>
 |
| “We hunted the mammoth”: Always hilarious! |
My second guest post has gone up on Feministe. In it, I introduce the Feministe audience to a Man Boobz classic: the “we hunted the mammoth to feed you” quote, in all of its original glory. (By the way, t-shirts are still available, and they’re pretty snazzy!)
Also, Scott Adams himself has responded in the Feministe comments section to my post about him. Some highlights of his, er, argument:
Is this an entire website dedicated to poor reading comprehension? I don’t think one of you understood the writing. You’re all hopping mad about your own misinterpretations. …In this case, the content of the piece inspires so much emotion in some readers that they literally can’t understand it. The same would be true if the topic were about gun ownership or a dozen other topics. As emotion increases, reading comprehension decreases. This would be true of anyone, but regular readers of the Dilbert blog are pretty far along the bell curve toward rational thought, and relatively immune to emotional distortion. …You’re angry, but I’ll bet every one of you agrees with me.
Wow. Just, wow. How narcissistic and delusional do you have to be to even type out that last bit, much less post it on the internet for all to see?
I wonder if Scott Adams would agree with the “we hunted the mammoth to feed you” guy? I’m sort of thinking that he just might.
>I agree he lacks the ability to comprehend stuff he reads. And he is being emotional.
>You know what…I used to actually buy all Dilbert books and even read Scott Adams blog even though he did come across as a bit of a know it all….I loved the comic and was really disappointed in said blog post but excused it as well maybe he was just trying to play both sides and came across as more douchy then he really was…. But afterinsulting the Femineste website and basically saying that everyone that disagreed with him suddenly had a low IQ…I am no longer a fan…The comic is still good but Scott Adams is not as brillant as he thinks he is…NO WAY!
>I like how he assumes we are in a mad rage instead of bewildered amusement.
>The whole "I'm rational" and "You're emotional" dichotomy is so grating. And given what he wrote, it's clear he was going for an emotional response as much as anything. This is classic "gotcha" gaming on Mr. Adams part, and for him to claim some higher ground based on a "rational reading" is beyond ridiculous.
>Wow, Scott Adams pretty much responded in the same way as Gabe & Tycho did after the "Dickwolves" incident.
>I like how he assumes we are in a mad rage instead of bewildered amusement.But you are! Always! You externalize your hormones and emotions as though they are the responsibility of others. If there is one thing your movement has come to represent, it is a lot of screaming and little productive discourse.
>First and foremost, Scott Adams is probably correct in saying most people agree with him. At least most men.
>Maggie, whether or not that's true, and I don't think it is, he's not saying that to "most people." He's saying that to commenters on Feministe who have specifically stated that they do not agree with him.
>Sorry, Stringy, I may skim your bullshit articles that don't actually prove the point you claim to make, but asking me to sit through some douche bag on YouTube quoting Steven Pinker out of context for 6 minutes is going just a bit too far. I have a life, after all.
>I find amusing the concept that if an opinion makes others angry, that automatically makes that opinion correct. Turn that shit around, you know? After all, Scott Adams is now angry. That automatically makes him wrong, by his own measure. He's just so emotional, after all.
>awww see he's just a giant man child who never grew up afterall
>I haven't read Dilbert in years, but I'm thinking of going out and finding some, just so I can send it back to him. Maybe Value Village has some in the seconds bin?He really couldn't have picked a worse response. And so quotable!
>I can tell by Scott Adam's surprise at the awful reading comprehension of feminists that he isn't used to dealing with them. I've lost count of the number of times feminists hastily read something I wrote and then responded to a point I never even made. Especially amusing was the feminist right here who thought that I said there was no Internet back in 2001.I don't fully agree with what Scott Adams wrote but at least I actually read what he wrote carefully to make sure I fully understood it.
>I love how Mr. Adams posted a blog post publicly, and then claimed that it was only for his readership. Does he not know that everyone can see everything on the interwebs, unless you password protect it?The Internet, how fuck does it work? Must be miracle indeed.
>Damn – "Must be a miracle indeed." The stupid is contagious.
>I think in your case it's a pre-existing condition. See, in Adam's own comment he said, "This piece was designed for regular readers of The Scott Adams blog." He never said it was "only for his readership", just that it was DESIGNED for his regular readers. Anyone with decent reading comprehension would get that.
>Christ that man is an ass. His final response is that, if those emotional ladies really knew their own minds, they'd realize they agree. Thanks for telling the ladies how they feel, Mr. Adams! After all, there's no possibility that you're just wrong as shit!
>@e-string: "If there is one thing your movement has come to represent, it is a lot of screaming and little productive discourse."The reader will please be advised that "productive discourse" now includes dick-waving, trash-talking, ranking-out, and mangina-calling.
>just that it was DESIGNED for his regular readersYes, and it's on THE INTERNET. For everyone with an internet connection to read and/or mock. He just doesn't like being challenged on his ideas.
>Well, I certainly learned something today. The Turner Diaries was designed for anti-semites and racists, therefore rational Jews and non-whites would never be offended by it. But alas, Jews and non-whites lack decent reading comprehension. [End of sarcastic comment]
>He just doesn't like being challenged on his ideas.I have been disappointed by the policy of many feminist sites to censor or edit comments which challenge their views (Feministing and Jezebel for example; contrast this to The Spearhead or AVfM where the comment moderation is done for behavioral rather than ideological reasons). David seems to have that "only good has come of modern feminism, you are a woman-hater for believing otherwise" dogma, though I can respect the rare feminist who permits divergent comments.
>Well, I certainly learned something today. The Turner Diaries was designed for anti-semites and racists, therefore rational Jews and non-whites would never be offended by it. But alas, Jews and non-whites lack decent reading comprehension. [End of sarcastic comment]To say that you missed the point would be a massive understatement.
>Oh lord you MRA guys…you are the 'rational' side and yet your discussions involve 'government feminist pimp daddies' and women who are weeping over their jealousy of sex robots and women who pretend they were raped for a laugh despite the repercussions.Seriously, like…play some video games, have a chat with a woman without exploding in self-righteousness, smoke a joint, i dunno. Women and men are both pretty fucked without each other, and as it's possible to live in harmony, why not give it a try?
>It's possible to live in harmony but it requires that both men and women are treated equally under the law and that laws are enforced against both genders equally. It also requires large-scale rejection of the outdated notion of chivalry and a cultural shift in which men and women are held to equal standards. These are all MRA goals and, when realized, will facilitate more harmonious living.
>These are all feminist goalsFixed that for you.