Actuallt, if you read his blog, he sounds more like a science geek with some libertarian leanings rather than a right wing creationist. Where'd you get that idea?
― Tuomas, Thursday, 26 February 2009 14:44 (fifteen years ago) link
A cartoon engineer, that's what he is.
― M.V., Thursday, 26 February 2009 15:47 (fifteen years ago) link
Scott Adams, feminist
Ah, Dilbert. For so long, you have lingered there on the comics page, always ready to barrel-shoot the inanity of office culture with your humorously-coiffed characters and beleaguered engineers, locked forever in a corporate development hell that your humor at first mocked, and then later resembled.Mostly, though, I haven't really paid attention to you at all, at least until today, when the internet discovered a post where Dilbert creator Scott Adams gave us all a piece of his mind in a post (since deleted) about men's rights, and the fact that he thinks men suffer a level of social injustice equal to women.After all, women might get paid less than men in our society, but men die earlier, teen boys have to pay higher car insurance, and sometimes women want men to open doors for them, so it all comes out in the wash, right? I'm not making those examples up, either; those are his examples.And then there's this:"The reality is that women are treated differently by society for exactly the same reason that children and the mentally handicapped are treated differently. It's just easier this way for everyone. You don't argue with a four-year old about why he shouldn't eat candy for dinner. You don't punch a mentally handicapped guy even if he punches you first. And you don't argue when a women tells you she's only making 80 cents to your dollar. It's the path of least resistance. You save your energy for more important battles." -Scott AdamsWow. Just wow. To recap: He's comparing women asking for equal pay to the selfishness and unreasonableness of children asking for candy, or mentally handicapped people lashing out violently. He's saying that women's concern for pay equity is a petty desire levied by an irrational group of people, and he's also suggesting a very specific strategy for the men in the audience: Remember not to care.If the above block of text reminds you of Dave Sim at all, that's because this rhetoric does exactly the same thing as Sim's in terms of infantilizing women and casting them as primarily emotional and irrational beings that men can only deal with by ignoring them most of the time, or sighing bitterly while turning up the volume on their sports game.Women, amirite? To his credit, he recognizes that this is basically an insane comparison to make, but then not to his credit, makes it anyway. (Note: Saying something and then saying that you're not saying it doesn't magically unsay it.) He continues:"I realize I might take some heat for lumping women, children and the mentally handicapped in the same group. So I want to be perfectly clear. I'm not saying women are similar to either group. I'm saying that a man's best strategy for dealing with each group is disturbingly similar. If he's smart, he takes the path of least resistance most of the time, which involves considering the emotional realities of other people. A man only digs in for a good fight on the few issues that matter to him, and for which he has some chance of winning. This is a strategy that men are uniquely suited for because, on average, we genuinely don't care about 90% of what is happening around us."
Mostly, though, I haven't really paid attention to you at all, at least until today, when the internet discovered a post where Dilbert creator Scott Adams gave us all a piece of his mind in a post (since deleted) about men's rights, and the fact that he thinks men suffer a level of social injustice equal to women.
After all, women might get paid less than men in our society, but men die earlier, teen boys have to pay higher car insurance, and sometimes women want men to open doors for them, so it all comes out in the wash, right? I'm not making those examples up, either; those are his examples.
And then there's this:
"The reality is that women are treated differently by society for exactly the same reason that children and the mentally handicapped are treated differently. It's just easier this way for everyone. You don't argue with a four-year old about why he shouldn't eat candy for dinner. You don't punch a mentally handicapped guy even if he punches you first. And you don't argue when a women tells you she's only making 80 cents to your dollar. It's the path of least resistance. You save your energy for more important battles." -Scott Adams
Wow. Just wow. To recap: He's comparing women asking for equal pay to the selfishness and unreasonableness of children asking for candy, or mentally handicapped people lashing out violently. He's saying that women's concern for pay equity is a petty desire levied by an irrational group of people, and he's also suggesting a very specific strategy for the men in the audience: Remember not to care.
If the above block of text reminds you of Dave Sim at all, that's because this rhetoric does exactly the same thing as Sim's in terms of infantilizing women and casting them as primarily emotional and irrational beings that men can only deal with by ignoring them most of the time, or sighing bitterly while turning up the volume on their sports game.
Women, amirite? To his credit, he recognizes that this is basically an insane comparison to make, but then not to his credit, makes it anyway. (Note: Saying something and then saying that you're not saying it doesn't magically unsay it.) He continues:
"I realize I might take some heat for lumping women, children and the mentally handicapped in the same group. So I want to be perfectly clear. I'm not saying women are similar to either group. I'm saying that a man's best strategy for dealing with each group is disturbingly similar. If he's smart, he takes the path of least resistance most of the time, which involves considering the emotional realities of other people. A man only digs in for a good fight on the few issues that matter to him, and for which he has some chance of winning. This is a strategy that men are uniquely suited for because, on average, we genuinely don't care about 90% of what is happening around us."
Adams' original blog entry (since deleted): http://tinysprout.tumblr.com/post/3713649989/scott-adams-dilbert-deleted-post
― Stockhausen's Ekranoplan Quartet (Elvis Telecom), Wednesday, 30 March 2011 19:33 (thirteen years ago) link
More commentary (and apparently a comment from Adams) here: http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2011/03/24/scott-adams-to-mens-rights-activists-dont-bother-arguing-with-women-theyre-like-children/
― Stockhausen's Ekranoplan Quartet (Elvis Telecom), Wednesday, 30 March 2011 19:34 (thirteen years ago) link
haha omg
I can never tell when Scott Adams is serious and when he's trolling
― whelping at his sandpapery best (DJP), Wednesday, 30 March 2011 19:37 (thirteen years ago) link
If the above block of text reminds you of Dave Sim at all,
this was my first thought actually
― in my world of loose geirs (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 30 March 2011 20:41 (thirteen years ago) link
Practically everything Scott Adams writes is dripping with about five levels of bitter, self-hating sarcasm, though, which makes it difficult for me to take this completely at face value.
Like, I would not at all be surprised if he was taking a Neanderthal tone in order to set up and pull the rug out from underneath people, which seems to go along with the shellshocked reactions some of these critiques are posting.
Having said that, I haven't read it yet so maybe the whole piece really is way out of step with his usual steeze, or just an epic failure in conveying appropriate tone, or maybe he is Dave Sim 2.0.
― whelping at his sandpapery best (DJP), Wednesday, 30 March 2011 21:09 (thirteen years ago) link
A woman had a show about bible secrets on the BBC the other week which was basically Chasing YooWHoo.
― I said Omorotic, not homo-erotic (aldo), Thursday, 31 March 2011 18:02 (thirteen years ago) link
Adams since reposted the deleted blog entry and a "you are all idiots" followup. Perhaps downgrade from Dave Sim to Lileks territory?
― Stockhausen's Ekranoplan Quartet (Elvis Telecom), Friday, 1 April 2011 01:20 (thirteen years ago) link
what a weird guy
― call all destroyer, Friday, 1 April 2011 01:30 (thirteen years ago) link
If any of you have a Salon account, could you do me a favor and head over to the articles by these binarian unibators and provide a link to my explanation of the Men's Rights controversy in its proper context?
― difficult listening hour, Friday, 1 April 2011 05:30 (thirteen years ago) link
I write material for a specific sort of audience. And when the piece on Men's Rights drew too much attention from outside my normal reading circle, it changed the meaning. Communication becomes distorted when you take it out of context, even if you don't change a word of the text. I image that you are dubious about this. It's hard to believe this sort of thing if you don't write for a living and see how often it happens. I'll explain.
(emphasis scott adams')
― difficult listening hour, Friday, 1 April 2011 05:32 (thirteen years ago) link
Dude has not been helping his case lately.
― Ned Raggett, Friday, 15 April 2011 20:43 (thirteen years ago) link
hoo boy
― fat fat fat fat Usher (DJP), Friday, 15 April 2011 20:50 (thirteen years ago) link
1. Adams has stated in his blog several times that evolution is a scientific fact. The citation someone gave here is in the context of his blog post explaining that the evidence for evolution smells wrong even if it isn't. That's an interesting point. His prediction about evolution someday being rethought in scientific terms has to do with whether the arrow of time is an illusion. If time doesn't move forward, things aren't happening the way you think. That's an interesting point too. And it's a far cry from being an evolution denier.
His prediction about evolution someday being rethought in scientific terms has to do with whether the arrow of time is an illusion. If time doesn't move forward, things aren't happening the way you think. That's an interesting point too. And it's a far cry from being an evolution denier.
^^^ certified genius I.Q.
― jay lenonononono (abanana), Friday, 15 April 2011 20:54 (thirteen years ago) link
so I guess the only requirement for claiming a genius IQ is smoking a lot of pot?
― fat fat fat fat Usher (DJP), Friday, 15 April 2011 20:55 (thirteen years ago) link
Well, he is in SF and all.
― Ned Raggett, Friday, 15 April 2011 21:17 (thirteen years ago) link
hahah this guy
― call all destroyer, Friday, 15 April 2011 21:30 (thirteen years ago) link
in fairness, this is the funniest shit he's done in about 15 years
― fat fat fat fat Usher (DJP), Friday, 15 April 2011 21:31 (thirteen years ago) link
this makes me sad :-(
― licorice oratorio (baaderonixx), Monday, 18 April 2011 16:00 (thirteen years ago) link
when i was a kid i read this book of prose fiction scott adams wrote called GOD'S DEBRIS in which a UPS guy delivered a package to an old man's home and the old man gave him this hundred-page-long speech about The Universe, which was mostly elementary einstein-era physics and probability theory with some stoney prognoses mixed in at the end and a whole lot of really odd categorical statements about obvious (like obvious even though i was 15 or whatever) personal resentments along the lines of "when an idiot and a genius disagree, generally the idiot will think the genius is wrong", and the whole thing had this utterly weird air of having been written by a person who'd decided that his respect for and understanding of Science and Rationalism was what separated him from the thick sea of morons who annoyed and obstructed him but did not actually have the intelligence or wit or generosity or even untainted curiosity to be an actual scientist and instead had to write boss jokes for the newspaper.
anyway the high point of this whole online thing is when someone on a reddit thread says that scott adams is dumb and scott adams under his ludwig von mises (lol of course) sockpuppet says:
You're talking about Scott Adams. He's not talking about you. Advantage: Adams.
― difficult listening hour, Monday, 18 April 2011 16:31 (thirteen years ago) link
dilbert is still one of the best daily strips, not that there's much competition.
― jay lenonononono (abanana), Monday, 18 April 2011 16:46 (thirteen years ago) link
Having dug a grave, he digs deeper.
― Ned Raggett, Monday, 18 April 2011 20:17 (thirteen years ago) link
Obviously an alias can be used for evil just as easily as it can be used to clear up simple factual matters. A hammer can be used to build a porch or it can be used to crush your neighbor's skull. Don't hate the tool.
lol
― difficult listening hour, Monday, 18 April 2011 20:21 (thirteen years ago) link
― fat fat fat fat Usher (DJP), Monday, 18 April 2011 20:21 (thirteen years ago) link
Dear Scott Adams,
You are on your own now, you big stupid nerd.
Middle-fingerfully,
DJP
― fat fat fat fat Usher (DJP), Monday, 18 April 2011 20:23 (thirteen years ago) link
I typed a vague rant of betrayal on behalf of teenage me, who mistook Adams' cynicism regarding clueless un-technical managers for some kind of anti-capitalist pro-science sentiment when apparently he was only ever yet another oblivious self-aggrandising jerk with an MBA, but then I remembered that it's already at least 12 years too late to give a shit. So.
(Admittedly I already sort of knew part of this from the final chapter of whichever 90s book where he tells readers to visualise good futures for themselves and write them out 100x daily to make them come true, but I guess a little part of me still wanted that to be some really weird trolling.)
― dimension hatris (a passing spacecadet), Monday, 18 April 2011 22:10 (thirteen years ago) link
oh hahaha I remember that; I thought it was the funniest fucking thing
― fat fat fat fat Usher (DJP), Monday, 18 April 2011 22:11 (thirteen years ago) link
doesn't surprise me to find the whole "men's rights" thing was done tongue-in-cheek, I used to read the Dilbert blog from time to time and I know most of what he says on there is not meant to be taken straight. this whole weird thing about him defending himself is bizarre, but he kind of admits on his blog that he doesn't really have much integrity when it comes to public forums. In a way I kind of understand why he did it, his blog is EXACTLY the sort of thing that people can take out of context and use to slam the guy, but explanation or not this whole thing is kind of disturbing
― frogbs, Thursday, 21 April 2011 17:45 (thirteen years ago) link
Was I the only person who was put off by Dilbert from the beginning? The "capitalist servitude is the lolz" attitude just seemed like smokescreen for maintaining the status quo. Pointy-headed bosses will always rule, so put up with it.
Always felt that Dogbert was Adams' way of inserting himself into the strip a la Dave Sim and Viktor Davis.
― Stockhausen's Ekranoplan Quartet (Elvis Telecom), Thursday, 21 April 2011 20:38 (thirteen years ago) link
Adams was equal parts Dogbert/Catbert/Alice/Wally IMO
― I just like… I just have to say… (Starts crying) (DJP), Thursday, 21 April 2011 20:51 (thirteen years ago) link
it is definitely not questioning the status quo. and that's ok because it still has decent jokes.
― jay lenonononono (abanana), Thursday, 21 April 2011 21:15 (thirteen years ago) link
ha that's actually a good point, I don't see how a strip that is basically "my job is soul-crushingly stupid and nothing I do seems to change anything" even comes under consideration as something that could be challenging the status quo
― I just like… I just have to say… (Starts crying) (DJP), Thursday, 21 April 2011 21:17 (thirteen years ago) link
Guess I have a thin-skin when it comes to this, but I also work as a programmer. Too close to home?
― Stockhausen's Ekranoplan Quartet (Elvis Telecom), Thursday, 21 April 2011 23:16 (thirteen years ago) link
well, I'm also a programmer; I always viewed the strip like the coworker who's always bitching
― I just like… I just have to say… (Starts crying) (DJP), Thursday, 21 April 2011 23:21 (thirteen years ago) link
There was a whole book written about this 14-years ago.
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61ZD9A4VJXL._SL500_AA300_.jpg
Its complaints are a little repetitive but on the whole it is a good read.
― I took you to an impotent restaurant (Abbbottt), Friday, 22 April 2011 00:30 (thirteen years ago) link
Admittedly I already sort of knew part of this from the final chapter of whichever 90s book where he tells readers to visualise good futures for themselves and write them out 100x daily to make them come true, but I guess a little part of me still wanted that to be some really weird trolling.
That was the Dilbert Future...I always wondered the same thing. He always is going on and on about pranking people at the office so the whole way I kinda thought he was pulling one over on us, but if you go back and re-read it, everything seems to sincere that it's a little hard to tell. The implications there were just a little too weird to comprehend. But he did manage to "re-wire" his brain and cure his "incurable" spasmodic dysphonia or something, so at least that's pretty impressive.
― frogbs, Tuesday, 26 April 2011 13:54 (twelve years ago) link
He always is going on and on about pranking people at the office so the whole way I kinda thought he was pulling one over on us, but if you go back and re-read it, everything seems to sincere that it's a little hard to tell. The implications there were just a little too weird to comprehend. But he did manage to "re-wire" his brain and cure his "incurable" spasmodic dysphonia or something, so at least that's pretty impressive.
― frogbs, Tuesday, April 26, 2011 2:54 PM (4 years ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
this is a good observation. he anticipated internet trolls.
this is a good one:
http://dilbert.com/strip/2015-06-07
― F♯ A♯ (∞), Wednesday, 10 June 2015 22:52 (eight years ago) link
Is there a way to make a comic strip an ILX board description?
― Tarkus Aurelius (Old Lunch), Wednesday, 10 June 2015 23:46 (eight years ago) link
Technically yeah, but it breaks mobile ILXing so it's verboten.
― WilliamC, Thursday, 11 June 2015 00:45 (eight years ago) link
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/145456082991/my-endorsement-for-president-of-the-united-states
― Immediate Follower (NA), Monday, 6 June 2016 15:11 (seven years ago) link
The only downside I can see to the new approach is that it is likely to trigger a race war in the United States. And I would be a top-ten assassination target in that scenario because once you define Trump as Hitler, you also give citizens moral permission to kill him. And obviously it would be okay to kill anyone who actively supports a genocidal dictator, including anyone who wrote about his persuasion skills in positive terms. (I’m called an “apologist” on Twitter, or sometimes just Joseph Goebbels).
0_0
― it's getting ott in here / so take off all your clothes (stevie), Monday, 6 June 2016 15:14 (seven years ago) link
I mean obvs he is batshit but sometimes it is still a shock to smell the shit of the bat
top-ten assassination target
I guess he read my diary.
― Allen (etaeoe), Monday, 6 June 2016 15:20 (seven years ago) link
hmmmm - was not aware of his batshit-ness until now :(
― licorice oratorio (baaderonixx), Monday, 6 June 2016 15:38 (seven years ago) link
Yet another casualty of bouncing his increasingly-bizarre political ideas off the echo chamber of a drafting table for decades on end.
― What's Your Definition of a Dirty Baby? (Old Lunch), Monday, 6 June 2016 15:47 (seven years ago) link
It must have the same effect as solitary confinement for some.
― What's Your Definition of a Dirty Baby? (Old Lunch), Monday, 6 June 2016 15:48 (seven years ago) link
eagerly anticipating his "guys, I was just joking and y'all were too stupid to realize it" post when Trump does not win via landslide
― frogbs, Monday, 6 June 2016 16:39 (seven years ago) link
Nah, dude has been tweaked for years. Rapidly tumbling into Sim territory.
― What's Your Definition of a Dirty Baby? (Old Lunch), Monday, 6 June 2016 16:56 (seven years ago) link
Yeah, he's been spouting misogynist MRA and evolutionary biology bullshit for a long time now.
― Tuomas, Tuesday, 7 June 2016 09:59 (seven years ago) link
musk and adams had to really work to lose people's respect
well yeah they earned every bit of the scorn they're getting but it's way funnier in Adams' case because, unlike Musk, nothing he does really matters, he was a newspaper comic dude who got real famous 25 years ago and has ridden that goodwill ever since. so like to rebrand your image as some kind of master manipulator who sees 3 moves ahead and then torpedo your career with some idiotic hypothetical that he somehow didn't anticipate getting taken out of context (dude is definitely racist but the thing that got him cancelled was more just him completely misreading a situation as he always said) is just really really funny to me
― frogbs, Monday, 15 January 2024 17:59 (three months ago) link
a few years back, I donated $1 to doctors without borders for every person who asked Scott to draw Dilbert as the joker. he had a huge meltdown and claimed he was being targeted by George Soros. he is an unserious, clueless dumbass who has no idea how the world works pic.twitter.com/U1tIWiVLt1— the information pimp (@BirdRespecter) January 26, 2024
― Beyond Goo and Evol (President Keyes), Friday, 26 January 2024 16:47 (two months ago) link
hopped on Twitter for some more context and uhh it's even weirder than you think
Laura Loomer and Scott Adams are convinced a stock image taken in the 1950s of a hand holding dollar notes, featured in an article about crime and inflation by the Atlantic that's also been tweeted by Alexander Soros, is in fact a coded call to assassinate Donald Trump. pic.twitter.com/5SBt2ZvNXq— Shayan Sardarizadeh (@Shayan86) January 22, 2024
― frogbs, Friday, 26 January 2024 17:39 (two months ago) link
Never noticed that "STATES OF AMERICA" was printed on the $5 bill until Laura Loomer circled it in red.
― Beyond Goo and Evol (President Keyes), Friday, 26 January 2024 17:53 (two months ago) link
This does play into that piece someone posted yesterday about how Meth heads always think something big is about to go down
― Beyond Goo and Evol (President Keyes), Friday, 26 January 2024 17:55 (two months ago) link
https://i.imgur.com/dNtdf6c_d.webp?maxwidth=500&fidelity=grand
― mookieproof, Friday, 26 January 2024 20:25 (two months ago) link
It would appear that his only option is to go fuck himself.
― immodesty blaise (jimbeaux), Friday, 26 January 2024 20:26 (two months ago) link
dave sim is not only a better artist than scott adams, he's far better at being a batshit insane misogynist than adams is
― Kate (rushomancy), Friday, 26 January 2024 20:31 (two months ago) link
like scott i'm an asexual pan lesbian with a breeding kink who loves girldick, what are you even talking about?
― Kate (rushomancy), Friday, 26 January 2024 20:33 (two months ago) link
a few weeks ago there was some article making the rounds about how Republican men were basically undateable, guess that one rang true with a lot of these guys lol
― frogbs, Friday, 26 January 2024 20:38 (two months ago) link
Step 1: DEIStep 2: Open BordersStep 3: ???Step 4: More Sperm!
― Beyond Goo and Evol (President Keyes), Friday, 26 January 2024 20:39 (two months ago) link
Dilead
― nashwan, Friday, 26 January 2024 20:40 (two months ago) link
Legit lol, nashwan. Perfect.
― Wine not? (Ye Mad Puffin), Saturday, 27 January 2024 03:58 (two months ago) link
(I had been thinking of working up something like HornDogbert, but your riff is so much better. Thank you for your service.)
― Wine not? (Ye Mad Puffin), Saturday, 27 January 2024 04:01 (two months ago) link