Obligatory RationalWiki page for Scott Adams. Adams has been a jackass and a crank for ages. It was only a matter of time before he got himself (justifiably) canceled.
I read some of Adams' books when I was a teenager. The axiom around which his entire worldview is structured is that he's a genius who's surrounded by idiots. Anyone who questions his genius is...
I read some of Adams' books when I was a teenager. The axiom around which his entire worldview is structured is that he's a genius who's surrounded by idiots. Anyone who questions his genius is really just showing how much of an idiot they are. It's a very tidy system.
Now that he has nothing to lose, I betcha he starts a new comic strip making fun of The Wokes. Surely there are people in that media ecosystem who would pay for a comic about how oppressed they are.
Years ago I read Dilbert for a bit because I recognized the office culture nonsense from my job, so it was funny. Then Scott Adams began forcing readers to see his weird blog posts inbetween the...
Years ago I read Dilbert for a bit because I recognized the office culture nonsense from my job, so it was funny. Then Scott Adams began forcing readers to see his weird blog posts inbetween the comics and I figured I really didn't want to see that shit so I left almost immediately (it's the only time I ever dropped a comic for that reason). I haven't kept up on what he's been up to in recent years but I'm glad to know I wasn't hallucinating. I remember him having a reputation of being smart back in the day.
I have a relative who is almost just like this. I tried talking to him. It was pointless. He either was trying to troll me, or was so far disconnected from reality that he was delusional....
“So I don’t think it makes any sense as a white citizen of America to try to help Black citizens anymore,” Adams huffed. “It doesn’t make sense. There’s no longer a rational impulse. So I’m going to back off on being helpful to Black America because it doesn’t seem like it pays off.”
He continued: “The only outcome is I get called a racist."
I have a relative who is almost just like this.
I tried talking to him. It was pointless.
He either was trying to troll me, or was so far disconnected from reality that he was delusional.
Delusions are dangerous things when combined with anger at minority groups.
More information here. I'm sorry for sharing a highly inflammatory article but this is the one containing more information on what he actually said. I heavily edited the title to make it less...
I'm sorry for sharing a highly inflammatory article but this is the one containing more information on what he actually said. I heavily edited the title to make it less inflammatory. I used to be a huge fan of Dilbert back in the day and that is why I follow news about the author.
I'm sorry, I'm really not sure what is the sentiment behind your comment. If you don't mind, could you clarify? I'm terrible at figurative language. Thanks.
I'm sorry, I'm really not sure what is the sentiment behind your comment. If you don't mind, could you clarify? I'm terrible at figurative language.
When I was a young kid getting into programming on my own, I didn't know anyone who did programming or remember seeing any pop-culture/media references to people doing programming, so I was...
When I was a young kid getting into programming on my own, I didn't know anyone who did programming or remember seeing any pop-culture/media references to people doing programming, so I was briefly fascinated when I first noticed that Dilbert was sometimes about programming and that the author of it had been a programmer. After that I didn't think much about Dilbert or its author again for many years. Then a few years ago I remember hearing about him again because he was vocally into Trump, conspiracies, and anti-vax nonsense. This seems like the expected conclusion to that.
Seeing more than a few figures like him go this way makes me wonder a lot about what psychology pull must exist that's causing this regularly. Is it just that this kind of content has an audience that absolutely eats it up and encourages writers that dip their toes into it to go all-in, and writers can sense that appealing option when they're running out of ideas to make popular writing? Well, maybe I'm over-focusing on the creator-specific tendencies that get people into these topics, and it's merely the same factors that made him take this path that make many non-public-figures do so too. I guess part of me believes or hopes that being otherwise competent at something tends to cause extra competence in self-awareness and therefore some amount of immunity to the normal causes.
Competency in one area rarely provides cross-discipline competency, and in fact can make people who are highly competent within their field overestimate their general competency. This is why you...
Competency in one area rarely provides cross-discipline competency, and in fact can make people who are highly competent within their field overestimate their general competency. This is why you have otherwise respected science educators going completely off the rails once they start talking about global warming or politics instead of astrophysics, to pick an example entirely at random and totally not based on reality.
Are science educators only just as likely as average people to believe correct results/experts on subjects they don't specialize in themselves? That seems unlikely. (I'm not sure if there's...
Are science educators only just as likely as average people to believe correct results/experts on subjects they don't specialize in themselves? That seems unlikely. (I'm not sure if there's results on exactly that, but I did search for and successfully find studies on "vaccine acceptance by profession" and "vaccine acceptance by income level" which show positive correlations in something I think supports my angle.) I'm sure there's some fraction of science educators who fail that, but I expect it's a different fraction compared to the normal population and that this suggests there's some sense to talking about different reasons these groups are pulled toward an idea.
I definitely agree that competence in one area doesn't necessarily require or prove competence in other areas.
I suspect that the opinions of "celebrities" reflect the population as a whole; that is if X% of the general population believes something, about X% of celebrities will too. The difference is that...
I suspect that the opinions of "celebrities" reflect the population as a whole; that is if X% of the general population believes something, about X% of celebrities will too. The difference is that most of the time, people in the public eye keep someone around to help them navigate the waters of public opinion, with an eye toward preserving their celebrity status and income. As many of us have seen with relatives, though, the rise of The Former Guy has freed some to grace us all with their real opinions, consequences be damned.
Competency has the nasty side effect in some (including me) of inducing stubbornness, and if you push against stubbornness too hard or too often there will be a response. It wouldn't surprise me one bit to learn that, over the years, there have been several (unwelcome to Adams) conversations about diversifying the cast of Dilbert, and the recent strips and this podcast are him finally responding, feeling freed by the zeitgeist. I'll bet Adams is currently laughing at the shit-storm he's started, much like that crotchety old uncle at Thanksgiving who proclaimed some belief that made monocles drop into teacups.
TL;DR: Adams has probably always thought this and for now he feels like he can get away with saying it.
Obligatory RationalWiki page for Scott Adams.
Adams has been a jackass and a crank for ages. It was only a matter of time before he got himself (justifiably) canceled.
I read some of Adams' books when I was a teenager. The axiom around which his entire worldview is structured is that he's a genius who's surrounded by idiots. Anyone who questions his genius is really just showing how much of an idiot they are. It's a very tidy system.
Now that he has nothing to lose, I betcha he starts a new comic strip making fun of The Wokes. Surely there are people in that media ecosystem who would pay for a comic about how oppressed they are.
I'm honestly surprised it took this long. Seriously, he's said plenty of vile shit over the years.
Years ago I read Dilbert for a bit because I recognized the office culture nonsense from my job, so it was funny. Then Scott Adams began forcing readers to see his weird blog posts inbetween the comics and I figured I really didn't want to see that shit so I left almost immediately (it's the only time I ever dropped a comic for that reason). I haven't kept up on what he's been up to in recent years but I'm glad to know I wasn't hallucinating. I remember him having a reputation of being smart back in the day.
Ah, I see you haven't read Cerebus. Dave Sim is perhaps marginally less of a dick than Adams, although Sim is definitely the better writer.
I have a relative who is almost just like this.
I tried talking to him. It was pointless.
He either was trying to troll me, or was so far disconnected from reality that he was delusional.
Delusions are dangerous things when combined with anger at minority groups.
More information here.
I'm sorry for sharing a highly inflammatory article but this is the one containing more information on what he actually said. I heavily edited the title to make it less inflammatory. I used to be a huge fan of Dilbert back in the day and that is why I follow news about the author.
Let's have a civil conversation!
America had a civil war over slavery. Is that the sort of civil conversation you had in mind?
I'm sorry, I'm really not sure what is the sentiment behind your comment. If you don't mind, could you clarify? I'm terrible at figurative language.
Thanks.
I'm sorry, lou. Feel free to disregard the comment. It wasn't really directed at you.
When I was a young kid getting into programming on my own, I didn't know anyone who did programming or remember seeing any pop-culture/media references to people doing programming, so I was briefly fascinated when I first noticed that Dilbert was sometimes about programming and that the author of it had been a programmer. After that I didn't think much about Dilbert or its author again for many years. Then a few years ago I remember hearing about him again because he was vocally into Trump, conspiracies, and anti-vax nonsense. This seems like the expected conclusion to that.
Seeing more than a few figures like him go this way makes me wonder a lot about what psychology pull must exist that's causing this regularly. Is it just that this kind of content has an audience that absolutely eats it up and encourages writers that dip their toes into it to go all-in, and writers can sense that appealing option when they're running out of ideas to make popular writing? Well, maybe I'm over-focusing on the creator-specific tendencies that get people into these topics, and it's merely the same factors that made him take this path that make many non-public-figures do so too. I guess part of me believes or hopes that being otherwise competent at something tends to cause extra competence in self-awareness and therefore some amount of immunity to the normal causes.
Competency in one area rarely provides cross-discipline competency, and in fact can make people who are highly competent within their field overestimate their general competency. This is why you have otherwise respected science educators going completely off the rails once they start talking about global warming or politics instead of astrophysics, to pick an example entirely at random and totally not based on reality.
Are science educators only just as likely as average people to believe correct results/experts on subjects they don't specialize in themselves? That seems unlikely. (I'm not sure if there's results on exactly that, but I did search for and successfully find studies on "vaccine acceptance by profession" and "vaccine acceptance by income level" which show positive correlations in something I think supports my angle.) I'm sure there's some fraction of science educators who fail that, but I expect it's a different fraction compared to the normal population and that this suggests there's some sense to talking about different reasons these groups are pulled toward an idea.
I definitely agree that competence in one area doesn't necessarily require or prove competence in other areas.
I suspect that the opinions of "celebrities" reflect the population as a whole; that is if X% of the general population believes something, about X% of celebrities will too. The difference is that most of the time, people in the public eye keep someone around to help them navigate the waters of public opinion, with an eye toward preserving their celebrity status and income. As many of us have seen with relatives, though, the rise of The Former Guy has freed some to grace us all with their real opinions, consequences be damned.
Competency has the nasty side effect in some (including me) of inducing stubbornness, and if you push against stubbornness too hard or too often there will be a response. It wouldn't surprise me one bit to learn that, over the years, there have been several (unwelcome to Adams) conversations about diversifying the cast of Dilbert, and the recent strips and this podcast are him finally responding, feeling freed by the zeitgeist. I'll bet Adams is currently laughing at the shit-storm he's started, much like that crotchety old uncle at Thanksgiving who proclaimed some belief that made monocles drop into teacups.
TL;DR: Adams has probably always thought this and for now he feels like he can get away with saying it.
We are dropping the Dilbert comic strip because of creator Scott Adams’ racist rant: Letter from the Editor.