Die Dilbert Die

[RVonse]

WashPo article (gifted) on Adams, his rise, then subsequent fall. I really don't read comics much longer and didn't realize that his politics did seep into the comic.

Adams tells The Post that his remarks that day were intended to be hyperbole, while also contending that he was responding to a larger sociopolitical narrative. He does not apologize for what he said in the episode — viewed more than 360,000 times — though he asserts that he disavows racism. Meanwhile, on a follow-up “Real Coffee” podcast, he called both White people and the press “hate groups.”

There are a number of issues here.

Firstly, the underlying premise is just ignorant... not his apparent bigotry, but that I think he believes that the blacks were being bigoted when they disagreed to the racist trope "It's okay to be white". Much like how alt-righters were incapable of understanding that Black Lives Matter didn't mean Only Black Lives Matter. So he already starts off with an awful foundation as he doesn't even get what the problem was.

Second, he wasn't funny or writing satire of any level of decent quality. He says he was "shaking the box", but when one tries to "shake the box", one must do it well. The more controversial the subject, the better the presentation must be. Instead, he just rails on identity politics, a term the alt-right pretty much invented and is the "PC" of the current day and age, just to criticize courtesy and awareness.

Thirdly... oi the mocking. "Identify"... I'm not aware of any other term that bothers alt-righters more than "identify". Some very small percentage of people are coming out as transgender (note "coming out", they were always there) and this thing that they are doing, which is risky and dangerous, is being mocked. People that don't know them are openly ridiculing just how dumb those people are because they aren't like the alt-right. Presenting many reasons why transgenders hid in the first place.

Adams is attempting to get the blacks and conservatives to see each other and join forces against the white elites who wish to remain ultra rich. He believes there are common goals such as education needs better for blacks by getting rid of unions and that all cops need to wear cams. Both common goals for blacks and conservatives. Adams does believe there is systemic racism that needs to be fixed. But in the meantime's offers good alternatives for anyone (black or white) to make themselves extremely attractive to corporations and high paying employment.

Also according to Adams, this was the only way for the public to see this message. It blew up further than he thought it would but now he is going to move on with his new opportunities. When you consider how ultra elites control the democrats, are monopolized, powerful, and controlling the media narrative, I can see where Adams is coming from.

Biggest takeaway is that rather than poor whites and blacks fighting with each other, all poor should be solidarity against the ultra elites controlling everything including most unfortunately the media. I've been saying this myself for a very for a long time. What Adams actually says here:

So calling blacks a "hate group" because he didn't understand a poll was actually meant to help push a Marxist narrative of the poor people uniting... but not with unions.... don't want the poor to consolidate too much power. And yes, one must wonder about those "ultra elites" that control the Democrats. As if the "ultra elites" don't have a conservative among them like the Kochs.

Adams claims calling the blacks a "hate group" was the hyperbole to get noticed. Adams wants solidarity fighting the teacher unions (not all unions just the teacher unions) because that is what he thinks will fix education the fastest for the poor neighborhoods. He claims the unions themselves would not be the problem excepting for the lack of competition preventing students the choice to go to better schools. I do not personally know if he is right about this or not but I would say that lack of competition in anything is bad. What I also would agree with Adams is that education for the younger generation is extremely important. Would you not agree that education for poor blacks (or any other poor person) is important to their future success? And if so, what would be your solution for improvement?

The Kochs are no better than the rest. In a better world none of the rich should be able to affect our political system. But that's not where we are at today.

 

[Patooka]

dams is attempting to get the blacks and conservatives to see each other and join forces against the white elites who wish to remain ultra rich. He believes there are common goals such as education needs better for blacks by getting rid of unions and that all cops need to wear cams. Both common goals for blacks and conservatives. Adams does believe there is systemic racism that needs to be fixed. But in the meantime's offers good alternatives for anyone (black or white) to make themselves extremely attractive to corporations and high paying employment.

Why are you so desperate to excuse Scott Adams' actions? If anyone actually believed that, they would be quoting him on that and you wouldn't have to resort to dumping hour plus long videos with no timestamps and no quotations. I'm sorry, this reads as your desire in defending somebody else who like you unconditionally supports Trump in an attempt to portray such people as "not all bad".

 

[RVonse]

he is going to move on with his new opportunities.

ie., the conservative news media machine.

And no, Adams is not leading a revolution against the bourgeoise, that's absurd.

He is rich himself no argument. But he is also against the people who control the media monopoly narrative.

 

[RVonse]

dams is attempting to get the blacks and conservatives to see each other and join forces against the white elites who wish to remain ultra rich. He believes there are common goals such as education needs better for blacks by getting rid of unions and that all cops need to wear cams. Both common goals for blacks and conservatives. Adams does believe there is systemic racism that needs to be fixed. But in the meantime's offers good alternatives for anyone (black or white) to make themselves extremely attractive to corporations and high paying employment.

Why are you so desperate to excuse Scott Adams' actions? If anyone actually believed that, they would be quoting him on that and you wouldn't have to resort to dumping hour plus long videos with no timestamps and no quotations. I'm sorry, this reads as your desire in defending somebody else who like you unconditionally supports Trump in an attempt to portray such people as "not all bad".

If there is anything I agree with Adams, it is his message that this is not left vs right, it is us versus them.

George Carlin:
Its one big club and you ain't in it.

 

[Patooka]

Adams claims calling the blacks a "hate group" was the hyperbole to get noticed. Adams wants solidarity fighting the teacher unions (not all unions just the teacher unions) because that is what he thinks will fix education the fastest for the poor neighborhoods. He claims the unions themselves would not be the problem excepting for the lack of competition preventing students the choice to go to better schools. I do not personally know if he is right about this or not but I would say that lack of competition in anything is bad. What I also would agree with Adams is that education for the younger generation is extremely important. Would you not agree that education for poor blacks (or any other poor person) is important to their future success? And if so, what would be your solution for improvement?

Clearly you haven't read much of Adams' work. He is very much anti union and anti worker. His comics stopped being cubicle satire and became openly anti worker's rights by the the Bush Jnr Administration and have been inching further right ever since. Seeing as you like hour long youtube clips, here's one of Michael Moore and Dan Perkins (aka Tom Tomorrow) discussing this;

68: We're All In Donald Trump's Cartoon (w/ Dan Perkins, aka Tom Tomorrow) [Rumble w Michael Moore]

If satire is the art of taking reality to the absurd extreme, then what is a satirist to do when the absurd extreme becomes a daily reality? Michael is joine...

www.youtube.com

Incidentally, abolishing unions as a method of improving "The Poor's" is nothing more than a rebranding of Trickle Down Economics which is VERY much a Koch talking point.

 

[Patooka]

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

WashPo article (gifted) on Adams, his rise, then subsequent fall. I really don't read comics much longer and didn't realize that his politics did seep into the comic.

Adams tells The Post that his remarks that day were intended to be hyperbole, while also contending that he was responding to a larger sociopolitical narrative. He does not apologize for what he said in the episode — viewed more than 360,000 times — though he asserts that he disavows racism. Meanwhile, on a follow-up “Real Coffee” podcast, he called both White people and the press “hate groups.”

There are a number of issues here.

Firstly, the underlying premise is just ignorant... not his apparent bigotry, but that I think he believes that the blacks were being bigoted when they disagreed to the racist trope "It's okay to be white". Much like how alt-righters were incapable of understanding that Black Lives Matter didn't mean Only Black Lives Matter. So he already starts off with an awful foundation as he doesn't even get what the problem was.

Second, he wasn't funny or writing satire of any level of decent quality. He says he was "shaking the box", but when one tries to "shake the box", one must do it well. The more controversial the subject, the better the presentation must be. Instead, he just rails on identity politics, a term the alt-right pretty much invented and is the "PC" of the current day and age, just to criticize courtesy and awareness.

Thirdly... oi the mocking. "Identify"... I'm not aware of any other term that bothers alt-righters more than "identify". Some very small percentage of people are coming out as transgender (note "coming out", they were always there) and this thing that they are doing, which is risky and dangerous, is being mocked. People that don't know them are openly ridiculing just how dumb those people are because they aren't like the alt-right. Presenting many reasons why transgenders hid in the first place.

Adams is attempting to get the blacks and conservatives to see each other and join forces against the white elites who wish to remain ultra rich. He believes there are common goals such as education needs better for blacks by getting rid of unions and that all cops need to wear cams. Both common goals for blacks and conservatives. Adams does believe there is systemic racism that needs to be fixed. But in the meantime's offers good alternatives for anyone (black or white) to make themselves extremely attractive to corporations and high paying employment.

Also according to Adams, this was the only way for the public to see this message. It blew up further than he thought it would but now he is going to move on with his new opportunities. When you consider how ultra elites control the democrats, are monopolized, powerful, and controlling the media narrative, I can see where Adams is coming from.

Biggest takeaway is that rather than poor whites and blacks fighting with each other, all poor should be solidarity against the ultra elites controlling everything including most unfortunately the media. I've been saying this myself for a very for a long time. What Adams actually says here:

So calling blacks a "hate group" because he didn't understand a poll was actually meant to help push a Marxist narrative of the poor people uniting... but not with unions.... don't want the poor to consolidate too much power. And yes, one must wonder about those "ultra elites" that control the Democrats. As if the "ultra elites" don't have a conservative among them like the Kochs.

Adams claims calling the blacks a "hate group" was the hyperbole to get noticed. Adams wants solidarity fighting the teacher unions (not all unions just the teacher unions) because that is what he thinks will fix education the fastest for the poor neighborhoods. He claims the unions themselves would not be the problem excepting for the lack of competition preventing students the choice to go to better schools. I do not personally know if he is right about this or not but I would say that lack of competition in anything is bad. What I also would agree with Adams is that education for the younger generation is extremely important. Would you not agree that education for poor blacks (or any other poor person) is important to their future success? And if so, what would be your solution for improvement?

The Kochs are no better than the rest. In a better world none of the rich should be able to affect our political system. But that's not where we are at today.

Hyperbole to get noticed. Man, what a shitty way to try send out a message.

Niggers!!!

Okay, now that I have your attention, here why blacks need to vote for Trump. He truly believes in yout interests.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

WashPo article (gifted) on Adams, his rise, then subsequent fall. I really don't read comics much longer and didn't realize that his politics did seep into the comic.

Adams tells The Post that his remarks that day were intended to be hyperbole, while also contending that he was responding to a larger sociopolitical narrative. He does not apologize for what he said in the episode — viewed more than 360,000 times — though he asserts that he disavows racism. Meanwhile, on a follow-up “Real Coffee” podcast, he called both White people and the press “hate groups.”

There are a number of issues here.

Firstly, the underlying premise is just ignorant... not his apparent bigotry, but that I think he believes that the blacks were being bigoted when they disagreed to the racist trope "It's okay to be white". Much like how alt-righters were incapable of understanding that Black Lives Matter didn't mean Only Black Lives Matter. So he already starts off with an awful foundation as he doesn't even get what the problem was.

Second, he wasn't funny or writing satire of any level of decent quality. He says he was "shaking the box", but when one tries to "shake the box", one must do it well. The more controversial the subject, the better the presentation must be. Instead, he just rails on identity politics, a term the alt-right pretty much invented and is the "PC" of the current day and age, just to criticize courtesy and awareness.

Thirdly... oi the mocking. "Identify"... I'm not aware of any other term that bothers alt-righters more than "identify". Some very small percentage of people are coming out as transgender (note "coming out", they were always there) and this thing that they are doing, which is risky and dangerous, is being mocked. People that don't know them are openly ridiculing just how dumb those people are because they aren't like the alt-right. Presenting many reasons why transgenders hid in the first place.

Adams is attempting to get the blacks and conservatives to see each other and join forces against the white elites who wish to remain ultra rich. He believes there are common goals such as education needs better for blacks by getting rid of unions and that all cops need to wear cams. Both common goals for blacks and conservatives. Adams does believe there is systemic racism that needs to be fixed. But in the meantime's offers good alternatives for anyone (black or white) to make themselves extremely attractive to corporations and high paying employment.

Also according to Adams, this was the only way for the public to see this message. It blew up further than he thought it would but now he is going to move on with his new opportunities. When you consider how ultra elites control the democrats, are monopolized, powerful, and controlling the media narrative, I can see where Adams is coming from.

Biggest takeaway is that rather than poor whites and blacks fighting with each other, all poor should be solidarity against the ultra elites controlling everything including most unfortunately the media. I've been saying this myself for a very for a long time. What Adams actually says here:

Episode 2037 Scott Adams: I Reveal My End Game, Andrew Tate's Good Parts, DT's Best Persuasion Ever

Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.comContent:------------ Trump Plan: Cities from scratch & flying cars- Media poisoning divides u...

www.youtube.com

BTW, in case anyone was wondering, Adams is extremely intelligent and educated. Post secondary education and high school valedictorian.

If I were asked to identify the political party that’s controlled by the “ultra elites”, it sure as hell wouldn’t be the Democrats.

 

[RVonse]

If I were asked to identify the political party that’s controlled by the “ultra elites”, it sure as hell wouldn’t be the Democrats.

As far as monied interests couple years ago, I would have sited Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, George Soros, and a big chunk of silicon valley. But Musk and others have since jumped ship and individuals with great wealth misses the point anyway. Its those in Hollywood at a 2nd level down who have even more influence at this point. They are either firmly in the grasp of the Democrats, perhaps the other way around, but in any case wield a tremendous amount of political influence. And without a doubt the mainstream media narrative is presently controlled by them. And one other thing you can trust is that none of those people are living even remotely close to a poor black neighborhood (hood) despite their hypocrisy with Adams.

There are surpising many on the right who think that Hollywood entertainment has been taken over by the Chinese to destroy family values. But I won't talk anymore about that because Jimmy H. will accuse me of being a conspiracy theorist.

 

[TomC]

As far as monied interests couple years ago, I would have sited Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, George Soros, and a big chunk of silicon valley.

Why them in particular?
What about the Kochs, Murdoch, Trump, Norquist and such?
Tom

 

[RVonse]

As far as monied interests couple years ago, I would have sited Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, George Soros, and a big chunk of silicon valley.

Why them in particular?
What about the Kochs, Murdoch, Trump, Norquist and such?
Tom

I'm against all billionaires using their money to affect politics, even the ones on the right. But the ones on the right have already done most of their damage in past with citizens united. Its the ones on the left who I'm worried about today. They are causing (IMO) huge problems with society today. They are ones causing damage to race and gender relations that did not need to get any worse than it was.

 

[TomC]

They are causing (IMO) huge problems with society today. They are ones causing damage to race and gender relations that did not need to get any worse than it

Why do you think individual leftist billionaires are causing more damage than Donald Trump?
Tom

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I'm against all billionaires using their money to affect politics, even the ones on the right.

You say that, but you are also a Trump fan and he's a billionaire part of the Swamp Politics since the 1970's. I mean, that guy is so bad he used to fund the Clintons and they were all friends with Jeffrey Epstein.

But the ones on the right have already done most of their damage in past with citizens united. Its the ones on the left who I'm worried about today.

But Hair Furor continued to do much damage after Citizens United. Let's not forget January 6th and the Big Lie so quickly.

 

[Elixir]

Hair Furor

How have I not seen that before?

 

[Patooka]

They are either firmly in the grasp of the Democrats, perhaps the other way around, but in any case wield a tremendous amount of political influence. And without a doubt the mainstream media narrative is presently controlled by them.

Tell me something, genius. What is the most popular news network? Most watched than the next 2 combined even? And kindly fuck off about this Hollywood/Democrat conspiracy bullshit. Republicans love Hollywood. Just ask John Wayne, Ronald Reagan, James Woods, Clint Eastwood. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Scott Baio, Rosanne Barr or even Katy fucking Perry. How many fucking names do you want?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Answering Tik Tok, doesn't count.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

As far as monied interests couple years ago, I would have sited Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, George Soros, and a big chunk of silicon valley.

Why them in particular?
What about the Kochs, Murdoch, Trump, Norquist and such?
Tom

I'm against all billionaires using their money to affect politics, even the ones on the right. But the ones on the right have already done most of their damage in past with citizens united. Its the ones on the left who I'm worried about today. They are causing (IMO) huge problems with society today.

Who is "they"?

 

[lpetrich]

Adams is attempting to get the blacks and conservatives to see each other and join forces against the white elites who wish to remain ultra rich.

That's total nonsense. Calling people dangerous monsters is no way to recruit them for some struggle.

 

[lpetrich]

Adams claims calling the blacks a "hate group" was the hyperbole to get noticed.

Where did he say that?

 

[Gun Nut]

To me, Dilbert was an ok comic strip, kinda like Cathy. Amusing, sometimes very insightful. Way better than Garfield. But no Calvin and Hobbes or Bloom County.

What I don't get is why people care about the personal opinions of people like Adams.
Or Rowling,
Or West

Why does anyone care about stuff like that?
Tom

Prior to the relatively recent proliferation of social media, such folks who had a large distribution (a comic strip, in this case), could only distribute what they were being paid to create and only though the channel explicitly used to distribute it (a newspaper, in this case). No one ever knew, or COULD know, anything about the creator of the comic that the distributor (the newspaper) didn't choose to communicate. Now, people with a huge distribution of a thing, or ABSOLUTELY NO THING, have as much "attention" as anyone else, though Social Media.
So, its not like no one cared in the past and now they do... it's that no one had the means to know these things, and now they do.