Oh, Dilbert, NO

[tzikeh]

Scott Adams says it's just easier for us all to treat women differently. Like children and the mentally handicapped.

Then, when people called him on his bullshit, he gave us everyone's favorite response (c.f. Anne Rice): We're interrogating the text from the wrong perspective. That is, those of us who are angry about what he said must not be *regular* readers of his blog, who have very high reading comprehension skills (I could not make this up).


Is 9:47 am, Sunday morning, to early to start drinking? Because I think I'm all outraged out.

ETA: He also thinks fossils are bullshit. I... kind of feel better, now, knowing that he's a *complete* loon, rather than just a misogynistic loon, if that makes sense.

Comments

[nomadicwriter]

I have no idea, but I guess he's courting the 'people who can't bear it when someone is wrong on the internet' demographic. 'Any publicity is good publicity' theory, maybe? But I followed his blog for a while and it was the same thing post after post after post, so I find it hard to believe he's not doing it deliberately.

I'm inclined to think he's well aware he's saying stupid wanky things - but what's telling is the amount of 'default white male' privilege in both who he sees as the audience for his wankbait and his cluelessness about why this topic should blow up any more than other things he chooses to be stupid and wanky about. Which is what I think prompted the deletion and 'interrogating the text from the wrong perspective' whining. It's the traditional, "Waah, I troll about other stuff and no one makes this much fuss, why should it be any different when I'm targeting oppressed groups?" response.