Tag Archives: scott adams

Scott Adams goes Lee Harvey Oswald (for Trump!)

Still rockin’ the Master Persuader hypothesis, or something, Randian uber-branding self promoter and neuro-audiologist Scott Adams checks in with us once again to tell us how Donald Trump is still…I don’t know…winning? Or losing but, c’mon, unfair?

As of today, Clinton has the superior persuasion strategy. Crook beats monster.

Is Hillary now the Master Persuader?

Reality isn’t a factor in this election, as per usual. If the truth mattered, voters might care that the Democratic primaries were rigged against Sanders. They might care that the Clinton Foundation looks like a pay-to-play scheme. They might care that the FBI gave Clinton a free pass.

Nasty woman! Lies. But I thought the whole point of persuasion was to convince people of your own point of view. Why would the Dark Mistress, Clinton, be spouting Trump’s talking points? I’m not sure Scott has thought this all the way through. And if “the truth mattered”, why would anyone care that “the Clinton Foundation looks like a pay-to-play scheme”? I mean, who cares what Dilbert’s pal thinks about it? When it’s really a pretty generous charity? Ooooh I get it – Scott is working the ole’ persuasion. Really very sneaky (…he be a certificated genius). We now return to the crypto-linguistic semiotics:

Clinton’s team of persuaders have successfully crafted Trump’s offensive language and hyperbole into an illusion that he’s a sexist/racist in some special way that is different from the average citizen. The reality is that everyone is a little bit sexist and a little bit racist. We’re all wired that way. There’s no escape if you are human.

As if Clintonistas were in the Access Hollywood bus back then. Waving guerilla cue cards at the defenseless Donald: ACT LIKE AN ASS. And SAY PUSSY LADIES LOVE THAT. Of course the candidate obliged, because he’s wired in a certain way, and he’s like all of us, only human, born to maaake mistaaaakes. Or in scientific terms: Cha-ching! persuasion, bitch.

I can’t change anyone’s mind if they see Trump as a monster. So instead I will make you a promise.

Scott made a case long ago that Trump is a 98% lock for the presidency, but the number has since shrunk about tenfold. He’s made little headway convincing America to go for his candidate. So now he’s going to try something different. Will you take him at his word?

My promise: If Trump gets elected, and he does anything that looks even slightly Hitler-ish in office, I will join the resistance movement and help kill him.

Vote Trump now, and Scott will assassinate him later.

Alright. I’m listening.

That’s an easy promise to make, and I hope my fellow citizens would use their Second Amendment rights to rise up and help me kill any Hitler-type person who rose to the top job in this country, no matter who it is.

OH, you nearly had me there. But getting somebody else to do your dirty work is a deal killer. If you’d been man enough to promise to blow Trump’s brains out, that would have been one thing. But hiding in the back of a pack of gun nuts and then ducking into a Starbucks at the first chance does not persuade me of the size of your balls. Which would have to be steely, and sizable, indeed, for me to vote for sex criminal Donald Trump. But you know. Nice try, cartoon boy.


And Scott Adams weighs in

Apparently Scott Adams, scribbler of master comic Dilbert, should be taken seriously because he has been a certified genius for years. And years are long, you know?

It is not unlikely or unreasonable that a natural national wonder should have his own blog and comment freely upon things that you don’t really understand but that you might, given his help. Here’s a little something for you to think about, meaning don’t really think about it and just kind of… you know hmmmm. You probably never ever thought about “persuasion” before, so here:

I’ll start by reminding readers that my politics don’t align with any of the candidates. My interest in the race has been limited to Trump’s extraordinary persuasion skills. But lately Hillary Clinton has moved into the persuasion game – and away from boring facts and policies – with great success. Let’s talk about that.

This past week we saw Clinton pair the idea of President Trump with nuclear disaster, racism, Hitler, the Holocaust, and whatever else makes you tremble in fear.

That is good persuasion if you can pull it off because fear is a strong motivator.

This is a little bit odd as Scott doesn’t seem to care about either side. I mean, Trump and Clinton are fairly far apart in their beliefs and values, you know? He’s just providing analysis. OH I forgot, GENIUS. Right, right…

Her new scare tactics are solid-gold persuasion. I wouldn’t be surprised if you see Clinton’s numbers versus Trump improve in June, at least temporarily, until Trump finds a counter-move…

Well, it seems Hillary has trumped Trump in the continental persuasing derby. Scott is the first to congratulate her for the verbal ju-jitsu. Certain words were used by the New York loudmouth but then OTHER WORDS were used by the former First Lady. Take that Twitter Einstein, rust covered billionaire. I’m as good as you at whatever you call this, public crapfest. And this depressing thing has been brought to you by Scott Adams, opinionator of notable intelligence.

Fair enough.

The only downside I can see to the new approach is that it is likely to trigger a race war in the United States. And I would be a top-ten assassination target in that scenario because once you define Trump as Hitler, you also give citizens moral permission to kill him.

Umm blurg? Jews kill what?

And obviously it would be okay to kill anyone who actively supports a genocidal dictator, including anyone who wrote about his persuasion skills in positive terms.

We think you’re a Holocaust guy now? Because a presidential campaign?

So I’ve decided to endorse Hillary Clinton for President, for my personal safety… I have no psychic powers and I don’t know which candidate would be the best president. But I do know which outcome is most likely to get me killed by my fellow citizens. So for safety reason, I’m on team Clinton.

Oh no. Precious has gotten his feewings hurt. Black Lives Matters protestors have been beaten repeatedly at Trump rallies while the candidate pined for the days we could lynch such uppity people, but Hillary Clinton just insulted Donald Trump! You hear that? MADE A POINT OF SAYING HE’S A RACIST. Ha ha ho ho so I can’t vote for Hitler. Well, dip me in Zyklon B.


Scott Adams is oh so clever

The last time I read the august opinions of Dilbert toon artist Scott Adams, I understood him to be a hectoring misogynist given to self-admiration. He sounded pretty much like a twin of your local Lamborghini-renting B-movie producer. Here was his advice to us men with regards to how to deal with women:

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.

So he is a powerful but charitable sort. He once donned a sockpuppet to tell the internet he had a “certified genius I.Q., and that’s hard to hide.” He got caught, so I guess he was right. He is a douche. But what a shame it would be not to know the personal opinions of the wide-ranging intellectual leviathan, Scott Adams.

Yesterday Three Panel Godzilla wrote a sort of Rube Goldberg contraption, then he posted it on the internet. It’s an ethical/political hypothetical so byzantine you’d likely get halfway through then call the Coast Guard to get you out. Buddha help you should you try to tackle Scott’s quandry without being blessed with, say, Bobby Fischer’s eyes.

Here it is below. But know this. My blog is a standard model, meaning you’ll be on your own. You won’t find a dictionary or GPS or fire extinguisher anywhere within your grasp. Good luck.

The next question is for supporters of President Obama. Let’s say your political views map closely to the President’s positions. He’s your guy. But suppose you found out he once killed an American citizen in the United States to help his reelection. And assume, as with the CEO example, that the facts of the killing are undisputed and the President found a legal means to avoid prosecution. In that hypothetical case, would you still vote for President Obama? Or would you say it is a firing offense for a President to kill a citizen to advance his career?

Put him in jail. Darn I jumped the gun, sshhh.

I predict that every one of you favored firing the hypothetical CEO for killing a guy to get ahead. My second prediction is that every Republican reader of this blog favored firing President Obama in the hypothetical and imaginary case of him murdering a citizen to get elected. My third prediction is that supporters of President Obama will quibble with the hypothetical example, or my comparison to the CEO, or say President Obama is still a better option than Romney. In other words, for most supporters of President Obama, I don’t think there is such a thing as a “firing offense.”

Prediction 1: You’re wrong. There are lunatics that think a guy like that, especially if he’s gotten away with homicide, is awesome. They give him the keys to Goldman Sachs, and they want a thousand shares. Prediction 2: You’re right. But that has nothing to do with the crime. They’d shoot the President if he so much as walked into town without the Secret Service. Prediction 3: You’re wrong. I can’t explain this one to you because you’re too damn smart.

For the record, President Obama did not technically kill anyone to get elected. That was just a hypothetical example. But he is putting an American citizen in jail for 10 years to life for operating medical marijuana dispensaries in California where it is legal under state law. And I assume the President – who has a well-documented history of extensive marijuana use in his youth – is clamping down on California dispensaries for political reasons, i.e. to get reelected. What other reason could there be?

Maybe he’s trying to fire up his base? Abolitionists and World War II veterans? The President’s oath to protect the Constitution could be relevant as well. Anyway, Scott the cartoon Zeus has decided he must vote for Mitt Romney, as Mitt is the answer. By all means, let’s welcome Mitt to the White House. And let’s then watch his DEA crank up the Fourth Amendment violations. I don’t know, really, would a Republican do that? Knock down your doors just to search for your stash? Scott is fucking Einstein.


Dilbert’s Scott Adams: getting worse and worse

Dilbert’s creator and libertarian ink-bag, Scott Adams, mounts a campaign for most-hated internet denizen. We come to terms with his ‘Dilbert’ without saying much. But we note the Misogyny of His March, where women were slap-worthy toddlers, or something:

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.

Then there was the Appreciation of His April, where he took to message boards to socketpuppet-ly masturbate himself:

3. Can he repeat his success with Dilbert? He already turned a failing comic into a household word by transforming it from a generic comic into a workplace comic. He wrote a number of best selling books. He was one of the top paid public speakers for a decade. His website has earned him millions while no other comic property has done the same. One of his two restaurants was solidly successful. And now he’s one of the most popular writers in the Wall Street Journal. You can argue that all of his successes spring from his one lucky success with Dilbert, but I would argue that all entrepreneurs leverage whatever advantages they start with, whether that is technical knowledge, contacts, or whatever.

4. As far as Adams’ ego goes, maybe you don’t understand what a writer does for a living. No one writes unless he believes that what he writes will be interesting to someone. Everyone on this page is talking about him, researching him, and obsessing about him. His job is to be interesting, not loved. As someone mentioned, he has a certified genius I.Q., and that’s hard to hide.

Now comes the Justification of His June, where we men are all turgid, pegged rapists in a world full of annoyingly defenseless and geometrically displeasing holes:

If you have a round peg that doesn’t fit in a square hole, do you blame the peg or the hole? You probably blame neither. We don’t assign blame to inanimate objects . .

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”?

Here’s where I impress you with my commentary: Wow.