We would see exactly what people in the US have been dealing with for 10 years. Everybody would wring their hands and say "unbelievable!" and then nobody with the actual capability to do anything about it actually does.
The entire world is just rooting for Father Time on this particular problem.
If the US actually did invade Greenland it would mean the end of US Europe trade and cooperation as we know it and the end of NATO (and likely UN). China would suddenly be the main trading partner, also in military equipment. It would be the end of US as it is today.
Honestly I think he's right. This is all for one man's vanity and the Republicans are fine with letting him do whatever he wants as long it means they get their policy wins and, more importantly, he doesn't post something nasty about them on Truth Social.
There are a lot of problems with age verification schemes, but you are doing your position a disservice by suggesting that anybody that doesn't want their kid to be bullied on Snapchat is actually just a puppet of fascist regimes trying to stifle political speech.
You should learn to appreciate the nuance of opinions that differ from your own if you actually want to, you know, convince anyone of anything.
>anybody that doesn't want their kid to be bullied on Snapchat is actually just a puppet of fascist regimes trying to stifle political speech.
They are fascists if they want to prevent everybody else's kids using social media just because they're too shitty parents to teach their own kids that sticks and stones may break my bones but names can never hurt me.
The entire arc of Scott Adams is a cautionary tale.
To go from a brilliant satirist to becoming terminally online and just completely falling off the far right cliffs of insanity is incredibly sad. And unfortunately, this is plight is not uncommon. It is incredibly dangerous to make politics part of your identity and then just absolutely bathe yourself in a political media echo chamber.
> just absolutely bathe yourself in a political media echo chamber.
It seems to me that social media belongs in the same "vice" category as drinking, drugs, and gambling: lots of people can "enjoy responsibly", some make a mess but pull back when they see it, and some completely ruin their lives by doubling down.
The danger is those three are usually done in social situations where others can "pull you back" - which is why online gambling and drinking/drugs alone can get so bad so fast.
Social media has nobody to pull you back, you just get sucked in to the whirlpool.
Social drinking and smoking can also pull you forward. What pulls you back is having something else to do (in other words a greater life to go back to), and that is why behavior problems fit in to a larger picture of a not-having-anything-to-do crisis, which is referred to in the media as a mental health crisis, a loneliness crisis, alienation of labor, or anything that involves the natural cycles regulating normal human behavior (socializing, working to make stuff, having balanced views) being interrupted.
Absolutely. Social media is designed to elicit a constant stream of dopamine hits, prey on our need for social validation, keep the amygdala engaged, stoke conflict, and bolster whatever beliefs we carry (no matter how deranged). It’s the ultimate distortion machine and is wildly dangerous, particularly for individuals who struggle to keep it at arm’s distance and fail to equip mental PPE prior to usage.
I don't think it's by design. I think it is by its nature.
Most people crave social interaction, and when others engage with them it triggers that dopamine hit. As you say, we all have need for social validation. Even HN has that effect, and it's not engineered to elicit it as far as I know.
Even USENET had that pull, and people would waste hours on it, engage in flamewars, etc.
Now platforms like TikTok and Instagram might optimize for it but even if they didn't, they would have that addictive quality.
I don't think there's any way to do social media that would avoid this.
The effect is much stronger than it has to be due to how these services have been optimized for increasing engagement at the cost of all else.
In more traditional places of online discussion, things like flamebait is at minimum penalized and often deleted. Posters with strong tendency towards incivility and outright falsehoods get banned. Participating with one’s lizard brain at the wheel is strongly discouraged.
There’s no reason why that can’t be true of social media, too. It could be tuned to elevate content that doesn’t pull people into a degenerative cycle, but that’s not nearly as profitable and so it’s not.
Both X and Meta have at various points in time hired addiction medicine specialists. They weren't hired to decrease user attention to their properties.
I read the Dilbert Principle when I was young, but still old enough to appreciate a lot of its humor. Later, when I discovered Scott was online and had a blog, I couldn't believe it was the same person. To me, the Scott Adams of comic strip fame had already died many years ago.
Just watching it now (and what a house it is). There's a TV in almost every room, and Fox News is on each of them. He says: "Yes, it is the same station on every television, because that's how the system is designed. It's designed so it'll play the same station all over the house. It happens to be Fox News, but I do flip around. It's not nailed on Fox News, in case you're wondering."
I would normally let this comment pass, but the vital importance of the topic we are discussing creates a moral imperative for me to respond. Given that "whether or not pot with a lid with holes for draining pasta" counts as a colander is not a fact subject to temporal variance, when you "owned 3 colanders" then we are left with 2 possibilities at the time of your original comment:
1. A "pot with a lid with holes in it" counts as a colander:
Given P pots with drainage lids and C "typical colanders" in your household, P+C = 3 (which is the same as in my household, and thus a tie)
2. A "pot with a lid with holes in it" does not count as a colander:
C = 3 (P+C >=3, but is irrelevant to the discussion). This is larger than the two colanders in my household so you win.
Therefore, your more recent comment indicates that you purchased something that would qualify as a colander under situation #1 (either a typical colander, or pot with drainage in the lid) in the roughly 10 hours between your two comments. May I ask what sort of colander it was?
Excellent analysis, except that’s it’s based on a misinterpretation of what I’m saying. I’m saying that I wasn’t counting pots with holes in the lids, but if we expand the definition to include them, then my count increases to 4.
Don't forget his claim that master hypnotists are using camgirls to give him super-orgasms to steal his money. He was a nutter in more ways than just his politics.
> In other news, for several years I have been tracking a Master Wizard that I believe lives in Southern California. It seems he has trained a small army of attractive women in his method. The women create a specialized style of porn video clips that literally hypnotize the viewer to magnify the orgasm experience beyond anything you probably imagine is possible. Hypnosis has a super-strong impact on about 20% of people. And a lesser-but-strong impact on most of the rest.
> Once a customer is hooked, the girls use powerful (and real) hypnosis tools to connect the viewer’s enjoyable experience (a super-orgasm, or several) to the viewer’s act of giving them money, either directly or by buying more clips. Eventually the regular viewers are reprogrammed to get their sexual thrill by the act of donating money to the girls in the videos. There are lots of variations tied to each type of sexual kink, but that’s the general idea.
> My best guess is that 10% of the traffic that flows through their business model literally cannot leave until they have no money left. The Master Wizard is that good. The women are well-coached in his methods.
What makes it cautionary? From what I can tell, he hardly suffered from what you described. I'm not saying that I agree with everything that came out of Scott's mouth, but I never saw a sign of regret in him in regards to politics.
Well on the health side, he might not quite be Steve Jobs level, but he spent months taking complete nonsense "treatments" where his medical condition (predictably) worsened dramatically. That part's certainly a cautionary tale.
Sure, though I'm not sure why that matters as I am pretty sure we all have some sort of cautionary tale in our lives the further back you dig.
I don't agree that this is a clear-cut example of a cautionary tale. I think for most people it can be a cautionary tale since it's common to chase things that promise hope in a desperate situation. We also shouldn't dismiss that someone can weigh the risks and take a gamble on something working out. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong or stupid for someone trying something conventional even if it backfires.
It's important to try and see this from Scott's perspective. According to him, he had his use of his vocal cords restored by a treatment that was highly experimental and during a time when all the official information said there was no treatment. If we are to believe his words, it worked out for him once, so it makes sense that he would decide to try things that are unconventional when his entire life was at stake.
> If we are to believe his words, it worked out for him once, so it makes sense that he would decide to try things that are unconventional when his entire life was at stake.
In general this is not true, for example if you win the lottery the correct path is not normally to spend all of your money on more lottery tickets.
There are definitely other valid reasons to take unconventional paths though.
Oh yeah, I'm not necessarily saying that it's logically sound, but I do think it's at least understandable. The reason I think that's important is that it's a very human way to respond to experience and especially desperation, thus I find it tremendously unfair that people shit on Scott for that. But maybe this is my bias towards people who are unconventional in their thinking (sans flat-earth and so forth).
On [2] he said that natural immunity from getting covid-19 is better than getting the vaccine alone, which is factually correct, as many studies demonstrated (note: may vary by strains, but was particularly the case in 2021/2022). There's nothing crazy about this, and it's very reasonable to say you prefer to evaluate the risk/benefit and take the vaccine accordingly, instead of mandating this for every demographic.
People tend to fall back on tribalism and slap labels on others instead of engaging with nuance or complexity.
> On [2] he said that natural immunity from getting covid-19 is better than getting the vaccine alone,
He was more on the anti vax side than this statement implies, at least that was my take away from the [2] article:
> For unvaccinated people who got COVID-19 and recovered, he said, "Now you’ve got natural immunity and you’ve got no vaccination in you. Can we all agree that that was the winning path?"
[a]
> better than getting the vaccine alone, which is factually correct
You are not giving a metric here so I can not tell why you think it is better. Everything I have read indicates there are more risks, death or long term complications, with covid-19 exposure before vaccination than the other way around. The conclusion of [2] is similar to this.
The original Scott Adam's post not longer exists, is there another place where he recorded why he believed contacting covid-19 before vaccination was the winning path? Without that the quotes look damning against his view point.
Apparently politifact reached out for comment and did not get any:
> We sent emails to an address listed on Adams’ website and at Dilbert.com and an address on his Facebook page. We didn’t get a reply.
Several 2021–2022 studies, especially Delta-focused, suggested natural immunity provided robust or superior protection against reinfection compared to two-dose vaccination alone.
I read the abstract and conclusion of all three, none of them talk about natural immunity with no vaccination being the "winning path" like Scott Adams did. None of them talk about getting covid before getting vaccinated(maybe only optionally) as a better or safer path, not in the abstract or conclusions at least.
[1] essentially says that there is no value for people who got infected by SARS CoV-2 to get vaccinated:
"our findings suggest that once an individual has fully recovered from initial infection, prior SARS CoV-2 infection protects against subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection and its related negative outcomes. Moreover, the level of effectiveness seemed similar in both the recovered and fully vaccinated cohorts. With a paucity of vaccine doses, this should be one of several aspects that should be considered when deciding whether or not to prioritize vaccination of previously infected adults."
None of that is advise to not take the vaccine and try for natural immunity before getting a vaccination.
In fact the advise here is conditional on "a paucity of vaccine doses" so they may(not clear one way or the other from your quote) recommend vaccines for people who have natural immunity if there were enough vaccines to go around.
"All of the included studies found at least statistical equivalence between the protection of full vaccination and natural immunity; and, three studies found superiority of natural immunity."
> "The anti-vaxxers clearly are the winners at this point, and I think it would probably stay that way," Adams is seen saying in a video clip posted on Instagram. "And I don’t want to put any shade on that, whatsoever; they came out the best."
Please actually read the linked article instead of creating some false narrative about people falling back into tribalism. Additionally, his claim from his quote is predicated on ignoring the fact that someone who has natural immunity from past exposure didn't die. It also overlooks those who may suffer long term side effects from the virus that a vaccine would help avoid.
I don't recall where (Vic Berger?), but someone made a compilation of "regret" clips from Trump influencers (Alex Jones and others, and Scott Adams). This was in the circa January 6 days, where humiliation reigned, and they all felt betrayed because "RINOs" dominated Trump's term, "the deep state" was still standing, and he accomplished nothing of note. It's been memory-holed since then but that was the dominant mood back then (they blamed his mediocrity on "bad staffing", which later led to Project 2025).
Well Scott Adams was in there, venting (in a video) that his life had basically been ruined by his support for Trump, that he'd lost most of his friends and wealth due to it, and that he felt betrayed and felt like a moron for trusting him since it wasn't even worth it. Nothing had changed and the country wasn't "saved".
This video is so badly edited that it’s really difficult to figure out what he’s actually saying. It’s obviously cut to portray some kind of regret, but for example what does “he left me on the table” even mean? Who? How?
Sorry, as other commenter points out, the editing is only “bad” in a specific context. It’s brilliant for purposes of comedy and mockery. It’s definitely not good for purposes of understanding what Adams really thought.
Edit: and for what it’s worth, I have no idea who “Berger” is or that/if they edited that Vice video.
It’s edited well for its purpose, perhaps; it is not edited well for the purpose of understanding the context and intent of the Scott Adams quote being discussed, which is very much not its purpose. From the perspective of someone trying to understand the evolution of Adams’ views, it is badly edited, which is different than saying Berger is a bad editor, or even that it is badly edited from any other perspective.
Well okay, if you could find this compilation then I'd be interested. That really doesn't sound like the Scott Adams I've seen over the course of the last decade.
I’d be interested in seeing this. Not to doubt you, but I suspect a more accurate characterization is not “my life was ruined by my support for Trump” but rather “look what being right about everything gets you in a world of trump haters.”
> Nothing had changed and the country wasn't "saved".
Let's be precise and remove those scare quotes.
In 2015/2016 Trump was literally talking about saving U.S. critical infrastructure:
1. Promising to fulfill a trillion dollar U.S. infrastructure campaign pledge to repair crumbling infrastructure[1]
2. Putting Daniel Slane on the transition team to start the process to draft said trillion dollar infrastructure bill[2]
By 2017 that plan was tabled.
If anyone can find it, I'd love to see Slane's powerpoint and cross-reference his 50 critical projects against what ended up making it into Biden's Inflation Reduction Act.
Infrastructure Week was literally a running joke throughout Trump's first term because his staff would start by hyping up some substantive policy changes they wanted to pass, only for it to be completely derailed by yet another ridiculous/stupid/corrupt/insane thing Trump or one of his top people did.
Clearly Trump himself has no interest in these sorts of substantive projects, I mean just look at his second term. He has even less interest in policy this time around and isn't even pretending to push for infrastructure or similar legislation.
My point is he made these claims on the campaign trail, which I cited; he had a real domain expert on his team, which I cited; and it became evident even a year in that his administration wouldn't deliver on that plan according to his own domain expert.
That's a fairly standard case of an ineffective politician casually jettisoning campaign promises once he's in office. And he jettisoned them because he couldn't sell the Republicans on a trillion dollar infrastructure package.
I have a two famous friends in the television industry. It seems they fall into the trap that since they produce popular TV shows that they then can think they know every thing about everything else, mostly because of the people that surround them want to stay friends so they can be associated with the fame. I think this is the trap Adams fell into as well. Whether that was with his knowledge or ignorance I do not know.
I do not let my friends get away with them thinking they are experts on everything.
Adams turned his fame of Dilbert into his fame for saying things online. I mean he even started a food company! Anyone remember the "Dilberito"??? Seems he was always just looking for more ways to make money. And reading his books it sounded like he wanted to get rid of religions.
So he was human, just like the rest of us. And he died desperate and clutching to life, leveraging whatever power he had to try to save it from who ever he could.
The online world breeds extremism. It wasn't too long ago criticizing someone on their obituary was considered classless. This is the world we have made.
Well, if you think of person as a bunch of ideas, maybe with a mind attached, then by attacking a dead person you're attacking a bunch of vulnerable ideas that no longer have a mind to defend them. You can still call it a person, if you like.
Completely agree. If you're motivated enough about a topic to post about it online, you're probably emotional about it and unable to see it in a clear-headed manner.
The people I know who have the most reasonable political opinions never post about it online. The people who have developed unhealthy and biased obsessions are the ones who post constantly.
> If you're motivated enough about a topic to post about it online, you're probably emotional about it and unable to see it in a clear-headed manner.
> The people I know who have the most reasonable political opinions never post about it online.
And here you are posting your opinions online! How fascinating. I hope you recognize the extreme irony in the fact that you were motivated enough about this topic to post about it.
Unwillingness to engage with others breeds extremism. There are many who are silenced if they do not fit into the social dogma. Those people eventually lose it if they can't find a productive outlet.
And why did he say that? And what was the end result of him posting that?
You should add context so people know that Kaiser was delaying his treatment, Trump's team got Kaiser in gear so that he could receive it (Trump did indeed help him). Now imagine any other non-famous person with Stage IV cancer trying to get treatment without the help of a president.
When I was young I didn't understand meaning of the words "do not bear false witness" and it was explained to me as "do not lie". As I've gotten older and now understand the words better, the much broader category of "do not bear false witness" seems like the better precept. Spreading false witness, even if sincere, has great harm.
Actually it’s more accurate to say Scott was always a far right troll and provocateur, but at some point he fell down a racist rabbit-hole. The book “The Trouble with Dilbert: How Corporate Culture Gets the Last Laugh” shows how Scott Adams never cared about the plight of workers in the first place, using his own words. It was way ahead of its time, as the angry reviews from 1998 and 2000, back in Dilbert’s heyday, demonstrate.
I say this as someone who used to really enjoy Dilbert, but looking back with a critical eye, it’s easy to see an artist who deliberately avoids bringing up topics that might actually do something to improve corporate culture.
Scott Adams’s boss at Pacbell in 1985 was (still) an SVP (and my boss) at AT&T in 2012.
There was always a buzz and a whisper whenever someone was frustrated: “SHE’s the boss who inspired Dilbert.”
Internally there was a saying that ATT stands for “Ask The Tentacles.”
I haven’t really read the “funnies” since I was a kid but the few Dilbert comics I ever did read NAILED her org.
I will never forget being paged 1,000 times a night - not even kidding — or having my boss demand I “check sendmail” every time anything and I mean anything went down. Voice? Data? CALEA tunnels? IPTV? Fax? No, I can’t go immediately investigate the actual issue, I have to go into some crusty Solaris boxes the company forgot about 11 years ago and humor some dinosaur with three mansions who probably also directly inspired the Peter Principle in 1969 and are still working there.
You’ll get no argument from me. Dilbert did accurately skewer corporate culture. But what was its solution? Unstated, but omnipresent, was that workers and bosses just needed to be more efficient. Not a whisper of unionization or anything that might threaten profits. This was a deliberate choice by Adams and he proudly bragged about it in interviews.
As a product manager in the computer industry from the mid 80s into the 90s, Dilbert really resonated with me as satire--except, as you say, when it was barely satire. Not so much except for occasional later strips that really nailed some specific thing.
I do not know about anybody else, but I do not read comics, watch movies, listen to music, or read books [for pleasure] in order to learn a lesson, learn how to "improve corporate culture", or anything else. Entertainment is, for me, 100% escapist. I indulge in entertainment as a brief escape from reality. If Dilbert had been preachy, which A LOT of comics seem to be these days, I would not have enjoyed it.
Eh. I don't think Notch can really self-destruct. Was made a billionaire with the sale of Mojang to Microsoft. People may not like him, but I don't think it can ever truly affect him.
Many, many commenters here are themselves bathed in a political media echo chamber, just a different one. Ironic, isn't it?
If you treat your political opponents as 'insane' instead of trying to understand what moves them, it says more about you than about people you consider insane.
When I was a lot younger I thought the comic strip was funny but I read a review of it circa 2005 which pointed out it was dangerously cynical and that Dilbert is to blame for his shit life because he goes along with it all. That is, if you care about doing good work, finding meaning in your work, you would reject everything he stands for.
It's tragedy instead comedy and it doesn't matter if you see it through the lens of Karl Marx ("he doesn't challenge the power structure") or through the lens of Tom Peters or James Collins ("search for excellence in the current system")
I mean, there is this social contagion aspect of comedy, you might think it is funny because it it is in a frame where it is supposed to be funny or because other people are laughing. But the wider context is that 4-koma [1] have been dead in the US since at least the 1980s, our culture is not at all competitive or meritocratic and as long we still have Peanuts and Family Circle we are never going to have a Bocchi the Rock. Young people are turning to Japanese pop culture because in Japan quirky individuals can write a light novel or low-budget video game that can become a multi-billion dollar franchise and the doors are just not open for that here, at all.
Thus, Scott Adams, who won the lottery with his comic that rejects the idea of excellence doesn't have any moral basis to talk about corporate DEI and how it fails us all. I think he did have some insights into the spell that Trump casts over people, and it's a hard thing to talk about in a way that people will accept. What people would laugh at when it was framed as fiction didn't seem funny at all when it was presented as fact.
This progressive movement is absolutely totalitarian.
As long as you adhere to all mainstream tenets, you're good and virtuous, like pre-2018 JK Rowling. Gay Dumbledore, yay!
But if the mainstream tenets change, and some previously loyal followers disagree with some of them, they should be ostracised, cancelled and vilified, like post-2019 JK Rowling.
The funny thing is that this is what real fascists and communists did to a T, yet, progressive people view themselves as anti-fascists.
She's still convinced that woman boxer is secretly trans.
Or how the primary concern TERFs like her have is that men will dress up as women to rape them in the women's room, instead of what they do now, which is rape women including in places that are women's rooms.
It's fascinating (in a horrid way) what they consider important.
It's also fascinating how the person who wrote "Fight Fascists as a teenager" thinks is really important we eliminate a tiny subset of people from the population.
Are you referring to Imane Khelif? The allegation is not that she is transgender, but that she is male. And based on what is publicly known now, this almost certainly true. JK Rowling was right.
(There is a bit of confusion around this topic, due to how different groups use the term transgender. Gender activists generally use transgender to mean anyone who identifies as a different gender than the one assigned at birth; laypeople tend to use the term to mean any person who identifies as a different gender than their sex at birth. The difference matters in cases where a biological male is assigned female at birth [or vice versa], as is likely the case for Imane Khelif: in that case, gender activists would consider Khelif intersex but not transgender, since her gender identity as a woman matches her gender assigned at birth, despite the fact that she is biologically male.)
To recap for those who have not been following along: Imane Khelif is an Algerian boxer who was assigned female at birth and raised as a girl. She was disqualified from the female division by the International Boxing Association (IBA) after failing two gender verification tests, performed in Turkey and India. The IBA has ties to Russia, and amidst sanctions against Russia following the invasion of Ukraine, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) cut ties with the IBA, and no longer recognized their eligibility judgments. Since the IOC does not perform sex tests of their own, Khelif was allowed to compete and win gold in the women's division at the 2024 Olympics.
The argument that the IBA was lying about the sex tests was always quite weak, since it's not clear what the motivation would be: Algeria has traditionally been an ally of Russia rather than the West.
But the confirmation that the IBA was right came in 2025, when Imane Khelif refused to take the sex test required to participate in the 2025 world championships. Those were held in the UK and organized by World Boxing, an American organization that is also recognized by the IOC. They also required participants to undergo a sex test (specifically, a noninvasive PCR test to detect presence of the Y chromosone) performed either by the home country or the UK, so no corrupt Russians in the loop. If Khelif was in fact female, this would be the perfect opportunity for her to clear her name and prove to the world once and for all that she was not a male.
Of course, the opposite happened. She refused to take the test, and instead filed a lawsuit, claiming that it was unfair that she was required to undergo sex testing (even though all women had to undergo the same simple PCR test) and demanding that she be allowed to participate without a sex test. Her appeal was denied.
To any reasonable person this should prove with nigh-certainty that Khelif is male. Exactly as J.K. Rowling asserted based on the more limited evidence available in 2024.
> It's fascinating (in a horrid way) what they consider important.
It's fascinating (in a horrid way) how gender ideologues are willing to distort and deny reality. Truly Orwellian stuff.
And as to importance: this cuts both ways. Why is it so important for gender activists to allow males with DSDs to compete against biological women?
This question is usually asked in bad faith, but I'll bite.
Gender ideologues or genderists believe that whether someone is a man or a woman is determined primarily by that person's gender self-identification ("A woman is anyone who identifies as a woman").
This in contrast with the classic belief, held by radical feminists, J. K. Rowling, and many others, that whether someone is a man or a woman is determined primarily by the physical attributes of their bodies related to biological sex (genetics, hormones, gonads, etc.)
As well as making the claim that woman and men are merely identities, most genderists also rely on sexist stereotyping to support this belief.
Such as, displaying a photograph of a man wearing makeup, styling his hair long and wearing attire more typically worn by female people, and asking incredulously, "so are you saying she isn't a woman?!"
Or citing childhood memories recalled by men who call themselves women, of "playing with Barbies" and suchlike, supposedly on the basis that boys don't do that so they must be girls.
Genderism isn't just a ludicrous, reality-denying ideology, it's fundamentally sexist too.
When my everyday life is no longer impacted by politics, I'll be able to put it aside for a day, because I'll be able to ignore the impact politics has on me for that day.
But that's not the world we live in. It won't ever be the world we live in.
Not having a dog in this fight, what it really looks like to me is the “haters” started as people who respectfully acknowledged his greatness while also recognizing that there were aspects of him they didn’t like. The real hatred came out when people couldn’t handle this due to sharing a political identity with him.
Yes, it's an ATTEMPTED objective take (hamburglar) of a hot take (ryandvm).
I'm pointing out that the hot take was more provocative than the objective take was letting on. To me, objective means factual and facts can be determined independently,
e.g., if I were to show someone the language "recognizing aspects they didn't like" and ask "What was the preceding language?", then I'm guessing most people would assume something less personal than "falling off the cliffs of insanity".
I think maybe you’re reading too much into it. I’ll happily acknowledge that I’ve fallen off my own cliffs of insanity at times. It’s hyperbole, not an attack.
negzero7: Please explain how exactly "Blacks are a hate group" and "White people should stay the hell away from Black people" are well reasoned opinions without revealing that you're a bigoted racist sack of shit too.
I would imagine whoever wrote those 4 paragraphs has researched a lot more than I did about his political views. If someone with better sources went there and corrected any mistakes made previously, with referenced demonstrating it, the article would be much improved.
You don't need to have an opinion on everything. Clearly you don't care about this or you would spend the time watching some of his videos or reading his articles that expound on his "controversial" statements. It's ok to just say "I don't know" rather than thinking you're well informed because Wikipedia says so.
negzero7: Please explain how exactly "Blacks are a hate group" and "White people should stay the hell away from Black people" are well reasoned opinions without revealing that you're a bigoted racist sack of shit too.
It proves you're an intellectually dishonest troll when you have to attack wikipedia, while the actual thing that proves Adams was a bigoted racist sack of shit are HIS OWN WORDS, which you can not contest. And that makes you a bigoted racist sack of shit too, for attempting and spectacularly failing at such a dishonest reality denying argument.
No, his comments about race and supporting political groups that advertise oppression and hate have not and will not be simply categorized as a political view. There are universal truths and morals that do not change and simply saying we have different views does not excuse violating those.
I hope this isn't too off topic but one of the key underpinnings of, for lack of a better word, capital-D Democratic / liberal (/ leftist-ish?) ideology in the US is that there is not a universal truth governing reality. Watch any debate where "objective truth" gets brought up and more than half the time the response won't be disagreeing with that truth but that the entire idea of an objective, universal truth is faulty.
I think the issue isn't whether there's an "objective truth", but it's obvious that some things are truer than others. I often find that people who argue against objective truth are actually trying to push a viewpoint that has little to no evidence to support it whilst they also try to deny a different viewpoint which does happen to have some decent evidence.
A little. Broadly, the things that historical people considered "good" and "bad" are still considered "good" and "bad" today – discounting brief thousand-year fads (which largely boil down to how and whether to signal allegiance with particular ways of organising society).
> Do you eat factory farmed animals?
So you, too, understand that factory-farming animals is wrong – and that many people eat factory-farmed animals despite knowing that it's wrong, because very few people are paragons of moral virtue.
> Currently some leftist group is trying to justify Female Genital Mutilation.
You believe that leftist groups in some sense "should" be more moral than… I'm guessing the comparison is "rightist groups", perhaps the various contemporary fascist governments. But you've correctly pointed out that FGM is wrong, and that identifying with a contemporary political label or ideology does not automatically mean you're in the right.
I fail to understand why you think this is a gotcha. Your comment only functions as a gotcha if we all broadly agree on what's right and what's wrong.
What do you mean by "slavery"? The term has been applied to many practices over time. The more egregious forms (e.g. transatlantic slave trade) were justified by "well, they aren't really people, are they?"; tamer forms, like Roman slavery, were justified as institutions, as being a necessary component of the Correct Way to Organise Society. I don't think being enslaved has ever been considered a good thing (except by comparison with alternatives), although I'd be happy to learn of a counterexample. Likewise, being raped is not considered a good thing, except as far as it forms part of an Institution necessary for the Correct Way to Organise Society (e.g. a patriarchy). Each individual instance of rape is regrettable, even in rape culture.
Indeed, you will not even find people defending factory farming, except as far as they defend the institution, which is part of the status quo and therefore necessary for promulgating the status quo. (Usually something about "but farmers will have to change their practices!", as though farmers don't already change their practices so frequently that it's hard to do academic research on farming.) If you want to find something wrong that people will actually defend, in its own capacity, you need to consider examples like bloodsports… but just thinking about what people might say about the topic is no substitute for actually talking to them about it.
My girlfriend died of cancer. She was 30 years old and we had a toddler. No matter how rational you start, terminal cancer diagnosis throws much rationality out the window.
> No matter how rational you start, terminal cancer diagnosis throws much rationality out the window.
Doctors who get cancer typically stay level-headed. I wish society talked about death and mortality more often and openly, most people are ill-equiped to face it square on, and yet its the one thing that is truly universal. Humanity needs sex-ed, but for dying.
Use of passive voice doesn't help anyone grapple with one's mortality. I specifically meant in the context of contemplating our own mortality, and not that of others - which is closer to death porn and not death sex-ed (learning how to do it ourselves)
I would not. At some point this becomes agony, this is the reason I have a suicide plan in place for a long time alredy, despite being in perfect health.
It's not when you need it that you start googling around
So much this. They gave my mom an effectively unlimited supply of opiates when the time called for it, and we convinced her that it was perfectly OK and good to use them. One need not suffer without help, unless that happens to be personally important to them. Like, I can imagine religious objections, maybe, or perhaps an addict who wants to “go out clean” knowing that they beat the cravings. But if those don’t apply, pain meds are good and plentiful now.
I am truly sorry for your loss. That must’ve been a nightmare, and I can imagine someone exploring outside their usual lines in such a situation. I hope you and your child are well now.
Snark aside, he got his doctor's approval first and acknowledged it didn't work after. Also, it shows promise in oncology, but doesn't have mature studies. [0]
I don't know that I would call en vitro studies promising. Cancer would be long be a solved problem if even a tenth of the stuff that kills cancer cells in a petri dish was viable in humans.
Sure, there's a few. But 3 rodent studies isn't exactly enough evidence for a layperson to worry about, either. It's not even much of a signal for scientists in that area of research.
Ivermectin is pretty safe for people to use regardless of whether or not they have parasites, so sure, do the human RCTs. Maybe we'll get lucky and have another tool in our anti-cancer toolbox.
But trying to extrapolate out that it's reasonable for people to take it for cancer based on the current evidence is premature, at best.
They are a required step along the way to human trials.
But over 90% of drugs that show promise in rodents flunk out in human trials.
Something working in rodents is an indicator that it might be worth doing testing to see if it works and is safe for humans. But if you bet against it panning out, you'd still be right the overwhelming majority of the time.
The only thing you can project from rodent trial success is that it is worth continuing to study. It should not guide any human usage at that point.
No. It's still absurd to project human outcomes from rodent studies.
90-95% of them don't pan out! And that's of the ones that progress from rodent studies to human trials. The actual number is even higher, but more difficult to track.
Surely you can see how it would be absurd to extrapolate success from something with, at best, a 5-10% chance of panning out? And panning out as in being approved - lots of things that are approved have less than 100% success rate, particularly in this area.
During peak covid-19 I read a lot of ivermectin studies posted in HN. Most were just horrible, with obvious mistakes. If you pick one, I can give a try to roast it.
My personal quick rubric for determining if an ivermectin study showing improvement for cv19 outcomes is likely to be trustworthy:
Was the population being studied one where parasite infections that ivermectin can take care of are endemic?
Yes - improves outcomes in this population because many of them are likely to have parasites and killing them reduces strain on the body and frees up immune system resources to deal with covid
No - you'll find glaring flaws even in a quick once-over.
I remember a preprint. I think it was comparing the recorery rate of
a) Ivermectin in the best hospital in the capital city of one of our most poor provinces in Argentina
b) The average in the same poor province
I don't expect too many problems with parasites there. They implicitly decided that the difference was ivermectin, not that the hospital is probably x10 better than the average of the province.
Doble blind randomized controlled group or it didn't happen.
> Complete tumor regression was observed in 6/15 mice on the combination treatment, 1/20 on ivermectin alone, 1/10 on anti-PD1 antibody alone, and 0/25 on no treatment.
As I mentioned above (another comment), pharma tends to avoid developing applications for generic/cheap drugs so we may not see more research on this front. Who knows.
If there is a x5 improvement they will get a method to package both drugs together and sell them for x10 the price. You surely want a profesional mix in the high tech lab instead of a random guy mixing tubes in the back room. Another trick is to add something to the molecule like a methyl -CH3, show that the new version is 10% even better and charge x20 for it.
So my guess is that there is some problem to use this mix, but as I said I can't find any obvious error and it's really interesting. I'd love to read a better analysis from someone that is an expert in the area.
Scott did have a lot of really thoughtful articles, but its also true he become much less rational and much more identity based on his reasoning over the last 3-5 years.
Scott Adams said that Republicans would be hunted down and that there would be a good chance they would all be dead if Biden was elected and that the police would do nothing to stop it.
Dilbert was brilliant. Adams' political discourse after that became his primary schtick was quite frequently insane.
> In a 2006 blog post, Adams asked if official figures of the number of deaths in the Holocaust were based on methodologically sound research. In 2023, Adams suggested the 2017 Unite the Right rally was "an American intel op against Trump."
> After a 2022 mass shooting, Adams opined that society leaves parents of troubled teenage boys with only two options: to either watch people die or murder their own son
Maybe “insanity” is strong but I do not think anyone who holds beliefs like those is thinking straight. Toying with Holocaust denial is not simply “having different opinions to you”.
What did he mean when he said this well reasoned opinion?
“When a young male (let’s say 14 to 19) is a danger to himself and others, society gives the supporting family two options: 1. Watch people die. 2. Kill your own son. Those are your only options. I chose #1 and watched my stepson die. I was relieved he took no one else with him.”
“If you think there is a third choice, in which your wisdom and tough love, along with government services, ‘fixes’ that broken young man, you are living in a delusion. There are no other options. You have to either murder your own son or watch him die and maybe kill others.”
That’s surely from the calm rational mind of someone not filled with resentment and hate right?
Scott Adams also was a self-professed libertarian - he offered no prescription on what additional options society could provide to families of troubled kids.
Some context? What exactly happened with his son, and I assume he elaborated on what those two options mean, or what specifically they were in his case?
Advocating for physical oppression of broad groups and races is not a political view much as you want to normalize it. It’s the same reason all the right’s effort to lionize Charlie Kirk just won’t take, much to their chagrin.
This is not about disliking “different opinions” or refusing to hear opposing views. It is about a documented pattern of statements in which Adams moved from commentary into explicit endorsement of collective punishment, racialized generalizations, and norm breaking prescriptions that reject basic liberal principles.
Being “aware of both sides” means engaging evidence and counterarguments in good faith. Repeatedly dismissing data and framing entire groups as inherently hostile is not that. Calling this out is not echo chamber behavior, it is a substantive judgment based on what was actually said, not on ideological disagreement.
"In a 2006 blog post (which has since been deleted), Adams flirted with Holocaust denialism, questioning whether estimates of the number of people killed during the Holocaust are reliable [...] If he actually wanted to know where the figures come from, he could have looked on Wikipedia or used his Internet skills to Google it or even asked an expert as he once recommended"
"Just 3 hours after the 2019 Gilroy Garlic festival mass shooting, Adams attempted to profit off of it by trying to sign up witnesses for a cryptocurrency-based app that he co-founded called Whenhub.[58][59][60]"
"After being yanked from newspapers due to racism, Adams moved his operations to a subscription service on Locals. While Adams continued to create a "spicier" version of Dilbert "reborn" on that site, Adams' focus shifted towards "political content". His Locals subscription included several livestreams with "lots of politics" as well as a comic called Robots Reading News, with a little bit of alleged self-help media content as well.[73] His Twitter feed also increasingly focused on angry MAGA politics.[74]"
"Adams continued to believe Donald Trump's Big Lie and maintained that the 2020 U.S. presidential election was rigged. In March 2024, when Adams falsely suggested that US "election systems are not fully auditable and lots of stuff goes 'missing' the day after the election", the Republican Recorder of Maricopa County Stephen Richer explained that US elections actually were fully auditable, and gave some information on the actual process officials use for auditing elections.[82]"
I don't understand why anyone would extend empathy and tolerance towards someone who would not reciprocate. I think you should temper your expectations here.
The entire purpose of your brand-new account seems to be complaining about HN and comparing it to Reddit. Is this how you are going to raise the level of discourse here?
As much as I dislike Adams and disagree with a lot of the attempts to paper over a lot of reprehensible stuff, he gave it a try, abandoned it, and publicly denounced it after it didn't work, and even spoke out against the pressuring campaigns done by ivermectin/etc. quacks to push people to waste time, money, and hope on quack treatments.
There's much better examples of areas where he was off the rails than him spending a month on a relatively safe treatment trying to stay alive before giving up when faced with reality.
The man spend a tremendous amount of time trying to discredit the entire medical industry. In the past he has claimed to avoid cancer through prayer. This is part of a pattern.
he gave it a try, abandoned it, and publicly denounced it after it didn't work
I'm not sure why that should be lauded. A sample size of 1 (and a trial length of merely 1 month, according to other posts) does not make a convincing study to warrant any public statements.
When there is no science behind it and you've been convinced by a bunch of charlatans hoping to make a quick buck off of taking advantage of the fear of their victims, there's not really a need to turn your experience into a study.
It's a matter of realizing you're being taken advantage of and speaking out about the experience.
My grandfather was a surgeon, an excellent one. When he was diagnosed with inoperable lung cancer, he went to every dubious healer my grandmother could find. He did it for her, and likely for himself as well. He was never right wing.
>...When he was diagnosed with inoperable lung cancer, he went to every dubious healer my grandmother could find...He was never right wing.
Desperation isn't partisan, friend.
My father was diagnosed with metastatic lung cancer and died from its ravages too. He participated in clinical trials and did everything medically reasonable to save himself. None of it worked, and when the treatments came to an end, he faced his death with grace and dignity. I've often thought that if I was in a similar situation, I'd be happy to be half as courageous as he was.
Other folks I've seen have been more along the "freak out" axis and have fallen apart, sought out any treatment regardless of efficacy (or sanity), or both, in order to stave off their fear.
None of that is partisan. All of that is sad.
If Scott Adams died from his cancer's advance, he died a slow, painful (opioids notwithstanding) death which included numerous indignities and, at the end, a lack of awareness that, had he been conscious of it, would likely have driven him mad.
That's what's sad. No one, not even Scott Adams, should suffer and die that way. How folks meet death, especially one as grueling and painful as cancer eating your central nervous system, isn't a partisan thing.
And while I'm not a fan of his later incarnations, his brief cameo here[0] was quite amusing.
his conservative viewpoints and political support (which incidentally i do not share) do not automatically make his beliefs “far right”. i have not seen or heard a single thing he’s expressed or done that suggests “far right”. if anything, he appears rather centrist.
and can we stop already with the smearing? it clearly wasn’t intended to be a nazi salute, which both the ADL as well as the person who made the gesture have clarified. do we think he is lying about that? why would someone who wants to make nazi salutes on stage then go and lie about it later?
scott adams, however, has said and clarified his far-right viewpoints many times publicly. there’s no ambiguity there.
Good to know that "Don't speak ill of the dead," is now truly dead. Ironic that an online post trying to push a political point is attempting to frame itself as rising above. There is no middle ground. There is no common decency.
The reaction to Adams death is simply a reflection of how he lived his life.
There’s this curious demand (often though not exclusively from right leaning folks) for freedom of speech and freedom from consequences of that speech. It doesn’t work that way.
You have the freedom to say reactionary things that upset people as much as you want. But if you do, then you die, people are going to say “he was a person who said reactionary things that upset people”.
The dead man, whomever is in question, can no longer harm you. He was a man, maybe a husband and father, and speaking ill of them is of no tangible benefit. To those that respected or loved them, the relationship is gone, and it is not wise to add to their pain.
I have been to the funeral of bad men. His earthly power is gone and if there is an afterlife his judgment is sealed.
This goes for all enemies and tyrants and criminals. We use the term "I am sorry for your loss" because most times the loss is not ours.
I disagree. I say speak against the ideas, not the person, as the person dies, except Jesus who people continue to invoke his name, which probably means he transcends an idea or belief.
I have a terrible toxic belief troubles you. Can I be a member of society just because I believe pineapple on pizza is acceptable? If you associate me as a person with that belief instead of someone who believes, I suddenly become a problem, and not the belief. Jesus said to love your enemies. He also spoke against ideas, not people.
This has been mentioned a few times in this thread. But it doesn't really make a lot of sense, especially in the case of someone famous.
If two or three days ago, not knowing he was sick (which I didn't), I had said to someone "That Dilbert guy seems to be sort of a whack job," why would it matter that he was alive to hypothetically defend himself? It's extremely unlikely that he would ever be aware of my comment at all. So why does it matter that he's alive?
Outside of Scott Adams and all of that. And I think public figures, especially those whose major schtick was to engender reaction, are a different story.
But it's basically getting the last word in because the other party is unable to respond. It's seen as a little uncouth.
On reddit, it's kind of like those people who respond, then block you to make sure you can't respond. They aren't there to make an argument or convince you, they just want to get the last word and they're doing it in a way where you cannot respond.
Like I said, I don't entirely agree with "don't speak ill of the dead". Especially for figures who used their platform to elicit responses. But that's one of the reasons behind the sentiment. Right, wrong, that's for you to decide.
I didn't fear reprisal from Scott Adams when he was alive, either.
And there are plenty of people willing to step in for Scott and defend him, as evidenced by the contents here.
Someone dying doesn't mean the consequences of their words and actions disappear and acting like we should pretend that death washes away those consequences is silly.
I suppose you shouldn't jeer at them for being dead, for a start, and you should make allowances for their being dead when judging their actions. Treat them fairly.
I've never entirely understood "don't speak ill of the dead"; it seems like a vastly-scoped rule with far too many exceptions (and that can prevent learning any lessons from the life of the deceased). Forgive the Godwin's law, but: did that rule apply to Hitler? If not, then there's a line somewhere where it stops being a good rule (if it ever was one to begin with) – and I'd feel confident saying that there's no real consensus about where that "cutover" occurs.
To me, comments like "the entire arc of Scott Adams is a cautionary tale" rings less of vitriol and more of a kind of mourning for who the man became, and the loss of his life (and thus the loss of any chance to grow beyond who he became).
That rings empathetic and sorrowful to me, which seems pretty decent in my book.
Because the dead can't respond or defend themselves. That's why you don't do it.
And it's the framing of the statement that is the problem. They didn't say "I disagreed with Scott" or "I didn't like Scott"; they framed it in a way that made it seem like truth. "the entire arc of Scott Adams is a cautionary tale" makes it seem like he did something wrong and there is some universal truth to be had, when it's really just this person disagreed with Scott's political views. It's persuasion, which ironically I think Scott would have liked.
> they framed it in a way that made it seem like truth
"the best advice I would give to white people is to get the hell away from black people; just get the fuck away"
It is true that this is an evil and racist thing to say.
> when it's really just this person disagreed with Scott's political views
white supremacism isn't just a small policy difference.
If you hold hateful beliefs in which you believe certain people are inferior based on superficial traits like skin colour, why should you expect to be treated with respect? I disrespect such people because I don't respect them, I am if nothing else being sincere.
>Everyone's views, evern yours, are abhorrent to at least some other person on the planet.
Yes and I accept that they won't respect me. I do not demand that they respect me, it's fine, of course they won't respect me if they find me abhorrent. I don't care.
>The grown up thing is to accept that and still be able to hold meaningful dialogue.
Not really, I don't debate every one and every topic. It's totally valid to just write people off as bastards based on their behaviour and move on with your life.
Why is questioning a historical event abhorrent behavior? Every historical event is fair game except for one, even historical events where far more people died due to their religions or cultural affiliations. There's only one we aren't allowed to question however. We even have special made-up terms to describe people that question this one specific event. We don't do it for any other historical event. Why is that?
>We don't do it for any other historical event. Why is that?
Sure we do, there are lots of things (usually genocides) that are considered crass or hateful to deny or downplay (let's be honest he was downplaying, he certainly wasn't suggesting the numbers were underestimated!)
I guess it comes down to this: If you're an already racist nut job and start questioning the holocaust, then I assume you're acting in bad faith and are racist. Anything else would be supremely naive, sorry, I don't have to be infinitely credulous.
And yet, there is only one event that has laws that protect it from being questioned. You said there are lots of things, but failed to mention even one.
Your first link seems like he was just trolling. He says "intelligent design" and then defines it in a way that nobody else would.
> What he means by intelligent design is the idea that we are living in a computer simulation. We are overwhelmingly likely to be “copies” of some other humans who intelligently designed us, in a virtual reality.
That seems to have been pretty common with him. "I believe in X. And by X I mean Y. Look at all these people talking about X, aren't they stupid?"
> I've never entirely understood "don't speak ill of the dead"
Agree. Much more hurtful to speak ill of the living. I can even see both R's and D's as people suffering in the duality of the world and have compassion for them. “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”
You don't even really need to invoke Godwin's law, since you can just ask the same question about financier to the billionaires Jeffrey Epstein or beloved British presenter Sir Jimmy Savile (presented without speaking ill of the dead).
You could certainly create a pro-user EULA that specifically locks in your company's ideals and forbids reneging on them in the future. This is essentially what the GPL is - it's an end user license agreement that is exceptionally user friendly.
Pro-user EULAs just aren't popular because they limit future monetization paths for the company, but it sounds like that is exactly what you want.
Ultimately, "invasion" is one of those terms that gets used for rhetorical effect more than a concrete claim about the world. If you think the US "invaded" Venezuela, and I think it's better to say they "attacked" Venezuela and "kidnapped" the president, we're not normally going to get into an argument about it - we'll just each use the terms that make sense to us, since we clearly agree about the facts of the terrible thing that happened. But Polymarket has to force the dumb semantic argument because they have to resolve the prediction one way or another. (One of the reasons to be skeptical of prediction markets as applied to geopolitics.)
MS has been doing shit like this for decades. Every couple months I log into my dusty Windows account and lo and behold there's a bunch of weird shit like Candy Crush or Copilot or whatever that's just decided to reinstall itself for the nth time.
I just noticed yesterday that Copilot or OneDrive is pressuring me to set it up and my options are: Yes, Remind me in 1 week, or Remind me in 1 month. Like, what the fuck is that?
It is a testament to the power of tech policy momentum that a company can crank out absolute shit for decades and the corporate world just keeps on using their software because "that's what we've always used".
As far as I'm concerned, I'm fine with these tech CTOs replacing their software engineering workforce with LLMs because the bar is already on the fucking floor when it comes to use experience.
I've noticed that about Windows, that it has some sort of attachment disorder: the longer you're away from it, the more it freaks out and throws a tantrum about something the next time you boot it up. If it's been 3 or more months, you can absolutely forget about your settings staying as they were.
> As far as I'm concerned, I'm fine with these tech CTOs replacing their software engineering workforce with LLMs because the bar is already on the fucking floor when it comes to use experience.
The engineers can’t be completely to blame here, Microsoft is too consistently bad for that. It is a high-level strategy issue. Replace the Product Managers with LLMs maybe… a bunch of random matvecs couldn’t possibly be wrong so consistently, right?
The entire world is just rooting for Father Time on this particular problem.
reply