drama idiocy misandry misogyny rape rapey scott adams white knights

Scott Adams: Self-proclaimed Misunderstood Genius, Part XVIII

Scott Adams contemplates his favorite subject (artist's conception)

Oy. Scott Adams won’t shut up about that execrable “Pegs and Hoies” piece of his that I (and quite a few other people on the internets) wrote about the other day. Naturally, he’s being willfully obtuse about the reaction his piece caused, and blames it all on the “low reading comprehension” of everyone in the world who is not him and/or one of his sycophantic fans. So he’s decided to interview a number of those who wrote about it. (Not including me. Aww, Scott, but we had such good times together!)

So far he’s interviewed Mary Elizabeth Williams of Salon (a great writer and lovely person, by the way) and Irin Carmon of Jezebel. Naturally, the interviewees offer cogent explanations of just what was wrong with his idiotic post, and he responds by completely and utterly missing the point. (Or pretending to; it’s always hard to tell with Scott.)

Scott Adams is so relentlessly irritating – he’s a bit like Eoghan in his stubborn refusal to get the point – that I can’t bring myself to write any more about this idiotic manufactured controversy.  So you’ll have to go check out the posts yourself.

EDITED TO ADD: Adams has put up yet another post on the  subject, entitled “Maybe it’s me?” in which he decides ” to take a step back and seriously consider the hypothesis that the reason people disagree with me is that I’m an idiot and I don’t realize it.” Scott, your hypothesis is correct.

EDITED TO ADD AGAIN: And … Mr. Adams has now made a personal appearance in the comments below. Be gentle!

Given Adams’ intense narcissism, I can’t help but get the song “Biggest Fan” by the Martini Brothers stuck in my head every time I read any of this posts. Listen a bit, and you’ll see why.

212 replies on “Scott Adams: Self-proclaimed Misunderstood Genius, Part XVIII”

Scott Adams – I’m never buying another Dilbert book or piece of merchandise. I know you’re already rich, but… better hope you’ve got it invested real well, because the more shenanigans you pull, the more news gets out of what you’re like. And it’s seriously distasteful news.

Even if you’re right (and you’re not), you’re certainly not smart.

Scott, just stop. This chicken is well and truly fucked.

Used to think you were funny. Not so much anymore.

Do people think that’s the real Scott Adams or just a random person?

I tend to think it’s real, given his history of popping up on blogs and whining.

Re: Sexual assault being about power/sex/whatever it is…

I think that a lot of the problem is that the way that much of Western society thinks about consensual sex is based on a coercive model. It’s something that one partner convinces the other partner to do. Sex is something to be gotten from someone else. When people come to sexual encounters with that baggage in mind, and haven’t really had a chance to think critically about how to actually engage their partners sexually and respect boundaries, there’s going to be sexual assault. Sometimes, it’s going to be perpetrated by people who genuinely think that what they did is okay because that’s how how they’ve been told that they’re supposed to get sex.

There’s a spectacular essay in the Yes Means Yes book called “Toward a Performance Model of Consent” which basically argues that people should treat sex as a collaborative venture similar to a dance or playing music. No one would DREAM of playing with someone who is not interested; more experienced partners are valued because of their talent; can collaborate with many people, just one, or play by yourself; etc. Since reading the essay, it’s how I’ve approached thinking about consent, and it really helps in cutting through the bullshit. If it’s not a joyous, collaborative venture, it’s not okay.

The problem Mr. Adams, (i.e. the point at which you failed) is in the structural assumptions in your challenge: Here’s your reading comprehension test that I assume all of you will fail:

Implicit in that is the declaration that anyone who doesn’t see the test in the way you think it applies, is unable to comprehend you.

You’ve handed us, not a test of ability, but a shibboleth. Anyone who fails to answer the way you want it answered you can then dismiss as being lacking in “reading comprehension.”

But, since the analog you are trying to map isn’t actually analogous, the test is useless on it’s merits. Agreeing, or disagreeing, with this example doesn’t reflect on the original example.

The ‘test’ isn’t valid on that basis. Since it’s also be predetermined as a sort of litmus test, it’s also not extensible as means of evaluating the actual merits of the arguments for, or against, the parent post. It’s a backdoor means of trying to turn a personal attack into a challenge of one’s credentials.

Given the way I’ve seen you argue in the past (Sock-puppets, ex post facto rationalisations, “I just write things to make people think, “, “I’m just a guy who writes funny stuff and those people don’t get it,” etc.

Crap, part got lost.

Given the way I’ve seen you argue in the past (Sock-puppets, ex post facto rationalisations, “I just write things to make people think, “, “I’m just a guy who writes funny stuff and those people don’t get it,” etc., I’m neither surprised, nor impressed.

This sort of clever works, if the people you are using it on aren’t used to it. To those who are, well being a pointy-headed boss works, when one is someplace where one is the boss. Outside of that, it’s just sort of sad.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.