Scott Adams Puts Foot in Mouth (Again)

Dork-out.

I decided to just read what he wrote on its own without analysis. He's either a banner-flying asshole or locked on the rails of Asperger's Syndrome. And apparently he's sexually frustrated and constantly fighting the urge to rape or eat a zebra. Poor little thing.

Mmm. Zebra. Pass the barbecue sauce.

It's interesting to see the reactions to his writings.

For example, it is often quoted that he is arguing that it is natural for men to rape, and so it isn't wrong.

Yet that isn't what he actually says. More than that, though, he repeatedly points out in his blogposts that he is deliberately sh~t-stirring. His formula is to take a basic principle (eg: Don't try to fit a square peg into a round hole) and build on it until he gets a ludicrous conclusion that sounds like it is logical.

That is his formula. He has even stated that it's his formula for those kinds of blogposts.

And people continually are surprised to see that his 'arguments' on his blog come to ludicrous conclusions. That's the point of them.

Nobody cares when he uses the formula to 'logically' argue that the Bank of America is handing out free bats to kids at a baseball game in an attempt to drive up the number of head injuries so that people will forget about the economy.

Obviously that should be highly offensive - he is arguing that some kid's mother in a marketing department is deliberately choosing to cause irreversible brain damage to others in a cynical attempt to make money.

Yet where were the objections? Why didn't people attack him over that one?

He's a troll, he's just happen to be a famous troll. You don't want to get into an argument with someone who's being deliberately obtuse.

He's not the first to say that sort of thing. It used to be a common belief in Western thought, and books are still printed with such ideas:
http://www.google.com/search?q="lustful+enough+to+rape"

(okay, I just had to toss that one in - maybe Scott Adams is addicted to misogyny and he needs to go to rehab).



This smilie applies to the sentence below:

Also, I don't know how he wrote that without mentioning another drug, one that stops a woman from having her period.

This smilie applies to the sentence above:

And making fun of the people who complained because there's only one audience he's intended for his blog: his fans. They're the ones educated enough to understand his position, so it's not his fault everybody else just doesn't Get It, which is the tack he tried last time he was called on the carpet.

Mac H. said:

It's interesting to see the reactions to his writings.

For example, it is often quoted that he is arguing that it is natural for men to rape, and so it isn't wrong.

Yet that isn't what he actually says. More than that, though, he repeatedly points out in his blogposts that he is deliberately sh~t-stirring. His formula is to take a basic principle (eg: Don't try to fit a square peg into a round hole) and build on it until he gets a ludicrous conclusion that sounds like it is logical.

Click to expand...

Even if he's just trolling, he's an asshole. If you're going to try to play Jonathan Swift with rape jokes, you'd better be really fucking brilliant, and Scott Adams isn't half as brilliant as he thinks he is, MENSA membership or not.

If you're going to try to play Jonathan Swift with rape jokes, you'd better be really fucking brilliant

Click to expand...

But he didn't make any rape jokes.

He wasn't arguing that men have a built in tendency to rape.

He was arguing (logically or not) that:

1. Successful people have a lot more opportunity to be UNFAITHFUL.
2. Castration of men also has an upside
3. If all men were castrated then there would be other benefits - like there being no more rape in the world.

Obviously the third point isn't entirely accurate but it certainly isn't anything that could be classed as 'a Jonathan Swift rape joke'.

Mac

Mac H. said:

But he didn't make any rape jokes.

He wasn't arguing that men have a built in tendency to rape.

He was arguing (logically or not) that:

1. Successful people have a lot more opportunity to be UNFAITHFUL.
2. Castration of men also has an upside
3. If all men were castrated then there would be other benefits - like there being no more rape in the world.

Obviously the third point isn't entirely accurate but it certainly isn't anything that could be classed as 'a Jonathan Swift rape joke'.

Mac

Click to expand...

Okay, since you think Scott Adams is so in need of being defended, I reread the entire blog post.

Now consider human males. No doubt you have noticed an alarming trend in the news. Powerful men have been behaving badly, e.g. tweeting, raping, cheating, and being offensive to just about everyone in the entire world. The current view of such things is that the men are to blame for their own bad behavior. That seems right. Obviously we shouldn’t blame the victims. I think we all agree on that point. Blame and shame are society’s tools for keeping things under control.


The part that interests me is that society is organized in such a way that the natural instincts of men are shameful and criminal while the natural instincts of women are mostly legal and acceptable. In other words, men are born as round pegs in a society full of square holes. Whose fault is that? Do you blame the baby who didn’t ask to be born male? Or do you blame the society that brought him into the world, all round-pegged and turgid, and said, “Here’s your square hole”?

Click to expand...

There isn't much other way to read this than "Rape is among men's natural instincts. Poor men are stuck wanting to rape in a society that won't let them."

Yes, I get that he's not saying society should let them. Yes, I get that he thinks he's being satirical, and maybe he has written other blog posts in which he's admitted that everything he says is shit-stirring and not to be taken seriously (the old "You just don't understand my sense of humor!" defense), but he's not being misinterpreted here.

Honestly, I don't know how people can have the reactions to his post that they have. He's not stating anything that 5,000 years of human history haven't borne out. It is the males that are given to misbehavior by their own standards. It's that fact that I think scares people somehow.

The part that stands out to me is:

the natural instincts of men are shameful and criminal while the natural instincts of women are mostly legal and acceptable.

Click to expand...

I've read that before, mainly from white males on video gaming websites. There's a culture idolizing male victimization that's cropped up lately. One argument they commonly use is that behavior in society naturally favors females.

It's a strange argument that requires keeping blind to a lot of cultural hangups (like the whole "if a man sleeps around he's experienced, but if a woman sleeps around she's a slut"). Both genders have nearly exclusive yet common cultural/social behavior problems they deal with. Seriously claiming that one gender is "almost completely accepted in their instinctual state" (my paraphrase) shows a lack of research and understanding.

"Satirical" or not--Adams may have some book smarts, but he sure doesn't seem wise.

My husband made an interesting point. He said he didn't know what Scott Adams was talking about with the animal metaphors. Between the fights to injury (or even death) to the elaborate preening and display rituals, it's a hell of a lot easier for a human male to get laid than many of those animals.

The big difference is that we generally go inside to do it. Maybe what Scott Adams is really bemoaning is that he can't have sex right out in the open.

Amadan said:

Yes, I get that he thinks he's being satirical, and maybe he has written other blog posts in which he's admitted that everything he says is shit-stirring and not to be taken seriously...

Click to expand...

If this is the case, then Scott Adam's biggest problem is that he doesn't realize that he isn't very good at this. He's missing the mark on style points. His writing doesn't have the pepper and blades to register as satire.

Satsya said:

The part that stands out to me is:

the natural instincts of men are shameful and criminal while the natural instincts of women are mostly legal and acceptable.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

To me, too. I guess that's what his argument comes down to: "Society has evolved to a point where a guy can't live out his animal urges." He also says that's a good thing because we really can't keep dumping it on women, but asks what to do with those urges. So, to boil it down even further: "Society has evolved, but men can't keep up. Heck, we're still getting used to eating with forks, so what do you expect?"

He's wrong when he reduces men down to those urges. We're clearly more evolved than that. Well, some of us, anyway.

He's also wrong when he claims society is shaped out to accommodate women's needs better than men's. We're far from that kind of society. But what do you expect from a guy who dismisses women's demand for equal pay as whining?

This guy isn't dumb, and no matter what anyone says about not buying his books, I'll bet a nickel he earns more money than ever. He says things like this, people get all up in arms, react exactly as he wants them to, and he laughs his ass off all the way to the bank.

Let's have a book burning! Bring your own book - $7.95 at the bookstore if you don't already have a copy.

Anyone here got the energy and the unction to re-write his entire essay, but reversing it all to be about women's urges and women's imprisonment?

Oh, Scott Adams is one of those whiny misogynists who hides his genuine, seething resentment towards bitches who won't give it up and want to be treated like people beneath "humor," no doubt about it.

Every time I hear a guy going on about "male urges" and "rape is natural," that's another guy I think should be put on an all-male island, because he's just admitted that he would rape if he could get away with it. (Either that, or he thinks that he's a manly paradigm of virtue who does not rape because he heroically suppresses his "urges.")

Jamesaritchie said:

This guy isn't dumb, and no matter what anyone says about not buying his books, I'll bet a nickel he earns more money than ever. He says things like this, people get all up in arms, react exactly as he wants them to, and he laughs his ass off all the way to the bank.

Click to expand...

When an author shows his ass, you can always count on James to come to his defense. I knew -- I just knew -- we'd get a "LOL Scott Adams is smarter and richer than you neener neener!" from you.

Amadan said:

When an author shows his ass, you can always count on James to come to his defense. I knew -- I just knew -- we'd get a "LOL Scott Adams is smarter and richer than you neener neener!" from you.

Click to expand...

Well, I will admit that when I read his blog, the first thing that came to my mind was 'must be a slow sales year for ol' Scotty'.

If it's a publicity stunt, it's succeeding in a way. I've spent more time this year discussing Adams' musings than I have spent thinking about the guy and his works in the last ten years or so. And that includes all the Dilbert cartoons I read.

I think I still have two old Dilbert books around here somewhere. Maybe I should sell them before the dust settles. It's not like I'm gonna read them any time soon.

Amadan said:

Oh, Scott Adams is one of those whiny misogynists who hides his genuine, seething resentment towards bitches who won't give it up and want to be treated like people beneath "humor," no doubt about it.

Every time I hear a guy going on about "male urges" and "rape is natural," that's another guy I think should be put on an all-male island, because he's just admitted that he would rape if he could get away with it. (Either that, or he thinks that he's a manly paradigm of virtue who does not rape because he heroically suppresses his "urges.")





When an author shows his ass, you can always count on James to come to his defense. I knew -- I just knew -- we'd get a "LOL Scott Adams is smarter and richer than you neener neener!" from you.

Click to expand...

I'm not defending him. What he said was stupid. But show me a case where a writer showing his ass ever did anything except make him richer.

This is just how it works. People who never heard of him are now talking about him, and I guarantee many will now buy his work just to see what all the fuss is about.

Or, you know, not buy anything.