TetraGenesis
Member
PREACH.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Scott Adams tries to troll science
- Thread starter jellies_two
- Start date
PREACH.
Sho_Nuff82
Member
When they first became a thing (I assume during GG) I wanted to see what the fuss was about. It almost all reads like a less exciting Tucker Max blog, and the answer to almost every problem is "women suck, this is how you get around that fact."
Zepp Twofist
Member
I used to give him the benefit of doubt for a lot longer than he deserved back when he was just bouncing crazy ideas around on his blog. Turns out he just isn't very good at critical thinking.
hydrophilic attack
Member
According to his blog he supported Trump but was going to vote Clinton because he lives in California and didn't want to get lynched and/or lose business. Then he decided not to vote for Clinton because she supported estate taxes, which he considers a crime against the rich, so he decided to support and vote for Trump instead. Then after the pussy tape he claimed to switch his vote to Johnson instead, but kept stanning for Trump, every waking moment (and because of Bill, voting Clinton would have been just as bad as voting Trump if you didn't want to support molesters)
Yes really
Monocle
Member
Scott Adams is still alive. His clever plan sure paid off!
A Link to the Past
Banned
So to be clear, the next time I (jokingly) claim all men are rapists, I can cite a Republican?
Shotgun Kiss
Member
So Dilbert wears a red poloneck now. You'd think for a comic with such primitive and lazy art, you wouldn't remove the one distinct visual trait of the main character (his curled-up tie).
Huw_Dawson
Member
Hold on, isn't that strip's joke - linked on the last page - that the environmental science is rigidly tested from basic fundamentals, but the economics - what the expert has actually been hired to talk to the company about - are not?
I'm not sure if that's a funny comic but I don't think it's actually denying climate change.
EDIT: Looking it over again, I think that it's such a badly written comic that it's completely unclear what it's point is. The line about "ignore the ones that look wrong to us" either means "we're selecting via confirmation bias" or "we look at the general trend, not outlying models".
I'm not sure if that's a funny comic but I don't think it's actually denying climate change.
EDIT: Looking it over again, I think that it's such a badly written comic that it's completely unclear what it's point is. The line about "ignore the ones that look wrong to us" either means "we're selecting via confirmation bias" or "we look at the general trend, not outlying models".
hydrophilic attack
Member
His blog posts have made it very clear that he doesn't trust climate science
Huw_Dawson
Member
Yeah, that's what I'm getting from the thread. It's the actual comic that makes its point so badly that it's hard to tell what it is actually on about.
Dilbert is like Garfield.
It's the shite I actually discovered by accident, sorta liked at the time and took forever to wonder why the fuck I ever thought it was any good at all.
It's still better than the related Dilbert tv show is all I can say about it now.
Time to give it the Penny Arcade treatment and ignore it even exists.
e: and of course Dilbert's author is a shithead, that was clear from the moment you ever read any comment from the author.
he would defend child molestation if it was something he was into.
It's the shite I actually discovered by accident, sorta liked at the time and took forever to wonder why the fuck I ever thought it was any good at all.
It's still better than the related Dilbert tv show is all I can say about it now.
Time to give it the Penny Arcade treatment and ignore it even exists.
e: and of course Dilbert's author is a shithead, that was clear from the moment you ever read any comment from the author.
he would defend child molestation if it was something he was into.
Honestly, this comic and the sentiments it displays are part of the problem. It plays exactly into climate deniers' view of people who want to fight climate change.
First, it implies that stopping pollution is an intrinsic good, even if there are no real repercussions for it. Part of the climate denier mindset is that liberals believe this and are thus biased against pollution, and as such not trustworthy when studying the effects of it. Compare to illegal immigration: if someone is racist, would you trust them to accurately and fairly cite evidence that illegal immigration is associated with higher crime rates, unemployment among citizens, higher tax burden on social services, etc.?
Now at this point you're probably thinking that, yes, pollution is inherently bad, and that's a fine position to take! And you'd be wrong. Compare to far-left 'anti-toxin' mentality. The people who support 'juice cleanses' or avoiding gluten or that organic/natural food is inherently better than GMO. All about avoiding things they classify as evil without evidence. That's exactly the sort of mindset climate deniers see in you: you think that pollution is inherently evil and worth stopping even if the evidence that it's bad is wrong. If climate change were false, reducing carbon emissions would be a nonsensical thing to do, just like avoiding gluten is nonsensical for most people.
Secondly, the comic dismisses the very real cost of going green. If there's no real reason to avoid burning them, we as a society would be paying a huge price. Yet often this seems to be ignored, or at least downplayed (understandably: sadly politics these days includes a lot of "exaggerate your strengths and ignore your weaknesses," which is an effective way to get votes (see: Trump, master of these things) but disappointingly dishonest, which can drive away people who view themselves as intellectuals, like Scott Adams). Again, compare to illegal immigration: imagine a comic that had various purported consequences of illegal immigration on the slideshow and someone saying "what if those are all nonsense and we secure our borders for nothing?" in support of building The Wall.
Bottom line: the comic says "even if there's no actual downside, we should reduce carbon emissions [and ignore the fact that this is costly]." The right position to take on the matter is: "climate change is real, and fighting it is expensive but worth it."
HamPster PamPster
Member
Hold up, the UPN Dilbert show was great
Since I haven't paid attention to Scott Adams since fucking high school (that would be the 90's, to you younguns), I had no idea he was a batshit crazy trump apologizing misogynist.
Now I gotta burn my two Dilbert books. What a douchebag. That zebra/lion, women/men analogy was horrifying. Especially because there are a lot of people that read that, and nod their head in agreement. Such a disgusting fuckface.
Now I gotta burn my two Dilbert books. What a douchebag. That zebra/lion, women/men analogy was horrifying. Especially because there are a lot of people that read that, and nod their head in agreement. Such a disgusting fuckface.
The only show worse than that one was the show about a guy talking directly to God or the Devil.
All that makes the worst Family Guy stuffs look like high art.
hammysaurusrex
Member
You don't need to guess. Adams has a long history of denying climate science. There's no need to provide his ambiguity with a charitable interpretation.
I love them! Probably one of my favorite comics ever. Tuned into his blog and read some this past election only to see his articles... serious turnoff based on how crazy he is.
Futurematic
Member
Is he still going on about Master Persuaders?
I figured he would have killed the one with the harem in California by now.
I figured he would have killed the one with the harem in California by now.
FTFY
I'm with you there. So that's 2.
I went and looked at current day VG Cats, my mind wasn't ready
Version 3.0
Member
I rationalize it this way: he did say that many (most?) of the jokes in Dilbert were e-mailed to him. True stories from office workplaces.
EVEN if scientists were wrong....why not try to put less CO2 in the air? Why not try for clearer energy? Even without talk of world disaster, we know how dirty the air can be in certain areas in general. Why not try to clean it up, regardless if you believe or care the world will end because of this?
The entire structure of his comic was that the highest level employees were the most incompetent in the company. Asok the intern is literally the smartest person in the comic, and the CEO is the most incompetent.
Then he endorses Trump...
Then he endorses Trump...
I just looked at the last two and I was all, well, not funny, but could have been worse.
And then I looked three back.
But now the words are too small Sonny.
A Link to the Past
Banned
Given that the CEO brings in a climate scientist (apparently a very bad one lol), he probably associates intelligence with political leaning.
*FLESH SLAPS*
People are surprised about this?
I mean, i remember the cartoon, although it was hilarious and i loved it, had an episode start where basically one character is depicted as saying evolution and the extinction of dinosaurs were a sham.
Funnily enough, although the cartoon played him as being in the wrong, Dilbert was the one arguing that evolution was a thing and the dinosaurs were extinct.
I mean, i remember the cartoon, although it was hilarious and i loved it, had an episode start where basically one character is depicted as saying evolution and the extinction of dinosaurs were a sham.
Funnily enough, although the cartoon played him as being in the wrong, Dilbert was the one arguing that evolution was a thing and the dinosaurs were extinct.
Yeah, he had valid points predicting Trump's rise, but then he started posting weird seduction pickup artist-level bullshit about gender equality, and then things started to slide. Dunno if it's a case of I didn't recognize he held a lot of shitty beliefs, or just the current age of the Internet we are in has caused people to open up and court the attention of assholes.
*whispers*yokai watch?*whispers*
TheRedSnifit
Member
I do think this is selling him a bit short. His email system definitely helped the comic stay funny for longer than most (even these days there are some pretty good ones), but it does take talent to take some random guy's office story and boil it down to three panels of dialogue. Most of his non-Dilbert writing at least used to be pretty good too.
You can be smart and funny, while at the same time being a jackass with incredibly shitty beliefs. That said, I wouldn't be surprised if something happened that did seriously mess him up, since as many have pointed out he seemed pretty pro-science and even liberal up until about a decade ago.
HP_Wuvcraft
Banned
KaoteK
Member
That's awesome so I stole it and posted on FB and G+
OT: Scott Adams has been a shitty person with shitty views for years, so this isn't a exactly a surprise.
More like you go over to their dilapidated house with holes in the roof and bats in the bathroom to do some home repairs but they refuse.
Right, because the left says "bad things" about pollution the right is correct about dumping it? Also Green solutions ARE NOT expensive, in fact it is cheaper. Especially things like public transport are a lot cheaper than everybody driving around in their own personal cars. Roads and infrastructure need to be build for both, but cars need safety standards checked up, Police to guide them, far more accidents, etc.
On top of that, there is a SHITLOAD of subsidies going to the car and oil industries. Far more than to ANY green solution. If we subsidized green solutions as much as we do oil and cars, we'd be carbon neutral by now!
Hmm, I know what you're saying, but first it fundamentally misunderstands the point of a single frame comic strip, it compares something that has a huge evidence base to support it with woo and for whatever reason you're conflating left-wing politics with 'anti-toxin' types, whereas IME that whole spectrum of idiocy ranging from homeopathy through to anti-vaxx types brings together science-denying morons from across the political spectrum, many ironically with the same stated reasons about big-whatever or gubmint interference in their deity-given right to be inconsiderate dickheads.
Left-wing anti-GMO used to spring from a position of anti-capitalism rather than science-fear and ranged from strong dialectical positions to knee-jerk 'Big-x iz bad hurrdurr', but on the whole my experience of talking to European far-left types was never really anti-science when it came to GMO (indeed, there are a number of socialists who actively support such research, they just don't like the results being patented and privately owned).
Green anti-GMO is a very different beast to traditional left-wing positions, and many socialists regard much of the green movement to be little more than bourgeois liberalism with ecology thrown in, and that it has a deeply misanthropic core, which is pretty much the opposite to socialism.
Anyway, OT Adams at his best was a great dissector of what he knew well - the idiot politics of large corporations. Since he became famous he's had a platform to pontificate on the things he doesn't know too well, and like many people who are heavily into tech has the assumption that they have a natural affinity with science which isn't the case at all.
No, you don't have to burn the books. What a moronic overreaction.
pr0cs
Member
This is neogaf
His Trump one was funny though
."He's going to build a giant egg, to keep all the disgusting animals in there."
.