Seriously, replace "black" with "Jewish" and you'd have something not out of line with what would be said under the Nazis.
I think he just wanted to retire and decided to do so by getting himself cancelled. Good on him.Either that, or he's just an idiot.
The reality is 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. You don't argue with a four-year old about why he shouldn't eat candy for dinner. You don't punch a mentally handicapped guy even if he punches you first. And you don't argue when a women tells you she's only making 80 cents to your dollar. It's the path of least resistance. You save your energy for more important battles.
I realize I might take some heat for lumping women, children and the mentally handicapped in the same group. So I want to be perfectly clear. I'm not saying women are similar to either group. I'm saying that a man's best strategy for dealing with each group is disturbingly similar. If he's smart, he takes the path of least resistance most of the time, which involves considering the emotional realities of other people. A man only digs in for a good fight on the few issues that matter to him, and for which he has some chance of winning. This is a strategy that men are uniquely suited for because, on average, we genuinely don't care about 90% of what is happening around us.
Seriously, replace "black" with "Jewish" and you'd have something not out of line with what would be said under the Nazis.
And replace "Black" with "white" and you'd have something not out of line with what has been said by tenured professors of CRT-type subjects and many media talking-heads. But of course that's different.
Since then, Scott Adams is a peddler of anti-intellectualism and deep down has entitled POS ideas.
Old white guy says stupid old white guy thing. And faces the consequences.
Seriously, replace "black" with "Jewish" and you'd have something not out of line with what would be said under the Nazis. Utterly unacceptable. History doesn't repeat itself, but it sure as hell rhymes.
I've never really enjoyed Dilbert so I guess I won't miss it slowly fading off, though I suspect that Adams will still have followers and revenue from other streams for some time and I'll be he'll be fine in his pseudo-retirement.
Since then, Scott Adams is a peddler of anti-intellectualism and deep down has entitled POS ideas. There's this gem from 2011:QuoteThe reality is 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. You don't argue with a four-year old about why he shouldn't eat candy for dinner. You don't punch a mentally handicapped guy even if he punches you first. And you don't argue when a women tells you she's only making 80 cents to your dollar. It's the path of least resistance. You save your energy for more important battles.
I realize I might take some heat for lumping women, children and the mentally handicapped in the same group. So I want to be perfectly clear. I'm not saying women are similar to either group. I'm saying that a man's best strategy for dealing with each group is disturbingly similar. If he's smart, he takes the path of least resistance most of the time, which involves considering the emotional realities of other people. A man only digs in for a good fight on the few issues that matter to him, and for which he has some chance of winning. This is a strategy that men are uniquely suited for because, on average, we genuinely don't care about 90% of what is happening around us.
What "intellectualism" even is today? All I see in the West is politics masquerading as science and education.
Whoever has more money to throw at this shit or more minions to mobilize, wins all.
You guys are back to square one.
So, when Rasmussen reveals that 47% of black Americans do not consider it okay to be white, that is not a problem;Sorry Nominal Animal, but I think you are being naïve here.
So, he wasn't suggesting that women actually deserve equal pay for equal work... he just doesn't think its an issue worth fighting women over... as if it would be something you'd fight with women over if you had the energy to fight over it...
While we are on the subject of, Scott Adams.
There seems to be differences of opinion, as to if he was an actual (job function) engineer or not, when he was working for employers, before he became famous.
There is agreement, he worked with actual engineers, but not if he (job functionality wise) was one himself.
Who cares what he did? He nailed so many aspects of the corporate culture, the comic is funny because it resonates. I don't think it matters what actual engineering qualifications he has or had.
I definitely don't want or need to be represented by a misogynist, racist and pretentious asshole.
It's interesting, because.
If they are considered an engineer, that means that engineers (at least one), can create entertaining/funny comics and things.
But if they are NOT considered an engineer. It means that a non-engineer, can have the insight/capabilities, to interestingly pick up on engineers, how they think and things like that.
So, either way, it is interesting to know.
I don't see how Dilbert is any different to any other form of media, fashion trend, design, or colour etc... One could argue The Simpsons has outstayed its welcome*.
I'm all for sharing an opinion, particularly a popular one... but is it even vaguely relevant to EEVblog?
So, he wasn't suggesting that women actually deserve equal pay for equal work... he just doesn't think its an issue worth fighting women over... as if it would be something you'd fight with women over if you had the energy to fight over it...
In general though, this is a very difficult area, and something that is hard to discuss rationally.
For example, why is the US Congress mostly filled with old white males? Because a very large number of women vote for them. Women have the vote, and represent about 50% of the electorate. If women as a group wished to have better representation, and wished to see more women in the House and Senate, they could seriously influence this. But for complex reasons it doesn't happen.
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
So, when Rasmussen reveals that 47% of black Americans do not consider it okay to be white
“using public electronic communications network in order to cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety”
I believe that psychological studies have shown that people tend to migrate towards information sources that align with beliefs they already espouse.
That Fox News is the #1 rated 'news' service in the US proves that to me. That recent leaks reveal they prioritized viewership ($) over facts is likewise unsurprising.
Of course, the bigger issue is that Rasmussen polling is pretty much right wing biased to begin with.
Some might find Dilbert's strips to be funny (I disagree), but in this time and age it's truly difficult to keep separate an author and their work.
Old white guy says stupid old white guy thing. And faces the consequences.
Seriously, replace "black" with "Jewish" and you'd have something not out of line with what would be said under the Nazis. Utterly unacceptable. History doesn't repeat itself, but it sure as hell rhymes.
I've never really enjoyed Dilbert so I guess I won't miss it slowly fading off, though I suspect that Adams will still have followers and revenue from other streams for some time and I'll be he'll be fine in his pseudo-retirement.
No matter what tint of glasses you look through, the U.S. remains a society where racism and misogyny is deeply ingrained. Adams seems to be someone who wears his opinions on his sleeve and amplifies it with his podcast.
“using public electronic communications network in order to cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety”
Yikes, that's actually the law? That's rather terrifying, there are very few people that couldn't be charged with that in some capacity. A law against something like openly inciting violence or repeatedly harassing someone is reasonable, but causing them annoyance?? This sort of thing makes me all the more thankful to live somewhere where we at least ostensibly have a constitutionally protected right to free speech.
Old white guy says stupid old white guy thing. And faces the consequences.
Old white guy says stupid old white guy thing. And faces the consequences.
If somebody said "Old black guy says stupid old black guy thing. And faces the consequences" would you consider that racist? I would. Hint, it makes no difference what race is used in the statement, it's racist, period.
Old white guy says stupid old white guy thing. And faces the consequences.
If somebody said "Old black guy says stupid old black guy thing. And faces the consequences" would you consider that racist? I would. Hint, it makes no difference what race is used in the statement, it's racist, period.
Old white guy says stupid old white guy thing. And faces the consequences.
If somebody said "Old black guy says stupid old black guy thing. And faces the consequences" would you consider that racist? I would. Hint, it makes no difference what race is used in the statement, it's racist, period.
I completely agree. Racism of all kinds (and I do not accept this attitude that "black people can't be racist towards white people") should be extinguished. Hence why I don't like what Adams had to say, because I think it was racist.
I did watch his video, and while I considered him kinda stupid, definitely frustrated, I didn't really see him as racist or truly bigoted (in their traditional definitions prior to year 2010 or so).