If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Dilbert)   Scott Adams explains..his deleted post comparing women to children and the mentally handicapped was a joke, and perhaps some women weren't smart enough to understand it. Yeah, that should help   (dilbert.com) divider line 135
    More: Amusing, developmentally disabled, right to move, investment portfolio, hatching, critical thinking  
•       •       •

6207 clicks; posted to Geek » on 29 Mar 2011 at 2:09 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



135 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-03-28 10:37:24 PM
www.roadie.org
 
2011-03-28 11:16:18 PM
I've been reading his blog regularly for a few years, and honestly, if you don't read it all the time, you can't really understand what he's saying. It's an environment that's very different from Fark.

To Scott, anyone can look at an unusual idea or position and say "here's why this is wrong/won't work/is stupid." To look at something that is ridiculous and let it spin the wheels of your brain to get thought process going is much, much harder. For example, he advocates for giving people who pay tax in the top marginal tax bracket two votes. Anyone can look at that and go "that's a dumb idea." It takes a more keen mind to look at it and think about how we could structure the tax code so that people who are paying more taxes feel like they are benefiting from paying more taxes even if the benefits are nominal.

And years of saying idiotic things and then vigorously insulting anyone that points out that they are stupid ideas has left him with a readership that a) understands what he is doing and b) has very high intelligence and reading comprehension compared to the average blog. Some of the people in the comments section are far and away the brightest people I've seen. And they range from staunch libertarians to very progressive people. Because it's not about partisanship. It's about being exposed to the sort of thought experiments which encourage you to think in new ways. Dumb liberals and dumb conservatives both hate that sort of thinking.

So yeah, any idiot can look at that and go "wow this is stupid and sexist and whatnot." But if you understand that there is no sincerity behind the actual position, it takes on new meaning. And it's not a troll. A troll is designed to enrage people. This isn't really meant to be enraging because the sort of people that read his blog don't get enraged by what he writes anymore. Those that do don't stick around long. They write long angry comments and leave.

Instead, sit with the post for a little bit, and just think about it without being reactionary. If you can do that, I guarantee it will spur new, novel thoughts in you. Because this isn't some post for the "American Thinker." It's a post for people that like to think about thinking, not be pandered and told things that serve only to reinforce the positions they already hold.

TL;DR
 
2011-03-28 11:31:44 PM
"meta-joke" or not, it isn't wrong.

Look at the legal system, for example... it does assume that women are must be provided for and protected at all costs, logic and rationality be damned... just like children and the mentally retarded.
 
2011-03-29 12:16:42 AM

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Instead, sit with the post for a little bit, and just think about it without being reactionary. ... It's a post for people that like to think about thinking, not be pandered and told things that serve only to reinforce the positions they already hold.


Oh heavens. I'd better agree with it, then. I can't have someone on Fark thinking I'm stupid.

His point, as I understand it, is that men shouldn't be upset over "special" legal rights for women because all they really do is put women on a footing closer to where men already stand (economically, politically, socially), and that arguing about it only demeans men. Men don't need it.

Obviously it's possible to be furious over something without denying there's truth in it, so let me say now I'm annoyed with his post and with his attitude in general. It has so much of the "aw, the girls will never read this -- come in, men, let's talk among ourselves and say what we REALLY mean." He makes no attempt to address women and assumes that their objections to his argument will be out of anger and not logic or fact.

The problem I find with his article is that he doesn't suggest a way out. Children grow up (to continue on his unfortunate metaphor) and begin to deal with the world as adults, but the mentally handicapped never do. At some point, does he think women will no longer need a step up to be equal to men in the social sphere? Or does he think this is something men will always have to tolerate as magnanimously as they can?
 
2011-03-29 12:22:25 AM
The entire point of the post was that men usually give in to the things women say, because the men don't really care either way, and it's easier than fighting over it. He then responds to criticisms by women's groups by simply deleting his post, because that's easier than fighting them over it.

I thought it was hysterical.
 
2011-03-29 12:41:28 AM
Am I the only one who has not once laughed at a Dilbert strip? The only thing less funny was the cartoon version.

/has never worked in an office...is that it?


Sim Tree: The entire point of the post was that men usually give in to the things women say, because the men don't really care either way, and it's easier than fighting over it. He then responds to criticisms by women's groups by simply deleting his post, because that's easier than fighting them over it.

I thought it was hysterical.


If that really is the case, it's farking brilliant. And 100% based on reality.
 
2011-03-29 12:44:42 AM

Chariset: His point, as I understand it, is that men shouldn't be upset over "special" legal rights for women because all they really do is put women on a footing closer to where men already stand (economically, politically, socially), and that arguing about it only demeans men. Men don't need it.


No, that's not the point at all. His point is that we should look at this as a game in which each person is seeking to optimize their advantage. For men, the advantage of trying to change the status-quo is less than maintaining it. It's not about the relative footing of one side over the other, except in cursory way.

He makes no attempt to address women and assumes that their objections to his argument will be out of anger and not logic or fact.

Apply deconstructionism to it. He knows that women will be reading it even as he says that he addressing men. What is he saying to women by pretending he is speaking only to men?

The problem I find with his article is that he doesn't suggest a way out.

Of course not, because that's not what he does. Coming up with a specific solution to a problem really isn't that interesting. It's more interesting to try to think of new ways of conceiving a problem and then let the reader come up with solutions on their own. That's why he says upfront on all of his solutions: this will not work. He just uses possible solutions as a sort of guide to how to approach a problem.
 
2011-03-29 01:42:03 AM
tl;dr

for a 3-cell weekdays 8-cell sundays comic strip cartoonist he sure is a long winded sumbiatch
 
2011-03-29 01:53:02 AM
I never found Dilbert interesting or funny. Sorry. Bloom County it ain't. Actually, it always felt a lot more like a variation on Cathy, but for the cubicle crowd.

But at least it was never as bad as B.C., which is as low as it gets.

I have no beef with Scott Adams. I don't read his blog, but I imagine that since he's a humorist, whatever he said was done with his tongue firmly in cheek. I know what it's like to write a satirical piece and have some humorless dicks take it seriously and accuse me of being an "angry guy" or a troll. No, I'm not angry; You're just fragile and bitter. Whatever tone of voice you read in, that's all in YOUR head; Not on the page.

So whatever, man. Rock on Dilbert dude. I may not get into your cubicle humor, but I know where you're coming from.
 
2011-03-29 02:14:59 AM
There are a plethora of blog posts, articles and books out there that make gross generalizations of "men are like x" with x being any number of things from babies to canines. Entire magazines are created that purport to tell women what men want in a insultingly simplistic and generalized style and none of them are satire.

Whar equivalent outrage? Whar?!
 
2011-03-29 02:35:56 AM
People with an emotional investment in a social issue blow out of proportion and take out of context a small portion of an overall statement and make gross over generalizations about the opinion of the writer as a result?


Nah, not on the internet.
 
2011-03-29 02:56:07 AM
Women have their uses.
 
2011-03-29 03:08:57 AM
That post wasn't so much offensive as it was embarrassingly ignorant and incoherent.
 
2011-03-29 03:12:46 AM

ZeroCorpse: I never found Dilbert interesting or funny. Sorry. Bloom County it ain't. Actually, it always felt a lot more like a variation on Cathy, but for the cubicle crowd.

But at least it was never as bad as B.C., which is as low as it gets.

I have no beef with Scott Adams. I don't read his blog, but I imagine that since he's a humorist, whatever he said was done with his tongue firmly in cheek. I know what it's like to write a satirical piece and have some humorless dicks take it seriously and accuse me of being an "angry guy" or a troll. No, I'm not angry; You're just fragile and bitter. Whatever tone of voice you read in, that's all in YOUR head; Not on the page.

So whatever, man. Rock on Dilbert dude. I may not get into your cubicle humor, but I know where you're coming from.


i375.photobucket.com
I just don't get it; if B.C. is a caveman, how can he celebrate Ash Wednesday?
 
2011-03-29 03:37:05 AM
10/10, Adams, 10/10.
 
2011-03-29 03:42:15 AM

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: I've been reading his blog regularly for a few years, and honestly, if you don't read it all the time, you can't really understand what he's saying. It's an environment that's very different from Fark.

To Scott, anyone can look at an unusual idea or position and say "here's why this is wrong/won't work/is stupid." To look at something that is ridiculous and let it spin the wheels of your brain to get thought process going is much, much harder. For example, he advocates for giving people who pay tax in the top marginal tax bracket two votes. Anyone can look at that and go "that's a dumb idea." It takes a more keen mind to look at it and think about how we could structure the tax code so that people who are paying more taxes feel like they are benefiting from paying more taxes even if the benefits are nominal.

And years of saying idiotic things and then vigorously insulting anyone that points out that they are stupid ideas has left him with a readership that a) understands what he is doing and b) has very high intelligence and reading comprehension compared to the average blog. Some of the people in the comments section are far and away the brightest people I've seen. And they range from staunch libertarians to very progressive people. Because it's not about partisanship. It's about being exposed to the sort of thought experiments which encourage you to think in new ways. Dumb liberals and dumb conservatives both hate that sort of thinking.

So yeah, any idiot can look at that and go "wow this is stupid and sexist and whatnot." But if you understand that there is no sincerity behind the actual position, it takes on new meaning. And it's not a troll. A troll is designed to enrage people. This isn't really meant to be enraging because the sort of people that read his blog don't get enraged by what he writes anymore. Those that do don't stick around long. They write long angry comments and leave.

Instead, sit with the post for a little bit, and just think about it without being reactionary. If you can do that, I guarantee it will spur new, novel thoughts in you. Because this isn't some post for the "American Thinker." It's a post for people that like to think about thinking, not be pandered and told things that serve only to reinforce the positions they already hold.

TL;DR


You sound like a Scientologist. Seriously. I've read articles online by people who argue that L. Ron Hubbard's shiatty second-rate science fiction is actually so deep and meaningful that ordinary readers are incapable of understanding it. No, I don't think so. Man is the rationalizing animal, and the human brain can find justification for anything if it looks hard enough; but sometimes a shiat sandwich is just a shiat sandwich.

You also sound fat.
 
2011-03-29 03:44:19 AM
You sound like a Scientologist. Seriously. I've read articles online by people who argue that L. Ron Hubbard's shiatty second-rate science fiction is actually so deep and meaningful that ordinary readers are incapable of understanding it. No, I don't think so. Man is the rationalizing animal, and the human brain can find justification for anything if it looks hard enough; but sometimes a shiat sandwich is just a shiat sandwich.

You also sound fat.


10/ -- hey wait a minute...
 
2011-03-29 04:07:43 AM

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: TL;DR


I hope this shiat is copypasta, because even the idea of typing it all out to troll a little thread like this is sad.
 
2011-03-29 04:13:02 AM

Sim Tree: He then responds to criticisms by women's groups by simply deleting his post, because that's easier than fighting them over it.

I thought it was hysterical.

This. Anyone who didn't get this and got "internets angry" as a result - here's your sign.

Also... aren't lesbians cute when they get all hot and bothered...
 
2011-03-29 05:12:29 AM
I'm probably dating myself here...

First thing I thought of were the 'Dilhole' parodies that Drew referenced waaay back when I had my original, three digit account in 2001.

Here's the link:

http://www.fark.com/comments/33172/Dilbert-Parodies

And of course, the parodies are elsewhere...

Like here: http://www.cepheid.org/~lupin/dilhole/

Amazingly, stupefyingly not safe for work.
 
2011-03-29 05:30:26 AM
Only women and children think that thunder is caused by clouds bumping into each other, so he has a point !
 
2011-03-29 05:43:24 AM
TL:DC
 
2011-03-29 06:16:17 AM
SO MUCH THIS

(btw, pet Callie for me)

NkThrasher: People with an emotional investment in a social issue blow out of proportion and take out of context a small portion of an overall statement and make gross over generalizations about the opinion of the writer as a result?


Nah, not on the internet.

 
2011-03-29 06:23:23 AM
As you can see, I thought it would be funny to embrace the Men's Rights viewpoint in the beginning of the piece and get those guys all lathered up before dismissing their entire membership as a "bunch of pussies." To be fair, they have some gripes worthy of discussion, especially on legal issues. But I'm been experiencing a wicked case of "whiner fatigue." It feels as if everyone in the world is whining about one damn thing or another.  In normal times, I can tune it out. But lately the backdrop has been world class problems on the order of financial meltdowns, tsunamis, nuclear radiation, and bloody revolutions. THOSE are problems. Your thing: Not so much.

This.

My take on it? If you're the kind of 'man' that complains for three pages that some men in commercials are stupid (new window), hand in your Bro Card at the door. Miller Lite has commercials even more insulting: they all have a stupid man in them, and they're berated and pwned by a pretty barmaid, but that apparently doesn't get the Moaning Mickies to bunch up their boxers. Which makes the whiny little bastards easily distracted by shiny lipstick too.

Being a man means worrying about nut cancer, not worrying that a man looked stupid on a commercial intended for women.
 
2011-03-29 06:38:30 AM

nulluspixiusdemonica: Also... aren't lesbians cute when they get all hot and bothered...


Why is this always blamed on lesbians? Feminist blogs are written by retards - I don't want lumped in with them.
 
2011-03-29 07:02:23 AM
Who's Scott Adams?
 
2011-03-29 07:35:08 AM
Hey, everyone! It's our daily greenlit misogyny thread! Woohoo!!
 
2011-03-29 07:35:32 AM

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: And years of saying idiotic things and then vigorously insulting anyone that points out that they are stupid ideas has left him with a readership that a) understands what he is doing and b) has very high intelligence and reading comprehension compared to the average blog.


You're saying he's pandering to the audience he's created, an audience of "people who love to break down arguments". That's fine, I can see some people being into that.

But... wouldn't they want vaguely competent arguments to think about? The underlying crux of his argument relies on the fact that men ignore most of the world around them. Except that's not a fact, and isn't even remotely supportable unless your world is based on 70's sitcoms. As a result, his whole post comes off as ignorant. Certainly not worthy of significant analysis.

Communication is hard. But if you aggressively scare away all the people who don't think the same way as you, it does get easier. The result isn't a blog full of people who have great "reading comprehension" and intelligence, though. I'm sure some are intelligent, but the key is that they get your nuances without you having to explain yourself. It's fine to cultivate that sort of audience -- works for Rush Limbaugh -- but don't pretend that it's a factor of intellect. It's just a factor of brain layout and/or being acclimated to a communication style.

I don't really care about the things he's argued, and I'm certainly not angry at him, so the whole "you're just too angry to see straight" argument also comes off as pretty silly. It just makes him look even more like an ass.

I do realize that anybody who brings up "reading comprehension" to describe any homogeneous group is a troll, so I'm not sure why I'm feeding the troll...

/bored
 
2011-03-29 08:14:44 AM
Man, it's been so long since i've regularly read his blog. I wonder why i stopped. It seems to have gotten so much better!
 
2011-03-29 08:18:32 AM

xanadian: Hey, everyone! It's our daily greenlit misogyny thread! Woohoo!!


Yes, dear *rolls eyes*
 
2011-03-29 08:23:03 AM
Dear Scott Adams,

When you post things on the internet, someone somewhere will misunderstand and totally freak out on you. This is why it is probably safest to stick to posting recipes and funny pictures of cats or dogs.
 
2011-03-29 08:30:30 AM

FunkOut: Dear Scott Adams,

When you post things on the internet, someone somewhere will misunderstand and totally freak out on you. This is why it is probably safest to stick to posting recipes and funny pictures of cats or dogs.


I believe this is called the "LiveJournal" effect. Go check it out sometime on their "groups." Say something that MIGHT hint at someone's race, sex, or weight. Or breastfeeding, ooh, do that one.

It's like chucking a bag of meth into a Chimpanzee enclosure.
 
2011-03-29 08:30:36 AM

Captain Wingo: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: And years of saying idiotic things and then vigorously insulting anyone that points out that they are stupid ideas has left him with a readership that a) understands what he is doing and b) has very high intelligence and reading comprehension compared to the average blog.

You're saying he's pandering to the audience he's created, an audience of "people who love to break down arguments". That's fine, I can see some people being into that.

But... wouldn't they want vaguely competent arguments to think about? The underlying crux of his argument relies on the fact that men ignore most of the world around them. Except that's not a fact, and isn't even remotely supportable unless your world is based on 70's sitcoms. As a result, his whole post comes off as ignorant. Certainly not worthy of significant analysis.

Communication is hard. But if you aggressively scare away all the people who don't think the same way as you, it does get easier. The result isn't a blog full of people who have great "reading comprehension" and intelligence, though. I'm sure some are intelligent, but the key is that they get your nuances without you having to explain yourself. It's fine to cultivate that sort of audience -- works for Rush Limbaugh -- but don't pretend that it's a factor of intellect. It's just a factor of brain layout and/or being acclimated to a communication style.

I don't really care about the things he's argued, and I'm certainly not angry at him, so the whole "you're just too angry to see straight" argument also comes off as pretty silly. It just makes him look even more like an ass.

I do realize that anybody who brings up "reading comprehension" to describe any homogeneous group is a troll, so I'm not sure why I'm feeding the troll...

/bored


Are you SURE you've properly read the original post AND the explanation post?
 
2011-03-29 08:38:43 AM

DKinMN: Captain Wingo: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: And years of saying idiotic things and then vigorously insulting anyone that points out that they are stupid ideas has left him with a readership that a) understands what he is doing and b) has very high intelligence and reading comprehension compared to the average blog.

You're saying he's pandering to the audience he's created, an audience of "people who love to break down arguments". That's fine, I can see some people being into that.

But... wouldn't they want vaguely competent arguments to think about? The underlying crux of his argument relies on the fact that men ignore most of the world around them. Except that's not a fact, and isn't even remotely supportable unless your world is based on 70's sitcoms. As a result, his whole post comes off as ignorant. Certainly not worthy of significant analysis.

Communication is hard. But if you aggressively scare away all the people who don't think the same way as you, it does get easier. The result isn't a blog full of people who have great "reading comprehension" and intelligence, though. I'm sure some are intelligent, but the key is that they get your nuances without you having to explain yourself. It's fine to cultivate that sort of audience -- works for Rush Limbaugh -- but don't pretend that it's a factor of intellect. It's just a factor of brain layout and/or being acclimated to a communication style.

I don't really care about the things he's argued, and I'm certainly not angry at him, so the whole "you're just too angry to see straight" argument also comes off as pretty silly. It just makes him look even more like an ass.

I do realize that anybody who brings up "reading comprehension" to describe any homogeneous group is a troll, so I'm not sure why I'm feeding the troll...

/bored

Are you SURE you've properly read the original post AND the explanation post?


May have read it, didn't understand it :D
 
2011-03-29 08:53:46 AM

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: I've been reading his blog regularly for a few years, and honestly, if you don't read it all the time, you can't really understand what he's saying. It's an environment that's very different from Fark.


I read his blog for six months and came away from it thinking Adams was delusional and pushed damaging thought exercise (especially when it came to science).

But you already get an idea about that by reading the "serious" chapters of some of his books.

/never liked dilbert
//found it overally cynical
///which rightly explains is blog
 
2011-03-29 08:56:56 AM
Scott Adams is still alive? Dilbert is still being published? Fark me! Who knew?
 
2011-03-29 08:58:00 AM
img.youtube.com

Don't blame me. A woman wrote the joke.

Just kidding. We don't hire women.
 
2011-03-29 09:11:16 AM
"Don't argue! You cannot win, you cannot beat a woman in a arguement. It's impossble you will not win. Cause men, we are handicapped when it comes to arguing cause we have a need to make sense" - Chris Rock


that's the basic point as well. Why bother? Path of least resistance. You just learn to pick your battles sometimes. Is it worth getting in a fight with a woman because they said they told you something when you know for a fact they never did and you didn't even know they had a cousin named Ruth?

No. even though you know they never said it. But don't tell them that... they will argue till the are blue about how they did tell you that they had a cousin and then drag it into how you don't listen to them ever just like the time....

It's stored up!

God bless 'em though... I love boobies.
 
2011-03-29 09:12:48 AM
Poe's Law
 
2011-03-29 09:15:03 AM

LasersHurt: FunkOut: Dear Scott Adams,

When you post things on the internet, someone somewhere will misunderstand and totally freak out on you. This is why it is probably safest to stick to posting recipes and funny pictures of cats or dogs.

I believe this is called the "LiveJournal" effect. Go check it out sometime on their "groups." Say something that MIGHT hint at someone's race, sex, or weight. Or breastfeeding, ooh, do that one.

It's like chucking a bag of meth into a Chimpanzee enclosure.


I think I will stay the hell away from that place.

Personally, throwing pieces of chewing gum into a baboon enclosure is quite entertaining. They just keep chewing and chewing and chewing with these amazed looks on their faces.
 
2011-03-29 09:15:46 AM
Who died and made him Dave Sim?
 
2011-03-29 09:17:27 AM
Is this the thread where I tell everyone how wrong some millionaire humorist is and that no I didn't even read the whole original article?
 
2011-03-29 09:26:11 AM
I'm outraged, OUTRAGED by a cartoonist writing a post using generalizations and shock tactics for a satirical comedic affect. I certainly have never read or seen any comedian use such an angle, and am truly distraught by this experience.
 
2011-03-29 09:29:44 AM

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: But if you understand that there is no sincerity behind the actual position, it takes on new meaning.


Dude, no it doesn't; that's a cop-out. I have read Adams and I do think he's a smart guy, but his problem is navigating the very narrow band of satire that lies between punditry and comedy. That's not brilliance; it's a glaring flaw that most career writers eventually grow out of.

Jon Stewart, Al Franken, Rush Limbaugh, Trey Parker & Matt Stone . . . almost every satirist at one point or another gets into trouble when they say something stupid, then imply there's a deeper meaning or -- more commonly -- no meaning at all to it by hiding behind their status as a comedian. "I think this! Oh, wait, you're upset? Nah, I'm just joking, see? It's all a joke, wink wink. If you're upset, you just don't have a sense of humor." Bullshiat. Not everyone is smart, but even idiots don't like being insulted that way. (To Franken's credit, he eventually realized where his heart was and serious'd.)

Adams is smart but not THAT smart. He's been carelessly flailing between satire and punditry for years. And who's to stop him? It's a free country, and lines aren't laws. I get his points and they have merit, but I also see why he gets into trouble.

There are guys who get it. Stephen Colbert's never had a problem knowing where the lines are drawn, and always keeps one foot planted firmly in comedy. George Carlin was always a comedian first; this guy didn't pore over H.R. 8008135 to poke fun at some clause. Retards just he think was insightful for some reason because he dabbled in satire. Limbaugh thinks he's funny but anyone who's even heard of him knows he's a pundit first. These guys don't just know their place; they defined it. Adams. . . Look, don't get me wrong; he's smart. But even after all these years, Scott Adams either has no idea where the lines are, or -- I'll bet this is the truth -- he deliberately ignores them so he can have it both ways. That's not a crime, but it's not genius either. The lines aren't drawn just by thin-skinned idiots; as XKCD says, "Communicating badly and then acting smug when you're misunderstood is not cleverness." Clarify your position as a comedian, satirist or pundit BEFORE you get in trouble or you hurt your credibility. You can't say something controversial then say "ha-ha" after you get in trouble and expect people to eat it.
 
2011-03-29 09:38:35 AM

ZeroCorpse: No, I'm not angry; You're just fragile and bitter.


I'm filing that one away for future use, if'n you don't mind...
 
2011-03-29 09:44:38 AM
So wait, men and women are different??? You guys couldn't have even sent me a memo on this???
 
2011-03-29 09:45:27 AM
I guess this goes out to One and All!

www.ravensys.net

\hot as you like
 
2011-03-29 09:47:27 AM

Chariset: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Instead, sit with the post for a little bit, and just think about it without being reactionary. ... It's a post for people that like to think about thinking, not be pandered and told things that serve only to reinforce the positions they already hold.

Oh heavens. I'd better agree with it, then. I can't have someone on Fark thinking I'm stupid.

His point, as I understand it, is that men shouldn't be upset over "special" legal rights for women because all they really do is put women on a footing closer to where men already stand (economically, politically, socially), and that arguing about it only demeans men. Men don't need it......


Usually your posts are well reasoned and keenly insightful. This is not one of those times.
 
2011-03-29 09:50:54 AM
Scott Adams is a pretentious douche who is not nearly as smart as he thinks he is. Him taking down his post is not clever or ironic, it's just him just following his own advice, living by his own stated principals.

His original post was too true to be satire, and too true to his personality.

What did he actually say? He just said yeah, there are inequalities in the world, no point dwelling on it, pick your battles. Makes perfect sense.

But he's not fooling anyone though when he says when he's comparing women to children and the handicapped he's not comparing them. Yeah right, that metaphor popped into his head first because he doesn't lump them together in his mind at all... right. I do not actually think he is very sexist though, I'm sure he looks down on and dismisses all kinds of people.

The part where he starts talking about teams is pretty stupid too. I don't know why so many people feel the need to talk about women and men as if they live in separate countries and never work together or live together. It would probably be a man pulling him out of a burning car, but not necessarily. And it would probably be a woman who nurses him back to health.
 
2011-03-29 10:00:40 AM
Scott Adams sounds smarter than subby. Take the stick out of your ass and attack someone worth attacking.
 
Displayed 50 of 135 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report