I wonder if Scott Adams (Dilbert) reads DU?

[Electric Monk]

http://www.dilbert.com/strips/comic/2013-12-29/

[In_The_Wind]

1. It looks like he does.

[PeaceNikki]

2. Doubt it. He's a Libertarian douche.

I'll go ahead and report myself to the Department of Redundancy Department.

[JNelson6563]

4. heh Good one!

[MH1]

7. That and a misogynous dickhead.

Which fully explains the comic without any need for him to have read DU, while not excluding the possibility either.

In other words there is no evidence in the OP to either support or disprove its hypothesis.

[PeaceNikki]

9. lol... yes.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4245148

[kcr]

26. That's what I was thinking. It has more to do with that n/t

[socialist_n_TN]

90. Well, that's the vibe I've always got off of his strips......

I'm not sure I've ever seen it pointed out or admitted in print before, but that strip screams "Libertarianism". And yes, it's also funny.

[Laelth]

3. k&r for exposure. n/t

-Laelth

[boston bean]

19. What are you hoping is exposed? nt

[Laelth]

37. I am hoping that lots of people see the cartoon in the OP.

I thought it was worth spreading around.

Why do you ask?



-Laelth

[boston bean]

38. Cause I was curious. nt

[Tuesday Afternoon]

43. I am sorely tempted to K&R it for PeaceNikki's contributions to this thread...

Exposure to sunlight is taking place ...

[boston bean]

44. This thread along with wanting us to seriously consider Camille Paglia in our discourse

certainly is showing something. I leave what it is showing up to the readers to determine.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

45. mos def ... and me too ...

the reactions taking place in this thread are most revealing.

[PeaceNikki]

5. He's a well-known sexist pig and MRA "hero". Makes sense some here can identify with him.

Scott Adams to Men’s Rights Activists: Don’t bother arguing with women; they’re like children.

Dilbert Creator Scott Adams Weighs In On Rape

[zeemike]

10. Well I don't know Scot Adams from Adam.

And don't follow his toons, but he makes a point...one that we see here on DU all the time.
And that is the reason I never click on certain threads by certain posters...because if the subject is about something dealing with feminism and you say anything except that men are pigs you will be declared part of the "rape culture"
It is a unhealthy trend for DU.

[PeaceNikki]

16. Uh huh. Hyperbole much?

This OP is a comic that is meant to portray women as overreactionary monsters written by a well-known Libertarian misogynistic MRA hero.

Again, I get why some here would identify with him given the points I've just mentioned. Especially you, given your opinion of 'certain posters'. But, be intellectually honest for a second and admit that posting that comic here and now is another bomb thrown in this ongoing war. And a rather offensive one given Adams' history (whether *you* knew it or not). Even for those of us who have chosen to not get knee-deep in the fights. What's next, an infographic with a Rush Limbaugh quote about "femizazis"?

Cheer, if you must. By all means. But I will voice my opinion on the content and context as well.

[zeemike]

46. Well this is just what I was talking about.

The inflammatory rhetoric of with us or against us...and any other view other than rah rah for our team is treason and must be silenced.
And that is not peculiar to one gender at all.

But it may be a bomb in the ongoing war, but what else would you expect in a war...compleat passivity by one side?...is capitulation the only acceptable way?...
If you want peace look in your own heart first...if you can't find it there don't expect to find it in others.

[PeaceNikki]

49. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. And the words downthread apply to you s well.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4245764

[zeemike]

50. Yes because fuck you is not an act of war.

The only proper response is thank you very much...and please give me more because men like me are such a piece of shit.
See I can do hyperbole too.

[PeaceNikki]

51. yeah, you hyperboleed all over this thread alright.

[zeemike]

54. Yes and I know when I am doing it.

Others don't seem to know or care.

[Agschmid]

20. Here get to know him...

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. -Scott Adams

http://comicsalliance.com/scott-adam-sexist-mens-rights/

[boston bean]

23. And you find this OP to be the antidote for what is "unhealthy" for DU?

[zeemike]

41. No the only antidote is a scaling back of the rhetoric.

And the OP only points out the problem.
The inflammatory rhetoric only acts to divide...and a house divided cannot stand.

[boston bean]

42. I know, huh... This OP was so NOT inflammatory! LOL

[zeemike]

48. And not a reaction to inflammatory rhetoric huh?...lol.

It always takes to to fight...and both are responsible for it.

[boston bean]

52. Can you please point me to the inflammatory rhetoric that spawned this thread? nt

[zeemike]

53. No

I don't wish to get into a debate about it with you...if you don't understand then just listen to what is being said.

[boston bean]

59. Aha, the just listen up, you don't need to understand BS...

Thanks...

Don't say I'm putting words in your mouth. Cause that is exactly what you told me to do.

[zeemike]

62. Yes that is exactly what I am saying.

Listen to people instead of just talking at them...it is basic to all conflict resolutions.
That is if you want conflict resolution.

[boston bean]

63. Maybe you should try that yourself, no?

[zeemike]

66. It is a two way street.

You cannot expect someone to listen to you when you are pouncing them in the face.

[boston bean]

67. I asked for more information and was listening. You told me no, to just listen.

I'm not pouncing on anyone's face.

[zeemike]

69. Well you have not acknowledged any point I have made so far

So that tells me you are not listening...And you were not "asking for information" but want to start up an argument where I give you examples of it and you tell me only sexist pigs would disagree with it...and If I don't agree I am one.
I will not go there with you.
All conflict resolution must beguine with ending inflammatory rhetoric, and I see no sign that you want that.

[boston bean]

71. I am listening. I was asking for specific information to form a better opinion.

To which I got, if you don't understand, just listen.

Your postings to me now are sort of going off the rails, don't you think. I've been polite, kind, and deferential.

PS, I agree that an end to inflammatory postings must end. That is why I asked you about this particular OP that you seem to feel is justified. It must start somewhere no?

[zeemike]

73. Well I notice that I no sooner post my reply than you post yours.

So thinking about what I have said is not happening.
And no my posting to you are not "off the rail"....
And if I had to describe your post to me I would say they were passive agressive....which is often over the top polite.

[boston bean]

75. Now, I'm too polite, I can't win for trying.

I've thought a lot about what you said, and its making less and less sense as we go along. You feel this post is fine, you agree it's inflammatory, but because it's in response to a different inflammatory thread, you won't identify, it is ok, but that we must stop inflammatory posts. But not this OP here. How's that? Did I get it right?

[zeemike]

76. Because it is push back

And unfortunately push back is sometimes the only way one can deal with things when they will not listen to you but talk at you...it is provocative for sure and an attempt to force the moment to a crisis...it happens all the time. But failure for you to recognize your part in it makes it a never ending war with the consequences of all wars...loss for both sides and victory for anger and mistrust.

But what makes passive aggressive is doing just what you did...re interpreting it to say that you are being too polite when you know that is not my point...and then telling me it makes no sense...and then asking if you got it right.

[boston bean]

77. So push back on one side is good, push back on the other is not?

You're right I didn't exactly say it that way, but that was my interpretation of what you were saying. And there is no failure on your part to recognize it may not be the way you are saying. So, no passive aggressiveness there...

You see it as ok, because you feel it is in retaliation to some other thread, that you won't identify. I get what you are saying, don't you worry about that.

[zeemike]

78. Two wrongs don't make a right.

And one wrong don't make the other right...we can agree on that...but you have never admitted to there being two worngs...just one....just as you don't admit to passive aggressive behavior on your part.
And continue it by interpreting what I said in the way you want to portray it...with the passive aggressive statement of "I get what you are saying, don't you worry about that"...with the hidden meaning of your are just a hater and you see right through me.

And on and on this will go until you have worn me down with no resolution...well I am there and I am off to take a nap.

[boston bean]

79. I have to agree because you say so? I asked for the thread that this was in retaliation to.

I can't make a judgment until I know what it is I am comparing.

[zeemike]

85. I have to give it to you because you say so?

Then don't make a judgment.

[Electric Monk]

89. Think of it as performance art, and she's doing an amazing job. nt

[mountain grammy]

15. I always considered "Dilbert" stupid and wondered why it was ever quoted..

Thanks for the info on the douchebag author.

[Helen Borg]

22. I used to like Dilbert...

But after a while the mood in the strips became too cruel, unfunny, defeatist, and pointless... Wasn't there even an animated version on TV?

[Starry Messenger]

25. Boom.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

91. I liked the comment he left on the feminist blog site

Is this an entire website dedicated to poor reading comprehension? I don’t think one of you understood the writing. You’re all hopping mad about your own misinterpretations.

That’s the reason the original blog was pulled down. All writing is designed for specific readers. This piece was designed for regular readers of The Scott Adams blog. That group has an unusually high reading comprehension level.

In this case, the content of the piece inspires so much emotion in some readers that they literally can’t understand it. The same would be true if the topic were about gun ownership or a dozen other topics. As emotion increases, reading comprehension decreases. This would be true of anyone, but regular readers of the Dilbert blog are pretty far along the bell curve toward rational thought, and relatively immune to emotional distortion.

I’ve written on the topic how you can’t mix incendiary images in the same piece without the readers’ brains treating the images as though they were connected, no matter how clearly you explain that they are not. My regular readers understand that I do that intentionally as part of the fun. When quoted out of context, the piece becomes dangerous.

You can see that the comments about the piece were little more than name-calling. When confronted with that sort of reaction, would it be wiser to treat the name-callers as you might treat respected professors with opinions worthy of consideration, or should you treat the name-callers as you would angry children, by not debating and not taking it personally?

You’re angry, but I’ll bet every one of you agrees with me.

[lunasun]

6. Fuck you Scott Adams if you are reading this

but I doubt it

[MADem]

8. Even a stopped clock, I suppose.

I agree with the sentiment that there are some people here who anxiously SEEK the negative, who spoil for a fight, but the guy who creates those cartoons is a wingnut dork of the Paulbot persuasion, so I understand.

So I guess I'm in the GOOD point...made by an ASSHOLE camp!

[RC]

11. People can't seem to comment on the content of posted cartoon, so they vilify the cartoonist.

A variation of shooting the messenger.

Just for informational purposes, large segments of DU can name people here, like those depicted in that cartoon. Which might be why some of them are derailing the OP, to shoot that messenger, instead of commenting on contents of the cartoon itself.

[PeaceNikki]

12. I am familiar with Scott Adams views on women and the context of the ongoing arguments.

Look, I have not been involved in the huge arguments. I really have not. But the intent of this OP is clear.

And it's shitty.

Content+context= shit stirring.

[RC]

17. The intent of the OP is push back, plain and simple.

And you are correct, it is shitty. But it is what the OP is pushing back against that is shitty.

People shit stir, then when called on it, look up with wide eyes and say "Who, me?" Or even accuse the person that calls them on their shit stirring, as the one actually doing it, or even starting it. A blatant lie.

We all know who is causing the problems on DU in the first place. The rest of DU is getting fed up and is starting to say enough already.
This same group, at one time, was eyeball deep with trying to be the official DU PC word police, thought police, etc. Now we have this.
There is no way anyone can fix actual problems by being worse than the people they are railing against.
You know like our government's fight against terrorism. The harder we fight terrorism, the more terrorist we make. The same thing here, only here is just bullying and not terrorism.
And I am beginning to see the real purpose is to disrupt and divide DU. To drive away good, decent, down to earth members, so this authoritarian group can have a freer reign. And they have driven away many good people.
Once again the rest of DU is starting to push back, Deal with it.

[PeaceNikki]

18. oh, horseshit. this isn't a fucking war that one side will "win". grow up.

be fucking civil. is it that fucking hard to post here and not be on some vendetta against a poster or group of posters? this place is insane sometimes and shit like this is what makes it suck.

you're part of the problem.

[boston bean]

21. Careful, even after you not getting into it prior you might just make his list....

Because you disagreed with him here and called him out.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4242586

PS, maybe you can avoid it by lowering your tone and voice... <sarcasm>

[PeaceNikki]

24. creepy.

[boston bean]

27. Last night there were postings that Camille Paglia authored

I don't know exactly what it was suppose to prove, except that the more you peel back the onion, the stinkier it gets.

[PeaceNikki]

28. Yeah, I saw those.

[RC]

29. Part of the problem? Why because I stand up for myself?

I refuse to recite the party line, as dictated by some other DU member? Basically I am part of the problem because I post my opinion and not the latest talking points handed down from on high?

If this is not a "fucking war", then why do some threads read like a war zone? And why you are you belittling me?

I should grow up? Come back and read your own post in a few hours.

[PeaceNikki]

30. Because of the specific words in the reply to which I posted.

[RC]

33. The meaning of the words, in context.

[boston bean]

31. Did she make the list? nt

[RC]

32. Never heard of her till now.

[boston bean]

34. So, she's on the cusp of making it? nt

[RC]

35. Again you are assuming things i did not say or imply.

It takes a lot more than a disagreement in a thread. Lots more.

[boston bean]

36. Oh... so sorry sir, I did not mean to assume anything. It was just a question. nt

[PeaceNikki]

82. enjoy your brief return.

[arcane1]

83. You have put a lot of work into this, your "first" post.

[nomorenomore08]

86. Again, why should your personal feelings be considered on par with serious issues

that affect millions of human beings every day of their lives? All this complaining about "PC" and "meanness" seems extraordinarily self-centered to me.

[RC]

87. I was talking about DU

All Those "DU"'s in my post should have been a clue.

My feelings count as much as yours, whether you like it or not.
Complaining about whats amounts to bullying is being self-centered on my part? Really? Someone has to stand up to the bullies, or the bullying will just get worse.

[nomorenomore08]

88. So DU is somehow sealed off from the rest of the world? And posts on DU are utterly independent

of that context? "Bullying"? Good Christ, man, are you really claiming to be persecuted by "mean old feminists" or something? Have some sense of proportion here!

As I feel like I keep disclaiming over and over again, I myself am a man, so I don't know why you would interpret my posts as being part of some bullshit, mostly nonexistent "gender wars." Like it or not, people are trying to get an important fucking message across, and they can't always be delicate about it.

Think of the worst thing ever done to you by someone you loved, or who supposedly loved you. Now imagine if that act were treated almost as a normal, expected part of your existence. How would you react to people who insisted you be polite and civil as they want you to be in discussing the problem? Or who, worse yet, accused you of "bullying" when you didn't use the absolute gentlest, most coddling tone possible?

[Nobody You Know]

56. All he does is write office politics - and in the office politics (according to him)

is that women remain in low totem. Which I disagree. But I have admired his work, and I have remembered a few cartoons that has depicited that a woman was a CEO for a while in the "office" where Dilbert works.

Even Alice is still featured on an occasional basis...

I don't find anything wrong with his cartoons, only Scott Adam's politics.

[trumad]

13. He probably is..

and most likely a member of a certain errr group that votes for the hottest celebrity.

[boston bean]

39. Hey Trumad, I want you to know

that I don't agree at all with what is happening to you. It makes me sad/mad.

[trumad]

55. LOL---

I have a great wife, kids, job, ---a great life.

If I get whacked on a message board for battling a bunch of douchebags, I'll get over it rather quickly....in like 5 seconds.

Don't be sad--- sit back and enjoy watching me give these numnuts heartburn.

[boston bean]

57. I know, but when I see injustice it does get to me.

I know you'll be ok. The question is, will we?? LOL

[trumad]

60. Fact is---

Admin will have to do something about this or it will infect DU and ruin it for good. The trolls have perfected how to tip toe the line and post the shit they do.

My problem and why I might not survive----I call a turd a turd. If I go down in flames and least I know I fought the good fight.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

64. yes, trumad. yes. You are the Man among boys and I love you for it.

Watching you learn and grow and evolve has been really a great pleasure to behold.

You are just a really awesome human being.

Thank you for being you.

[boston bean]

65. Yep, anyone can be a target.

If you get enough alerts from people who just don't like you, and you post often your chances of being negatively affected by this policy goes up.

There really should be something more along the lines of a percentage of posts hidden, and kicking someone off for up to 90 days... who have been here a real long time is just not a good thing. I agree.

And I don't mean that just for you but for everyone on every side of every issue.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

68. and on the other hand- alert percentages should also be evaluated and those

with bad percentages in 90 days should also be held accountable.

This system is way too OneSided to be fair.

Not sure if that is an equitable/viable solution to the issue but, something needs to address the other side of the coin, for real.

[trumad]

74. This is how it works...

if you are a target---and believe me, I'm a target, you will get alerted on for just about anything. I have DU friends who serve on my juries and they send me jury results. The alert comments are all very similar in content---so I know it's the same cadre of douchebags alerting.

If you alert enough you will find a jury that is either to lazy to review or--- take the alert comments at face value---or you get enough members on the jury who want to take me out. Now--- do I think I'm perfect? Hell no. Some of my posts should be hidden.

But I have no doubt that its happening. I just went in an updated my juror blacklist so I hope it holds the douchebags at bay for a bit.

[boston bean]

84. I believe you Tru!

You and seabeyond being the first two this will effect tells me just about all I need to know.

[bluestate10]

61. Did I miss something? What is happening to Trumad? Is it related to the new

system for banning posts and posters?

[boston bean]

70. As it stands now, in January he will be put on forced hiatus,

due to the new policy of having 5 hidden posts. Those hiddens don't fall off for 90 days, which is an awful long time. So, in essence if you could be off DU for 90 days for having 5 hiddens. Most of the time it will probably be less, once you take into consideration when the 1st oldest one falls off. But then if you get another real quick, you are off again... It could become a huge vicious circle.

[madokie]

14. Yup I'd say he does

[johnp3907]

40. I don't know if he reads DU.

But I don't read Dilbert or anything else Adams writes or says.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

47. Dear Scott,

Last edited Sun Dec 29, 2013, 03:32 PM - Edit history (1)

Perhaps you would prefer it if I take everything right.

The very first line of the cartoon is a variation of: When did you quit beating your dog?

It is known as The Loaded Question and the Tone of it is very, very Passive/Aggressive.

[xulamaude]

58. Dilbert sucks.

Now I know that its author does too.

Thanks for the thread, Monk!

[hunter]

72. Scott Adams and alter-ego Dilbert are dickheads.

That is all.

[treestar]

81. I wonder why that type of man does not learn

It is simple. Don't tell women your evaluation of their looks! Just keep it to yourself. In your head you can assign scores and do whatever you want. But don't "compliment." It's not the 50s anymore. Women do not want to hear it! How would you like it? Oh you'll probably say you'd love it. But for a lifetime, believe me, you would get tired of it.

Talk to the woman about a subject. She has a brain and can discuss actual topics.