It's like watching a man shout, "no, make the noose tighter."

[yendi]

Yes, Scott Adams really did say, "If a man you barely know wants to have sex with you, and you'd rather not, you can't both be winners."

I'm astounded by his ever-evolving (devolving?) levels of stupidity and obnoxiousness over the last few months. If I didn't know better, I'd suggest that as his comic becomes less funny and relevant, he's relying on trolling for hits, but nothing else he's done implies he's smart or cunning enough to do this.

Comments

[audacian.livejournal.com]

Jesus take the wheel and run him over.

[shadesong.livejournal.com]

At what point do we shoot Scott Adams in the head for the good of all mankind? Because I feel like we're there.

[cucumberseed.livejournal.com]

Second'd

[radiumhead.livejournal.com]

We shouldve done that before all of this. Just for Dilbert.

[jeff-morris.livejournal.com]

When did Dave Sim become Scott Adams?

I mean...SHEESH...

[thegreatjohnzo.livejournal.com]

I was totally thinking this earlier today when I passed by a copy of Cerebus at the comic store.

[nounsandverbs]

I'm sorry, I didn't understand your post. Can you put it in bullet-point form?

Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick. Calling the man an asshole is an insult to assholes.

[radiumhead.livejournal.com]

Rape's only funny if you put it in the right context.

Like if you said "i was raped by centaurs, on the moon."

That shit would be funny.

Scott Adams isnt funny.

[robyn-ma.livejournal.com]

As I said to 'song, he seems like he's trying to argue from a deep-thinkin' devil's-advocate position, but he just comes across as Dave Sim Jr. Sim at least threw his reputation into his rants and made it clear he wasn't 'just kidding' or 'just throwing ideas out there' -- he really believed it and wasn't shy about saying so, and as batshit as he is, I respect his honesty -- you know what you're getting with him. Adams wants to have it both ways, and then blames everyone else for not understanding his awesome logic.

[arielstarshadow.livejournal.com]

So, sitting here in the doc's office after my allergy shot and reading on my phone, and my reaction to this went like this...

o.o

O.o

O.O

How the hell does anyone think that's something that should come out of their mouth?

[cscottd.livejournal.com]

It seems like every time he tries to "explain" that what he said somehow doesn't actually mean what we think it does, he adds something new that's at least as outrageous as his earlier statement(s).

*boggle*

[haikujaguar.livejournal.com]

I admit I don't understand the problem with the statement.

Person A wants sex.

Person B doesn't want sex.

If there is sex, Person B doesn't get what they want. If there is no sex, Person A doesn't get what they want. So from that perspective, someone does lose no matter what the outcome, in the sense that someone doesn't get what they want. So why is that statement so objectionable? It seems to me to be logical.

[yendi]

It comes down to the idea of presenting it as a zero-sum game, as well as the idea that "win" and "lose" have the same meanings for each person. If person A wants sex and person B doesn't, and there's no sex, person A will be disappointed, but did not "lose," because it's not a game. Likewise, if person A forces themselves on person B, person A isn't a "winner;" they're a rapist.

In other words, it casts a false scenario on real-life interactions that equates rape with getting turned down for sex, and implies that each is equally harmful.

(I want to unpack this some more, but am in a rush, and didn't want to let the comment slide by completely.)

[haikujaguar.livejournal.com]

Okay. There's a poster who said at some point that the reason people were so upset was that he was writing about something very specific (sex and societal rules that govern it) and people were thinking he meant something very general. I can see that point. And I think the issue is more complicated than "it's not a zero-sum game." I think the real answer is "it's both a zero-sum game and not a game at all." Which is painful and confusing and causes all sorts of conflict, but it feels more true than coming down no one side or the other.

Because really, for some people, it is a zero-sum game. They've just learned to mask it for politeness's sake.

I admit the whole uproar about the post confused me. To me the things he said were very interesting. I wasn't sure what I agreed with and what I didn't, but I did feel there were ideas there worth discussing. Some of them were objectionable, but some of them felt true.

I often find Scott Adams rather disturbing; he feels a little sociopathic to me in the way he is more interested in ideas than people, and how he presents his ideas and how he reacts to things. But he often says such interesting and far out things that I continue to read him, just because I like having to think about what he says, and why people might agree with him, or not.

[nishar.livejournal.com]

When did he start trying to be the new Carlos Mencia?