[DonHopkins]

..."other tools of persuasion" like posing as your own fan on message boards to defend and flatter yourself, after you're criticized for claiming 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."

http://comicsalliance.com/scott-adams-plannedchaos-sockpuppe...

Scott Adams, talking about Scott Adams in the third person, while pretending not to be Scott Adams:

- [0] plannedchaos -21 points 4 months ago

If an idiot and a genius disagree, the idiot generally thinks the genius is wrong. He also has a lot of idiot reasons to back his idiot belief. That's how the idiot mind is wired.

It's fair to say you disagree with Adams. But you can't rule out the hypothesis that you're too dumb to understand what he's saying.

And he's a certified genius. Just sayin'.

[sctb]

Controversial threads have way more escape energy than others, and this subthread has definitely left topical orbit. We've detached it from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13382789 and marked it off-topic.

[dashundchen]

Scott Adams is also a MRA who equates being a woman with being mentally handicapped. http://comicsalliance.com/scott-adam-sexist-mens-rights/

He is a climate change denier with the senseless circular reasoning, that if he can't understand the science of climate change himself, why should he ever trust climate scientists and other experts in the field, because their models are complicated. https://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/status/814133681711263744

Later in the thread, when presented with any scientific explanation of climate change, he reverts to repeating "how can I trust it?", all the while accusing climate scientists of having a financial incentive to push climate change, not providing proof himself.

[mistermann]

I don't think he is a denier, I honestly believe he is poking fun at the supremely confident masses who are absolutely sure climate change is precisely as the scientists say, and that anyone that disagress in the slightest is a denier/idiot/whatever. He also happens to be correct, the general public doesn't understand the intricacies of climate change.

I'm no denier either, but you'll have to pardon me if I choose to not join the unthinking hordes who insist we must do something now, and no we will not think while we are doing this. Dissension is explicitly not allowed.

Oh, is that not exaaaaaaaaaaaactly what the message is? Of course not, but there is some truth there. There are highly trained scientists who don't fully support the party line, and they are not allowed to speak. I believe it is not an intellectually honest conversation, and I'm old enough to remember other situations where dissent was not allowed and it turned out not so good.

Also, don't forget that Scott is a humorist author, and part of his schtick is to deliberately cause outrage, especially with people who take themselves way too seriously.

[E6300]

If you get diagnosed with cancer, would you go to med school and wait until you graduate and can fully understand the diagnosis and how the prescribed treatment was arrived at by your doctor before you follow it, or would you follow the treatment as closely as possible as soon as possible?

Perhaps climate scientists don't know with completely precision everything there is to know about climate change. But as far as anyone can tell no one has a more accurate picture. "This theory may be imperfect [not even 'is imperfect'; we just don't know] so we should disregard it completely" is a Nirvana fallacy.

[mistermann]

> Perhaps climate scientists don't know with completely precision everything there is to know about climate change.

Don't be surprised when people don't trust you if you don't disclose that fact.

[E6300]

What do you mean? Does anyone believe that a given scientific theory explains exactly and totally a phenomenon? If they do, that's their problem. Science doesn't claim to have perfect answers. Until we find Laplace's demon, the best we can say is "theory A is better supported by evidence than theory B". If we have nothing better than A, is there any reason not to treat it as true?

[mistermann]

The current popular mainstream politically correct stance is that "the science is in and the time for debate is over." That is a fact, and if scientists find it efficient to go about it that way (rather than correct that somewhat incorrect stance), then there will be a small portion of people who will dig their feet in against those sorts of dishonest tactics. And furthermore, some of these people will write convincing rebuttals (after all, there is a completely science based disagreement with the status quo opinion) that voters who want to not believe will typically interpret as "the scientists are lying to us!".

Until the scientific community comes clean, as well as "polices" the outspoken public advocates, the climate change cause will always have this Achilles heel - I am not pointing it out to win an argument, I am pointing it out in the hopes that they fix the problem, as I believe the theory is mostly correct.

[yongjik]

"Doc, will I die of liver cancer if I keep drinking?"

"Yes, science is very certain on that. You will die."

"So, you know everything there is to know about livers or cancers, with complete precision?"

"What? Of course not, why would anyone even think that?"

"Hah, I thought so, now I won't trust you!"

[mistermann]

The difference is, the vocal climate change advocates (who do not understand the science) assert that in fact there is no disagreement on the matter.

Oh wait, that's not completely true, they say the scientific community is "98% in agreement", but they are dishonest about what exactly the 98% of scientists are agreeing to.

[Chris2048]

You don't need to know everything about livers and cancers. There is a lot to know that is irrelevant to alcoholism.

Also, the doc was technically wrong. He should of said "high probability", not "Yes, science is very certain".

[DonHopkins]

Says the guy who brings bullshit to a discussion about calling bullshit.

[mistermann]

Oh, which bullshit was that?

[ranit]

> Also, don't forget that Scott is a humorist author, and part of his schtick is to deliberately cause outrage, especially with people who take themselves way too seriously.

Fair point. Could you find a link where he "deliberately causes outrage" to the opposite camp that "take themselves also too seriously" completely denying the same science theory. I am genuinely curious, because up until recently I also had similar opinion about him (a humorist author approach). Now, I kind of doubt this.

[mistermann]

Much of what he has written in the last maybe 3 or 4 weeks I find....distasteful? I absolutely love a good troll, I think he used to be that, but in my opinion he has changed into something less appealing.

I still read him though because I think he continues to raise interesting points (if not always valid) and observations, but I (as someone mostly on "his side" of the political spectrum) often find what he writes a bit repulsive.

[DonHopkins]

>"I absolutely love a good troll" -misterman

You're not a good troll.

[DonHopkins]

>I'm no [...], but [...]. [1]

Also, don't forget that Trump is a reality TV show host, and part of his schtick is to deliberately cause outrage, especially with people who take themselves way too seriously.

[1] http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/I'm_not_prejudiced,_but...

[yongjik]

> There are highly trained scientists who don't fully support the party line, and they are not allowed to speak.

Name one.

[mistermann]

Judith Curry

https://judithcurry.com/2017/01/03/jc-in-transition/

Look at how this mildly (at best) informed senator encounters facts that don't support his hypothesis, look at how he, an amateur, speaks to a top scientist!

I believe many if not most scientists are at least partially lying to people, and by lying I don't mean they are accidentally mistaken, I mean that they know that some of what they are saying is speculative, but they pass it off as established fact. I look forward to stopping thinking this way when the scientific community admits to this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oh6zDbWMuP0

I suppose (sigh) that I must pre-emptively add that no, indeed, she wasn't in fact literally prevented from speaking. I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to decide for themselves whether all is well in this situation.

[DonHopkins]

You failed to prove she was "not allowed to speak" by posting a link to a video of her literally SPEAKING in front of Congress.

Did somebody interrupt her, and that's the best proof you can come up with of your assertion "There are highly trained scientists who don't fully support the party line, and they are not allowed to speak."

Being highly criticized by your peers is not the same as not being allowed to speak.

Do you have any better examples of scientists who were not allowed to speak -- perhaps a scientist who hasn't actually testified in front of Congress on live national television, written an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, boasts of having a total of 12,000 citations of her publications, and a blog that gets on average about 12,000 ‘hits’ per day, and 300-400 comments?

Or is that all you've got?

[mistermann]

It's interesting that even though I wrote "I suppose (sigh) that I must pre-emptively add that no, indeed, she wasn't in fact literally prevented from speaking", the main rebuttal to my post is that she isn't literally prevented from speaking.

Here, let's try a different approach: would you be willing to admit that in human society there is this behavior where peer pressure is sometimes used to persuade people to behave in one way or another? Please note that I am not asking you if that is the case here (that would be my next question), at this point I am simply asking if you are willing to admit that it is a legitimate phenomenon?

[DonHopkins]

People like that usually have interesting discussions on their talk pages.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Judith_Curry

Characterizing her as "not allowed to speak" or somehow oppressed and silenced by mainstream scientists is totally off base, since she herself has said: "I flat out don’t care; my feelings aren’t hurt, I don’t feel like my professional status is being jeopardized or challenged or whatever. I flat out don’t care at this point."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Judith_Curry#Collide-a-Sc...

[mistermann]

Did she go on to say all was well in the scientific community?

Judith herself obviously has quite a backbone and seems to be able to take this environment on, the more important point is: is there some truth to what she says? Is there in fact a lack of complete honesty in the scientific community, are some people "strongly encouraged" to not say certain things whether not it has a solid grounding in science?

[Chris2048]

> my feelings aren’t hurt, I don’t feel like my professional status

Is the implication that there is good reason to feel either might have been true? Is the same true of other scientists considering joining her position?

[dandrick]

So why do people trust the dissenting scientists? What leads them to that option over simply going with the majority? I've never understood that, but the cynic in me thinks they're simply looking for someone that they already agree with.

[mistermann]

> So why do people trust the dissenting scientists?

That's a great question. At least for myself, I don't immediately trust her (why would I without reading a substantial part of her work) - it is that when someone asks obviously informed questions, and answers are refused, I assume the person being asked the question is lying.

In the youtube video, the senator is very clearing presenting himself as being far more informed on the topic than he is. He is (perhaps unknowingly) being dishonest, so I trust her more.

[yongjik]

So, what you really mean is:

> There are highly trained scientists who don't fully support the party line, and they are invited to congressional hearings, publish books and papers, and keep a personal blog where they can discuss anything, and nobody can tell them to GTFO because they're tenured professors, but they may ultimately decide to resign, because working in an environment where everyone else think you're being crazy is just too stressful.

Yeah, I can sympathize with the last part, but I must tell it doesn't have quite the same ring to it.

[mistermann]

How do we know that there aren't plenty more dissenters who have been bullied into silence? (Judith's words, not mine.)

[DonHopkins]

Nobody knows their names, because they're not allowed to speak.

[ue_]

I don't mean to excuse the opinions he has on women, which I agree are deplorable, but I want to ask: what is wrong with being an activist for men's rights?

[dashundchen]

To me, there is nothing inherently wrong about people advocating for issues and causes that affect men specifically.

However what I see online is a large, vocal portion of those who claim to be MRAs are more about aggressive and toxic misogyny than anything else. See Scott Adams and sibling comment for more info.

Because of this I don't associate the terms mens' rights with any productive discussion.

There are more nuanced takes on male issues I have seen, such as /r/menslib on reddit. As far as I know they also distance themselves from the term MRA.

[DonHopkins]

"Men's Rights Activist" is a euphemism for these people: https://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/

Described in The Guardian as a "toxic technoculture on a spectrum of digital misogyny": https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/14/the-red-p...

The term "red pill" is also common on 4chan's "politically incorrect" /pol/ board where taking the red pill is usually used to mean embracing conservative political thought and other related ideologies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_pill_and_blue_pill

[TazeTSchnitzel]

“red pill” is a related subculture to “Men's Rights Activists”, and there's surely significant overlap, but they're not one and the same.

[mistermann]

I wonder if it's possible to be a men's rights activist without being considered a misogynist.

[dragonwriter]

> I wonder if it's possible to be a men's rights activist without being considered a misogynist.

It would be possible if there was a general perception that men were generally and historically, in the context in which one is an activist, oppressed based on their sex, such that being an activist for greater rights for men was consistent with pro-equality interest rather than anti-women interests.

However, there are very few societies on the world where that view is dominant or even a wide minority view, either internally or for external observers, so it's very hard to be a "men's rights activist" without the general perception being that one is acting out an anti-woman worldview.

[belorn]

That is a black-or-white fallacy. You don't need to have a group being historically oppressed in order for discrimination.

Oppression is about liberty for which there is little proof which gender has more. The number of working profession which is excluded for women is exactly the same number for men in countries where both women and men are employed in similar numbers (such as Sweden). Men are equally or even more forbidden to enter areas which are assigned female roles, and the studies that look at this (such as one about the teaching profession) acknowledge that feminism has made some minor progress to make it acceptable to women to move to typical male roles but not the reverse.

Womens right activist has fought a long time that their movement isn't about anti-men world-view, so why is it acceptable to draw that same conclusion on all men's rights activist?

[mistermann]

You're likely correct, but isn't is a bit sad that this is the case? That unless it is generally accepted (regardless of whether or not it is true) that men are discriminated against based on gender in some situations, that the only other possibility is misogyny?

On whether it matters....I had a long conversation on the phone with an old friend yesterday, he is going through a divorce and has so far been bankrupted, been dismissed from his job (due to being obligated to take too many days off to prepare for court), he only gets supervised visits with his son, etc. I predict he will commit suicide within 5 years.

[TazeTSchnitzel]

By not being a misogynist, yes.

[ewzimm]

What you're saying here seems to be backing up what Scott Adams is saying. I'm not saying you're an irrational person, but your arguments against him seem to be completely irrational, based on word associations rather than arguments. He says men often avoid arguing with women over gender equality issues for the same reasons they avoid arguing with children or the mentally handicapped, because they see the process of argument as counterproductive, and he specifically says that he's not equating the groups in any way, only the reasons for avoiding arguments with the different groups.

If you were thinking in terms of word associations and analogies, this disclaimer wouldn't matter because it's the association of words that's important, not the argument itself. And here you're ignoring the argument and focusing on word associations which he explains clearly are not his point. I see people making this kind of argument all the time, and it makes using analogies in any way other than emotional association usually pointless because someone will always find a way to focus on their emotional response to the words rather than the arguments. Doesn't this perfectly illustrate his point?

It seems like he was manipulating people into having this kind of negative reaction to prove his point that people don't focus on arguments.

[Chris2048]

> who equates being a woman with being mentally handicapped

Literally, or he just used a metaphor?

I can say "black people are like bowling balls, they are both black".

You could respond "oh my god! black people are people, not objects! How dare you!"

But this would not be a reasonable response - The implication of the metaphor was not that black people share the property of being an object. That would be a purposeful mis-interpretation.

Granted, the use of metaphor can sometimes be suspect, precisely because of the ambiguity of implication, but that's all it is - ambiguous in meaning/intent.

[skylan_q]

Good job. This is an example of falling into the 3rd category and not the first.

[DonHopkins]

Actually, there is a fourth category just for people like Scott Adams, that he neglected to mention.

[hashkb]

4. Machiavellian Princes?

[marcosdumay]

Persuasive trolls?

One of the later 1% that does not even care what he's persuading people about. Just plays the game for fun.

[arethuza]

Now you have me trying to combine this categorization with Sociopath|Clueless|Loser...

[Chris2048]

You could argue that sock-puppeting defeats/is an antidote to Argumentum ad populum, and is as such a valid tactic.

In this case also, it would be seen as arrogant to tell someone they aren't smart enough to understand your argument, but not so with a third party, i.e. maybe it's appropriate for playing devils advocate informally.

That said, he was also antagonizing if using "idiot", rather than being more polite himself. If he spoke through his own handle, he might have cared more about civility.

[swanson]

I won't defend those actions. I just got a chuckle about this comment since it's an ad hominem -- not rational, but rather designed to appeal to emotion ("I'm mad about him doing that") or identify ("I'm an advocate for women").

Meanwhile, the rest of this thread devolves to pedantry about definitions and analogies.

Good persuasion :)