Oy. Scott Adams won’t shut up about that execrable “Pegs and Hoies” piece of his that I (and quite a few other people on the internets) wrote about the other day. Naturally, he’s being willfully obtuse about the reaction his piece caused, and blames it all on the “low reading comprehension” of everyone in the world who is not him and/or one of his sycophantic fans. So he’s decided to interview a number of those who wrote about it. (Not including me. Aww, Scott, but we had such good times together!)
So far he’s interviewed Mary Elizabeth Williams of Salon (a great writer and lovely person, by the way) and Irin Carmon of Jezebel. Naturally, the interviewees offer cogent explanations of just what was wrong with his idiotic post, and he responds by completely and utterly missing the point. (Or pretending to; it’s always hard to tell with Scott.)
Scott Adams is so relentlessly irritating – he’s a bit like Eoghan in his stubborn refusal to get the point – that I can’t bring myself to write any more about this idiotic manufactured controversy. So you’ll have to go check out the posts yourself.
EDITED TO ADD: Adams has put up yet another post on the subject, entitled “Maybe it’s me?” in which he decides ” to take a step back and seriously consider the hypothesis that the reason people disagree with me is that I’m an idiot and I don’t realize it.” Scott, your hypothesis is correct.
EDITED TO ADD AGAIN: And … Mr. Adams has now made a personal appearance in the comments below. Be gentle!
Given Adams’ intense narcissism, I can’t help but get the song “Biggest Fan” by the Martini Brothers stuck in my head every time I read any of this posts. Listen a bit, and you’ll see why.
In case nebody missed it (since…. scrolled off -_-)
Fuck MRAs is not worth debating.
@MRAL:
I’m sure she’d echo that sentiment right back at you.
Just wanted to throw my support to the truce w/ Fuck MRAs. That “kindling” thing yesterday rubbed me and obviously a lot of other people the wrong way, but you know, water under the bridge at this point. I also disagree on the “credibility” thing, but I don’t think that’s an outrageous argument. (I just don’t think it makes sense with Scott Adams, since he’s so good at digging his own holes. This whole thing makes him look worse, not Mary Elizabeth Williams.)
There are certainly plenty of MRAs/misogynists I don’t think it’s worth engaging with, but not because of credibility, because I just don’t want to bother with them.
@ Ami:
I attend small geeky cons a couple times a year, and I so want to bring this deck to the next one 🙂
http://i749.photobucket.com/albums/xx134/ami_angelwings/Magyc%20Cards/OrderoftheWhiteShaft.jpg
new card!
@Victoria awwww… i’m flattered! :3. well I’d have to play test them a little or I’d be paranoid the rly into-magic types would rip my cards for being too powerful or not powerful enuf xD (the power curve on magic is so wrecked I can’t tell nemore xD I am focusing on my set as a closed set :3 )
http://i749.photobucket.com/albums/xx134/ami_angelwings/Magyc%20Cards/OrderoftheDarkPit.jpg
this is the corollary to that card :3
I like the: ‘they shrink and go limp’ part 😉 tehe
Ami, let me know when you’ve finished up the cards, b/c I definitely want to do a post featuring them!
(sorry, late night dinner break)
The key difference, to me, is that David comes from a place where it’s understood that he is making fun of these people. He certainly makes serious and insightful points in his posts, but I’ve never seem him present their insanity as being on an equal playing field with the rest of the civilized world.
kirby, I made that mistake one time and it is when I learned what MRAs actually are. So no, that’s a pointless road I don’t take.
Oh my god, David Futrelle! How nice to bump into you on the internet after all these year. Thank you sir. — Mary Elizabeth Williams
Re: magyc cards… I’ve never played Magic so I really have no input on this (though I am familiar with the concept) but my fiance has and his first comment was that my war machine seemed too powerful to be a real card. Then again, he hasn’t played in YEARS so I’m sure there’s been stat inflation in the interim.
Pecunium –
I do feel remorse but it took me a long time to get to that point. Like maybe years. And then it was MORE years before I could admit that it was rape. I kept saying (to myself because I never really talked about this to anyone) “it was wrong but it wasn’t really rape”.
It WAS a one time thing and I’m pretty sure I’ve not done anything like that since. And I totally get you on the telling a long term S.O. they can wake you up with sex – I’ve said a similar thing to my fiance and the times he’s tried it where I really wasn’t in the mood and I said so he totally respected that and stopped.
I did in my original post acknowledge that there was an aspect of power. But I think it’s difficult to separate that from the power thread that also runs through consentual sex. Feeling desirable instills a sense of power. Feeling like I _made_someone_want_me_ makes me feel really hot and really awesome. That thrill makes the sex itself intense. This is true when they say “yes” the first time around and never say “no”. I can see how someone could twist that such that overcoming a “no” makes them feel even MORE powerful, but that doesn’t seem to be how it works for me.
David, the reason Scott Adams hasn’t proposed to interview you is that you are a guy. He’s only “interviewing” female bloggers. Because, as we all know, it’s pointless to argue with women. Or something.
Plymouth,
Thank you for trusting us enough to share your story here.
My thoughts on rape: sex, power, or both?
Rape requires an element of power and dominance. It can be solely about power and dominance, as with the Rwandan woman who was convicted of genocide for organizing both massacres and mass rapes yesterday. Obviously she wasn’t organizing those rapes because she was horny.
But with things like date rape, it becomes less clear, because there is an element of sex and perhaps a pre-existing relationship there. But in order to make the decision to rape, you have to believe, at some level, that your needs and desires are so important that it’s worth overriding another person’s needs and desires. Perhaps the rapist has convinced hirself that the other person’s needs and desires are congruent with hir own. To me, that’s not an indication that power and domination are not part of it. Rather, it’s an indication that the rapist is consciously aware that exercising control and dominance that way is socially unacceptable, and doesn’t want to think of hirself as a Bad Person (since only Bad People are rapists), so ze’s relegated hir knowledge that hir partner/victim isn’t into having sex to hir subconscious. Either that, or ze simply doesn’t care enough about hir partner/victim to even bother paying any attention to her needs and desires – which is also an exercise of dominance and control. To engage in truly consensual sex, a person MUST possess enough awareness of hir potential partner to evaluate that partner’s interest in engaging in sex. A simple lack of awareness is not a mitigating factor. A lack of awareness of the true desires of one’s sexual partner is not an innocent mistake, as the MRAs would like us to believe. Rather, it’s an expression of selfishness and narcissism. The point of sex, or one of them anyway, is to have awareness of your partner. That’s why it’s called sex and not masturbation. And that’s why it’s still rape even if the rapist maintains that ze sincerely believed that hir inert or semi-conscious sex partner was really, really into it.
Oh, Scott Adams. You might want to consider taking notes from Bill Watterson’s career. Granted, Watterson is a genius and you just make an occasionally funny strip, but while it’s too late to retire at the top of your career to disappear from the public eye at least you might be able to save the few remaining scraps of your reputation.
Oh good. Now Scott Adams is asking judges, scientists, psychologists, etc. to tell him whether they think he’s batshit crazy based on his interviews. Which his mostly male, mostly not-any-engaged-in-any-of-the-above-occupation readers are taking as an invitation to tell him how hard he won his arguments. Oh yes he did! He’s totally brilliant, from his subversive cartoons, to the way he handed that emotional lady’s ass to her in a debate, har har!
Oh, man, poor Scott Adams. I fear his dick will get chapped from all the slobber!
I’m a professional scientist, and a woman (the two not being mutually exclusive). Wonder how he’d like my comments?
But it ain’t worth engaging the crazy/troll.
Dammit, I used to like Dilbert, and Adams’ humor in general — not in a major fangirl way, but I got some laughs out of it. Unfortunately, now all I can think of is him shooting his mouth off like this. 😛
I like the guy who had taken Psych 1. Who-hoo, there’s a skilled diagnostician.
And then the actuary, etc. The one debate judge gave Adams a marginal win, but I’d say that was generous, esp. as the nature of the presentation gives him a marginal advantage (he gets to present the material as he see’s fit).
All in all, as a formal debate (I did the debate circuit in college): where to we start, with the Orginal Piece? Adams loses. He dropped a lot arguments, or failed to support them when challenged.
And rylanter hits it out of the park… He gives his credentials, and then gives a judge’s opinion of the performance:
Yeah, Bill Watterson’s definitely a class act.
And yet another reason that Scott Adams is just too intellectually dishonest to debate with….
“I thought the ferocious backlash to my blog was evidence that males don’t have the privilege of expressing their opinions. — Scott”
Riiiiight….
Good grief, charlie brown. I’ve never spent so much time in the SA comment section before. Some of these twits are almost as insufferable as he is.