[Consultant32452]

I used to watch Adams' podcast. It would require a lot of context to fully make sense. Suffice to say he thinks teacher's unions are a big component of the problem here and imo the primary value of his comment here could be conveyed if you remove the tail end of that Tweet which puts it on the teacher's unions.

[lostlogin]

I’m not sure context helps him with his other outbursts.

“Based on the current way things are going, the best advice I would give to White people is to get the hell away from Black people,” the 65-year-old author exclaimed. “Just get the (expletive) away. Wherever you have to go, just get away. Because there’s no fixing this. This can’t be fixed.”

https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/02/23/dilberts-scott-adams-...

“The reality is that women are treated differently by society for exactly the same reason that children and the mentally handicapped are treated differently.”

https://ew.com/article/2011/03/30/dilbert-scott-adams-femini...

Trump is like the founding fathers and Jesus.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/dilbert-creator-on-how-trump-i...

There is a bit of coverage in the wiki. He writes a good cartoon but he is radioactive in his views.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Adams

[AnthonyMouse]

The thing to understand about Scott Adams is that if he says something that sounds outrageous, he's probably trolling you. He'll in fact describe how to do this in order to generate publicity, or as a mechanism to expose hypocrisy or bad logic. But when he's in the middle of it he'll commit to the bit.

Basically, someone says X, which is crazy, because if X then logically Y would be true and Y is not only wrong but offensive. So he'll publicly assert Y and get people to argue with him, but the only real way to show that Y is wrong is to admit that X is wrong, which was the point.

And then the people arguing with him don't want to do that. They want to be offended by Y without admitting that X is wrong. So he has a bunch of fun with them because they've foreclosed themselves at the outset from winning the debate on the merits.

[lazyasciiart]

The thing to understand about this argument is that it is unfalsifiable nonsense. Anything he says that is wrong is him joking, you just can’t tell because he pretends so well! No, dude. He is wrong a lot and like a 5yo, when he realizes he cannot actually defend or explain something he did he falls back on “it was just a joke!”

[AnthonyMouse]

Of course he's wrong a lot. The point isn't that Y is right, it's that X and Y are both wrong but you can't admit to that if you're a hypocrite.

And the "anything he says that is wrong is him joking" is the idea, because it works both ways. If someone says something which is actually wrong, you can make a convincing argument for why if you're willing to be logically consistent yourself.

But there are also things which are politically offensive yet true, and having a reputation for this kind of trolling is what allows someone to say those things out loud. Because then you make the same claim: "Maybe I'm trolling you, if I am just provide the counterargument."

Which you can't do if the counterargument requires you to admit that X is wrong and you refuse to do that, but you also can't do if there is no counterargument because Y is true.

It doesn't matter whether "is he trolling this time" is falsifiable. What matters is if you can disprove his claim. If you can, go for it. If not, what does that say?

[lazyasciiart]

No, it’s not just that he is wrong a lot. It’s that when he is wrong he (and his fans) refuse to actually admit that he is making false claims and poor arguments, and pretends “I was joking!” is some kind of clever escape, and not a sign that nothing he says is worth engaging with. I don’t bother to disprove it when a five year old says “you stink” either, because they also couldn’t care less about the truth and logic of their statement.

[diydsp]

Maybe but "get the hell away from Black people" isn't a "claim"; it's explicit rich white boomer racism.

[roenxi]

Adams was looking at a poll that said 47% of black people disagreed with the statement "It’s okay to be white.". If that poll was reliable then that would be a profoundly concerning statistic and evidence of some pretty strong racism on the part of the community surveyed.

The level of "rich white boomer racism" (which is a bit racially charged in itself, but sure we can go with that) really hinges on how credible he found the poll. It was Rassmussen and also a pollster stirring up trouble so realistically he should have just dismissed it as a likely lie by not-reporting-the-real-context of the question being asked (I personally suspect dodgy framing). Adams should have picked up on that since it is his area, but the argument would have been reasonable if he was silly enough to believe the poll.

[the_af]

A long time ago I reached the conclusion whoever plays "crazy" or "fool" long and consistently enough is in practice crazy/fool. It makes no difference what the person believes inside their mind, if they always play the fool, they are fools.

Scott Adams has been like this for a long time. Trolling or sincere makes no difference, if he acts like a bigot he is one.

[AnthonyMouse]

Wouldn't that make all satirists bigots? Is Stephen Colbert? Carroll O'Connor? It can't be that the only difference is whether someone is successfully trolled.

[the_af]

No, professional satire by definition doesn't count. In interviews they often tell you their real opinions or how they construct their character. I guess if they always stayed in character and never gave any interviews you could make a case...

You're begging the question re: trolling. You don't know they are trolls; you merely believe so. In fact, there's no way to tell real opinion from flamebait with the people under discussion. That's the whole point: if they always act like fools, they are fools.

[AnthonyMouse]

> In interviews they often tell you their real opinions or how they construct their character.

But that's exactly what Adams does.

> In fact, there's no way to tell real opinion from flamebait with the people under discussion.

Sure there is. If it's of the form "there is a valid argument against this, but it's inconvenient for partisans to make that argument" then it's flamebait.

[Consultant32452]

Terrible people are sometimes capable of saying things worth considering, and it's possible to consider one thing he says without endorsing or accepting other things he's said or even his personal context for the words being considered.

[zlg_codes]

It's difficult to defend a stance like one you're adopting, because of how quick to judge the general public is. They'd never know that someone like Ted Kaczynski actually held a PhD and wrote an interesting essay before committing to his campaign of terror. (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski)

It's rather strange that people will choose to wholly dismiss a person based on one thing, without realizing that even "evil" people have more facets than a simple bevel.

Ted killed himself in prison a few months ago. What benefit could society have gained if someone had heard him out and took some measures to help the environment? Most people won't ask that question, because they have the intellectual and philosophical depth of a puddle.

One of the most illuminating things in my life has been discovering what the "bad" and "evil" side of humanity actually thought, instead of the version that the authorities or victors give us.

There's also this modern tendency to assume that whatever you read, you become. So superstitious.

[weaksauce]

> There's also this modern tendency to assume that whatever you read, you become. So superstitious.

Sure... but there's also a wealth of information out there and filtering out people with known abhorrent views is a decent first pass filter. maybe alex jones or some other neo-nazi dimwit has a few good ideas here and there but why would I subject myself to listening to them(and also enriching them in the process) when I could listen to people that aren't generally awful people?

[setr]

I think shallow views is a much better first-pass filter than abhorrent views; a sufficiently in-depth abhorrent view can and likely will have components worth taking from, even if their final conclusion is absurd (or just overreaching).

An acceptable-but-shallow view and an abhorrent-but-shallow view are equally worthless; effectively as much value an upvote.

[ilyt]

> Ted killed himself in prison a few months ago. What benefit could society have gained if someone had heard him out and took some measures to help the environment? Most people won't ask that question, because they have the intellectual and philosophical depth of a puddle.

Well it's not all that interesting question coz he wasn't exactly first or last preaching same thing about the environment, so there is a plenty of other people to listen to that do not happen to be crazy.

But in general I agree that the trend of disregarding someone's entire contribution to everything they contributed based on this or that opinion that is currently regarded as "bad". After all, if you dig far enough (especially in time, kids/teenagers do/think some utterly dumb stuff) you won't find an innocent soul alive...

[pharmakom]

Reading Ordinary Men changed how I feel about good and evil.