zlacker

[return to "Scott Adams has died"]
1. mrweas+C2[view] [source] 2026-01-13 16:50:11
>>schmuc+(OP)
I loved Dilbert, having worked for more than one Dilbert-like company the humor frequently resonated with me.

How or why Scott Adams went completely of the rails is perhaps something we'll sadly never understand. Was this opinions he'd always had, but suppressed, did he somehow become radicalized or was it perhaps medically induced, e.g. a stroke or something. It was incredibly sad to see him throw away his life's work and go down a path most of us at least hadn't foreseen and die having alienated his fans.

◧◩
2. riazri+Xh[view] [source] 2026-01-13 17:38:49
>>mrweas+C2
Did he go off the rails? My understanding is that the zeitgeist is taking people’s opposing views online and distorting them, removing context, to outrage our own audience and align it to our cause.

Almost everyone is reasonable, it’s the contexts that our reasons are relevant to, which are different.

◧◩◪
3. dangus+Uv[view] [source] 2026-01-13 18:26:44
>>riazri+Xh
“The best advice I would give to white people is to get the hell away from black people“ -Scott Adams

Does that sound reasonable to you?

◧◩◪◨
4. sanity+ld1[view] [source] 2026-01-13 21:12:38
>>dangus+Uv
If anyone cares about the truth he explained what happened in detail in an interview at the time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_bv1jfYYu4
◧◩◪◨⬒
5. dangus+8F1[view] [source] 2026-01-13 23:15:45
>>sanity+ld1
Most non-racists don’t need to spend 30 minutes on cable news explaining themselves to save face.

Saying something publicly is an action. Depending on what you say, you can’t take it back. If you tell your wife you think her friend is hot and you want a threesome you can’t take that back.

I also think you as the commenter should think a little bit about what motivates you to defend this guy. Why does he as a dead famous comic book author need his reputation defended? Why is it so important that we don’t see him as a racist asshole? What do you get out of that? Why not just let his own mistakes speak for themselves?

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. sanity+NG1[view] [source] 2026-01-13 23:23:32
>>dangus+8F1
> Most non-racists don’t need to spend 30 minutes on cable news explaining themselves to save face.

Most people never get interviewed on cable news at all, so that’s not a meaningful baseline. When someone is publicly accused, explaining yourself publicly is a predictable response, not evidence of guilt.

> Saying something publicly is an action. You can’t take it back.

Of course you can clarify or correct yourself—people misspeak all the time. Whether that matters depends on whether listeners are interested in understanding or just in cancelling someone they don't like.

> Why do you feel the need to defend him?

Because I’ve listened to hundreds of hours of Scott Adams over many years, and I’m confident I understand his views far better than people judging him from short, out-of-context clips.

I don’t get anything out of this except insisting that the truth matters. Even when the person involved is unpopular or dead.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. dangus+xI1[view] [source] 2026-01-13 23:31:58
>>sanity+NG1
Because you’re invested. You’re a Scott Adams fan.

As someone who likes the Harry Potter series, I hear you. It’s tough to see your idols fall into being dumbasses.

If you sincerely think Scott Adams had zero bias, that he’s not a bigot, that he didn’t support “stop the steal,” that’s on your conscience and your value system. I choose to believe the impulse of what he said, not the 30 minutes of damage control afterward.

I’d say nobody asked the guy his opinions on such subjects and just wanted to read his funny office comics.

But that’s what happens with celebrities like this.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
8. sanity+rL1[view] [source] 2026-01-13 23:47:51
>>dangus+xI1
> Because you’re invested. You’re a Scott Adams fan.

Sure — but I wouldn’t be if I thought he was a bigot. Having listened to hundreds of hours of him explaining his views, I’m far better informed than people judging him from short, out-of-context clips.

> It’s tough to see your idols fall into being dumbasses

I don’t treat public figures as idols. I also don’t think disagreeing with prevailing opinion automatically makes someone a “dumbass.” Sometimes it means they’re willing to take reputational hits for what they believe is right.

> If you sincerely think Scott Adams had zero bias

Nobody has zero bias. That’s an impossible standard.

> As someone who likes the Harry Potter series

For what it’s worth, I think J.K. Rowling is an example of someone who did the right thing at substantial personal and professional cost, particularly in defending women and girls. That’s not idol worship — it’s acknowledging moral courage when it’s inconvenient.

> That he didn’t support ‘stop the steal'

This is where the argument seems to shift from racism to political conformity. Disagreeing with someone’s politics isn’t the same thing as establishing that they’re a bigot.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣
9. dangus+XN1[view] [source] 2026-01-14 00:00:13
>>sanity+rL1
When your politics are bigotry, it isn’t a matter of “disagreeing with them.”

When your politics are anti-democracy and pro-fascism, it isn’t a matter of “disagreeing with them.”

Politics aren’t detached from real life, they aren’t some hypothetical. They have real consequences, and they represent real values.

Now I know where you stand. You follow every conservative talking point 100%.

You are playing the “I am taking a nuanced view, you’re just a sheep following popular opinion” card while you yourself are just doing the exact same thing on the other side with no nuance at all. You and I are at worst no different from each other in our belief systems.

Scott Adams was a Trumper, therefore you support him.

JK Rowling is anti-trans, which is the right wing party line, therefore you support her.

Good talk. You know where you stand, I know where I stand.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦
10. sanity+iR1[view] [source] 2026-01-14 00:19:23
>>dangus+XN1
You’re treating disagreement as evidence of moral failure, then using that to retroactively justify the label. That’s not reasoning — it’s tribal sorting. You must exist in quite a bubble, a rapidly shrinking one.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦▧
11. amroch+gW1[view] [source] 2026-01-14 00:53:06
>>sanity+iR1
You have the causality backwards. Your moral stance is abhorrent, therefore I disagree with you and want nothing to do with you. Not the other way around.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦▧▨
12. sanity+eZ1[view] [source] 2026-01-14 01:14:47
>>amroch+gW1
My moral stance is abhorrent to about 7% of the population who the other 93% want nothing to do with.

I'll get over it.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦▧▨◲
13. DonHop+1o3[view] [source] 2026-01-14 14:32:23
>>sanity+eZ1
You've been listening to too much Fox News and Trump Truth Social posts if you think 93% of the population is bigoted racists.
[go to top]