irrelevant, though, because we’re not talking about his personal life, but his work.

@anon61221983

we can’t just dismiss that because his friends and family say that they are good people, yeah?

I concur.

[hotel]

@stand

Problem is, a good trolley makes it just believable enough that you fall for it

@stand

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

But you started off by saying that it’s not always possible to tell the difference. And if the difference isn’t apparent, then the motivation becomes pretty academic.

[Medievalist]

@chenille

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.

I’m doing my best with the questions and statements directed at me, and I mean no offense. If that’s double-dealing, I’m going to keep doing it.

I don’t actually like to argue with people. I don’t enjoy it at all.

Y’all want me to change my mind. I am explaining why I am not doing so. This may be seen as unacceptable by people who have a win/lose model of conversation, but I can’t help that. I’m not trying to win or lose the thread.

@alahmnat

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.

Weighting personal observation more than a thousand times higher than independent observations would be extremely excessive. And not at all applicable to this case, either; Adams has at least as many fans as foes. Just not on this blog.

Usually, in cases of conflicting observations, one suspects that the investigation is framed improperly, and devises a means to discover if that is so.

@Melizmatic

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.

I don’t know him in meatspace, I have corresponded with him a few times. At one time he personally replied to literally every single email he was sent, but eventually that became impossible due to the quantity of mail.

[Phrenological]

@stand

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

What? That sounds like the very definition of an asshole.

[Phrenological]

The motivation is introduced specifically to discount the asshole behavior. The difference is not academic, it is the entire purpose to their pleas. They invent the story.

[stand]

I don’t follow. What definition are you referring to?

[Phrenological]

A perfect definition of asshole you offered us (perhaps confusingly as you suggested that it meant “not asshole”)

“someone who is just saying something that he knows will get a rise out of people and garner attention”

Oxford:

North American

vulgar slang

1 A person’s anus.
2 A stupid, irritating, or contemptible person.

Both seem apt.

[stand]

I see. So let me introduce an example:

Say some guy, let’s call him Shkot, says he wants to implement a Brave New World style caste system. Now I think that’s a stupid idea and it probably qualifies him under the Oxford definition of an asshole.

But I still might be curious as to why Shkot holds such a contemptible opinion. Maybe he doesn’t really understand what he’s advocating or maybe there are nuances to his position that haven’t been revealed. Maybe there are downsides to this opinion that he has not been made aware of. The point is, he actually holds that opinion and it might be worth asking why.

But what if instead Shkot is just saying that stuff to fuck with me. He knows that I and a lot of other people find that idea contemptible so he just says it without even necessarily believing it. He’s still being an asshole but this is a different level of asshole. A meta-asshole maybe.

The first kind of asshole might be worth talking to or talking about. The second kind is not and is best ignored.

[nemomen]

@Medievalist

Y’all want me to change my mind. I am explaining why I am not doing so.

When I see people saying things I don’t agree with I often will explain why I don’t agree. I do this with no expectation that the person’s mind will be changed, only with the hope that I might be offering a view that plants a seed to eventually change a mind or with the hope they’ll reply with something that’ll do the same for me, and I’ve certainly changed my views over time on many and various things due to this process, though rarely as a result of a single discussion of anything.

@Medievalist

I don’t actually like to argue with people. I don’t enjoy it at all.

On this we differ, alas, and I envy you. I really like arguing with people. Really far too much.

[Phrenological]

@stand

He’s still being an asshole but this is a different level of asshole. A meta-asshole maybe

So, an asshole.

You depict a particularly shallow strata.

[OtherMichael]

D. W. Griffith is a professional entertainer, whose body of work relies on presenting caricatures of reality that are exaggerated to the point of absurdity as though that were everyday normality.

He gives you a world where camera placement and lighting heightens mood and tension, Lillian Gish always finds love, and a secret society in the post-war American South dresses up as ghosts - but nobody see this as strange. It’s completely, thoroughly deadpan, and relies on gross caricatures and stereotypes.

I find this amusing. I don’t take any of it as having meaning beyond making me laugh.

---

@Medievalist

He’s a comic writer, and I am not the kind of person who attacks soap opera stars because I think the characters they play are real.

In this case, we’re talking about the scriptwriter, and how his characters dialogue mirrors his posts on public media.

[chenille]

@Medievalist

I’m doing my best with the questions and statements directed at me, and I mean no offense. If that’s double-dealing, I’m going to keep doing it.

I gave you a direct example where you outright said none of us have tried to deal with this honestly, yet still turned around and insisted you had only given your perspective and not discounted ours. That sort of thing is double-dealing, as I believe you know. Whether it means offense, I for one can’t help but take it at having that kind of casual disingenuity directed at us, particularly if you then pretend I’m imagining what I quoted.

I think you could do your best with the questions and statements directed to you while still being upfront about how you have been answering them, thank you.

[OtherMichael]

@Medievalist

No, I’m not.

If you’re not getting what @anon61221983 is saying, it’s perfectly reasonable to say that’s because you suck and you’re too tired to thinking about it. (Perhaps my own sense of humor is terrible, I can accept that, but humor is subjective.) Nonetheless saying you are listening to what Mindy is saying about being a woman is demonstrably false.

@Medievalist

I am supporting you and your speech.

oh jesus f**k, man. That’s some serious douchesplaining right there,

A: You’re not listening and being very offensive right now.
B: No, I’m not. I am supporting you. You need to listen better. And here are some more things you’re wrong about.

---

@Medievalist

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

Carol is probably the best character in the strip, a long put-upon secretary that takes orders from a moron, dishes it right back, and continues to pull down a paycheck. That you think she is deplorable says a lot.

@Medievalist

Just like his male characters.

Dilbert has no redeeming features? The readers of Dilbert are not supposed to identify with the titular protagonist?

@Medievalist

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.

No, it’s not. It’s treating them, as he does, worse.

If I hate everybody, and I punch you once and punch @daneel once and punch @TobinL once and punch @anon61221983 twice and punch @chenille twice and punch @anon67050589 twice are you with a straight face going to tell me that I’m being fair and equal?

[OtherMichael]

I haven’t read much Dilbert lately, but it used to be one of my favorite strips. Well written, well paced. I’m not happy thinking about all of those strips in retrospect. If I retcon Carol and Alice the main characters maybe that will help…

[daneel]

What about Bob and Ted?

[OtherMichael]

Heh.

Bob the Dinosaur is definitely a non-deplorable character.

Is Ted the guy from accounting who says “Cripes, this is my Tuesday lunch bag” or the “I like to type the number 6” guy? (my favorite strip and I get your reference).

[anon67050589]

[nemomen]

You should be glad you haven’t kept up

[nimelennar]

That looks more like MRA Dilbert. Scott Adams doesn’t usually put his views quite so directly on his characters’ mouths.

[Missy_Pants]

Those are quotes directly from a blog post of his. Covered by the Mary Sue here:

Dilbert Creator Scott Adams Shares Terrible Thoughts on Consent: “Take Away My...