Oh, Dilbert, NO
Mar. 27th, 2011 09:47 amScott 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.
no subject
Date: 2011-03-27 03:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-03-27 03:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-03-27 03:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-03-27 03:29 pm (UTC)b) If I hear one more person describe evolution as "scientific fact," I'm going to shove a science textbook down their throat. It's a theory. Finding holes in it and adjusting it to fit the new information is how science works.
no subject
Date: 2011-03-27 03:39 pm (UTC)But that other thing - gah. Fossils are bullshit? Bwhuh? Dude, that interpretations of the fossil record has to be adjusted as we learn new things is not proof fossils or evolution is bullshit. Change in organisms is a fact - don't need fossils to prove it. It can be witnessed in plants and bacteria and you can watch it as it happens. But because fossils are scarce (in relative terms, compared to how much life there has been on this planet), we're basically trying to understand a 5000-piece puzzle from just a few dozen pieces. That we have to move a few things around now and then is not surprising and not a sign evolution is wrong - just that our understanding of how it happened is sometimes off because we don't have enough information.
no subject
Date: 2011-03-27 03:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-03-27 03:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-03-27 03:50 pm (UTC)Pffft. SCIENCE. Who cares, really; God put the dinosaur bones there as a joke.
no subject
Date: 2011-03-27 03:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-03-27 03:51 pm (UTC)Gotta love how he takes it down, clearly willing to attack others but not defend himself.
Oh, but see, he didn't take it down because of *that* -- he took it down because people in the comments were being *whiny babies*.
(UGH)
no subject
Date: 2011-03-27 03:52 pm (UTC)Bleargh.
no subject
Date: 2011-03-27 03:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-03-27 04:17 pm (UTC)Me too.
Meh!
no subject
Date: 2011-03-27 04:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-03-27 04:54 pm (UTC)I'm afraid to go look, so what does he think fossils are if they aren't what they are? *squints* I'm afraid of the answer.
no subject
Date: 2011-03-27 04:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-03-27 05:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-03-27 05:17 pm (UTC)I'm sorry, but this sort of attitude is why I can't abide Mad Men.
I feel like I need a shower now. BLEARGH.
no subject
Date: 2011-03-27 05:21 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2011-03-27 05:27 pm (UTC)There's truth to this and it says a lot.
But seriously?
I don't expect gender equality until either both men and women give birth or at least share pregnancy like the aliens in Alien Nation.
Or we start growing fetuses in bottles on the window like sea monkeys.
no subject
Date: 2011-03-27 05:51 pm (UTC)...ok, now I know he's trolling and can safely go back to ignoring him.
Sometimes I really hate the internet.
no subject
Date: 2011-03-27 06:04 pm (UTC)The characters in Mad Men are *supposed* to annoy you. That's because that was the way it was back in the 1960s [I lived through it and had to struggle against it] and now we cna look back with a different perspective.
I love Mad Men myself. It makes me remember, folks like Adams notwithstanding, where we were and how far we've come.
no subject
Date: 2011-03-27 06:50 pm (UTC)and a woman that DID act that way would be welcomed with open arms in the Corporate World!
... oh, wait...
[icon for Scott Adams, not you!]
no subject
Date: 2011-03-27 07:43 pm (UTC)I'm really intrigued, though - he says:
I don’t believe in Intelligent Design or Creationism or invisible friends of any sort.
But he also does not believe in evolution, or fossils.
WHAT THE FUCK DOES HE THINK HAPPENED, THEN?
no subject
Date: 2011-03-27 10:14 pm (UTC)That guy's a tool. So glad I never really read Dilbert so I don't have to feel retroactively sick about supporting such a jerk.
no subject
Date: 2011-03-27 10:24 pm (UTC)*reads comment 43*
*\o/*
Like so many whiny, snarky, "I know so much more than you" mansplainers, he is in no way sorry that he caused offense; he's only sorry that, when people very carefully explained how he offended them, and he told them they were *wrong*, they pointed other people to his bullshit.
no subject
Date: 2011-03-27 10:30 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-03-27 11:16 pm (UTC)I think that's one way of looking at it, but it's certainly not the only interpretation.
no subject
Date: 2011-03-27 11:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-03-27 11:27 pm (UTC)Small Internet Worlds. Scott Adam is an ass.
no subject
Date: 2011-03-27 11:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-03-27 11:52 pm (UTC)There were people who tuned in to All in the Family because thought Archie Bunker was right, and that the show was about him being right, and how his hippie daughter and son-in-law were idiots; there are conservatives who believe that Stephen Colbert is using his "parody" to hide in plain sight and that he means every word he says. But the vast majority of viewers know what these shows are about, and it's the same with Mad Men. If you don't want to watch it because there are some people who might like it for the wrong reasons--if that so strongly affects how you see the show--then I understand why you'd stay away. But that's saying that you won't watch a particular show based on its own merits just because some of the fans are stupid and obnoxious. It's such a spectacularly good show that I'm sorry it's been tainted for you that way.
no subject
Date: 2011-03-28 12:39 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-03-28 01:04 am (UTC)My not watching MM isn't about anything external. I was curious when it first aired, so I watched the pilot, and disliked it so much I didn't give it my usual 5 or 6 ep try. It's just not for me.
no subject
Date: 2011-03-28 01:41 am (UTC)Fair enough.
no subject
Date: 2011-03-28 02:21 am (UTC)Please, just don't let Jan Eliot let me down.
no subject
Date: 2011-03-28 02:42 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-03-28 02:45 am (UTC)Or you just crosspost from DW and do user name="cereta" in brackets and DW translates it for you ;).
no subject
Date: 2011-03-28 02:52 am (UTC)I see the code. Cool! Though "Mine is [personal profile] cereta." doesn't show it to me. :D
Or you just crosspost from DW and do user name="cereta" in brackets and DW translates it for you ;).
:) Nowhere near having time to learn DW right now.
no subject
Date: 2011-03-28 02:54 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-03-28 02:56 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-03-28 09:04 pm (UTC)I'll try to find it.
Scott Adams - Grade-A Wingnut.
no subject
Date: 2011-03-28 09:34 pm (UTC)Another guy who has done some cool stuff but, is completely batshit.
no subject
Date: 2011-03-29 03:58 am (UTC)Do not drink while reading. I haven't laughed that hard in AGES.
no subject
Date: 2011-03-29 05:05 am (UTC)It needs to be embroidered on a sampler.
no subject
Date: 2011-03-29 05:06 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-03-29 05:24 am (UTC)Thank God for DVR's