Dilbert - C or D?

I wonder what poor sucker is actually writing/drawing it

Davis consults heavily with the head writer, it's been drawn by Paws staff since about 1979

"plenty of foot paint" is actually a pretty good/weird line

I know, sic! Has anyone ever written about Paws, Inc. and who actually works on staff? It'd be an interesting subject for a profile/interview, at least to me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZC0Mi5jXg88

Yeah, there was a huge RC Harvey profile revised on the Journal a few years ago. A guy called Brett Koth is the co-writer, he and Davis each do layouts as part of the writing, and Gary Barker has been the penciller for decades.

(Koth was hired away from Marvel animation to draw US Acres, ended up writing it too, and moved to writing Garfield when it was axed. Barker also draws a Boom! Garfield comic that Mark Evanier writes. Evanier has also written and voice directed pretty much every Garfield TV cartoon since 1988. I guess Davis sticks with people as long as they want to stick with him.)

that garfield video is totally what I expected, and yet somehow edifying/clarifying. love the moment when jim davis adds his signature to three other people's work, and how they almost go out of their way to not give you a close-up of any kind of the 'thumbnail sketch' he supposedly started things off with.

omg @ Dilbert/Cerebus mashup

I guess Davis sticks with people

ha, new penciller/letterer was the letterer for over a decade before apparently levelling up

classic small office problems, no career path when there's only a few of you

I'll have to track down that Harvey profile

Body oils?

i like that the still image on that youtube of "How Garfield is Drawn" is a guy standing over what looks like a xerox machine

Jesus Christ, he is a bitter old man:

Anyway, getting to the point of this post, if Clinton wins, it will be because women voted for her in landslide proportions while men (on average) preferred Trump. And that means two things of historic importance.

1. We will elect the first woman to be President of the United States. That’s good for everyone.

and…

2. Everything that goes wrong with the country from this point forward is women’s fault.

I feel some relief about that. The next four years are likely to be some of the worst in our country’s history. The Republican establishment will make sure of that because a failed America is in their best interest in the short run. Four years from now they want to offer their chosen savior (Paul Ryan). Trump would have a good chance of bullying the Republican establishment as he has done so far. Clinton, not so much. She’ll be buried in scandals, both real and imagined.

Men had a good run. We invented almost everything, and that’s cool. But we also started all of the wars and committed most of the crimes. It’s a mixed record to be sure. Now it’s time for something different, apparently.

Hillary Clinton is all yours, ladies. She and her alleged rapist husband are your brand now. Wear them well.

leaving aside the many breathtakingly wrongheaded statements in those few paragraphs for now, if paul ryan is the best the gop have to offer in 2020 then they're super-double-fucked

Thanks, women!

He just fails on so many levels - logic, prognostication, analysis, his pathological misunderstanding of how gender works - no wonder he's a Trump fan.

he did okay when his predictions were purposely vague and outlandish like "evolution will be disproven in the next century"

problem is now he's actually predicting specific things which are easily disprovable - in fact he's getting things so blatantly, hilariously wrong that I can't imagine he'll have any reputation left when it's all over.

did he really predict evolution will be disproven? is he a christian nut too??

no, he just stated it "doesn't pass the sniff test" or whatever

it's a dumb prediction, he's just casting it out there so he can look like a genius in case any big discoveries are made

Thanks, women!

"ladies" rather

I think I've said it before but "evolution will be disproven" is such a vague assertion depending on how you define evolution that there are a half dozen studies you could point to right now and say, "hah! see, evolution is wrong!"

but nothing that disproves the fundamental idea that species have changed over time

well yeah but the idea has never been to contribute to critical thought, it's been to come off like a genius who has a better intuition about the nature of life and the universe than everyone else

uh yeah but that wasn't what he really meant by evolution xp

what did he mean? if you say you're going to disprove evolution it's not sufficient to disprove some minor feature.

I think you're not familiar with people who make arguments like this. You make some assertion, and whether it's really vague or not, you later claim something proves you right. If someone says "yeah, but you said evolution, not macroevolution of humans" and then they just act like you're an idiot for thinking they meant all evolution.

yeah, you're probably right. my entire exposure to evolution denial is fundamentalist religious denial which is full scale denial (since humans were created from dust in the garden of eden - they didn't come from monkeys).

How did Adams get to be the kind of person people talk about, exactly? I mean, beyond the fact that it's fun talking about idiots.

he was able to glom himself onto the loose twitter/internet coalition of aggrieved fake-deep men in an election season

he was one of the first people to offer an explanation of why so many people were voting Trump that wasn't "racism" and I think a lot of media outlets liked that

of course his explanation was "hypnotism"

a person who recognizes idiocy, and having monetized it, is now committed to its perfection and continuation.

@ScottAdamsSays
Is Twitter shadowbanning me? If so, I see it as treason: bit.ly/2eiLsfF #Trump #Clinton

didn't click through but i'm sure it's v. convincing

can y'all PLEASE tell this guy you aren't seeing his tweets so we can watch him attempt to take down Twitter

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CvEgavlXYAA9zsN.jpg:small

trolling at this point

lol

http://cdn0.dailydot.com/cache/31/ed/31ed2d07932675f493426090bc3d6918.jpg

going hard in the airplane lane

in five seconds an alpha is about to speak

Echidne thinks he might be depressed:

http://echidneofthesnakes.blogspot.com/2016/10/where-echidne-dons-her-pseudo.html

I think the consensus here is that's a bit generous

possibly nsfw: https://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/status/788806380840886272

oh cool scott adams is weighing in on climate change! http://blog.dilbert.com/post/154679929646/watching-the-climate-science-bubbles-from-the

Given the wildly different assessments of climate change risks within the non-scientist community, perhaps we need some sort of insurance/betting market. That would allow the climate science alarmists to buy “insurance” from the climate science skeptics. That way if the climate goes bad at least the alarmists will have extra cash to build their underground homes. And that cash will come out of the pockets of the science-deniers. Sweet!

i would suggest consulting someone other than the non-scientist community but scott adams already hypnotized me into thinking that the ideal solution to rising sea levels would be an underground home. that's what i get for being a climate science alarmist i guess.

My bottom-line belief about climate science is that non-scientists such as myself have no reliable way to evaluate any of this stuff. Our brains and experience are not up to the task. When I apply my tiny brain to sniffing out the truth about climate science I see rock-solid arguments on both sides of the debate.

Trained scientists might be able to sort out the truth from the B.S. in climate change science, although I’m skeptical about that too. But non-scientists have no chance whatsoever to discern which side is right. I consider myself to be bright and well-educated, and from my perspective both sides of the debate are 100% persuasive if you look at them in isolation. And apparently that’s what most citizens do.

So, he doesn't believe in deference to scientific authority? I wonder what other scientific results he's agnostic about because he isn't an expert in those fields.

Light bulbs: evidence of "electricity," or the final proof of our invisible pixie friends and their commitment to well-lit human interiors? I see rock-solid arguments on both sides of the debate.

And I think I spotted a new cognitive phenomenon that might not have a name.* I’ll call it cognitive blindness, defined as the inability to see the strong form of the other side of a debate.

I think this gets to the bottom of it - dude thinks he's the be-all-end-all of intellectual discussion, and simply doesn't read anything

in case you didn't think his take on climate change could get any dumber

Remind your scientist that as far as you know there has never been a multi-year, multi-variable, complicated model of any type that predicted anything with useful accuracy. Case in point: The experts and their models said Trump had no realistic chance of winning.

Your scientist will fight like a cornered animal to conflate the credibility of the measurements and the basic science of CO2 with the credibility of the projection models. Don’t let that happen. Make your scientist tell you that complicated multi-variable projections models that span years are credible. Or not.

one of the dumbest motherfuckers around

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/156591306416/the-persuasion-filter-looks-at-torture-does-it

lol @ this guy defining both "the persuasion filter" and "the Hitler filter" THEY'RE THE SAME THING YOU IDIOT (okay that's from a different post but still)

But if President Trump – The Master Persuader – tells you someone else’s facts are bullshit, you can usually take that to the bank. The man knows bullshit when he sees it. And with his skillset he can also smell it coming from miles away.

*head explodes into a thousand pieces*