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.
“I thought the ferocious backlash to my blog was evidence that males don’t have the privilege of expressing their opinions. — Scott”
Oh, but I thought that wasn’t REALLY his opinion; he just likes expressing interesting and completely unheard of ideas, like men are sexual brutes and women are children.
You can sign a petition at change.org: it’s just like SPITTING on him, or, you know, smacking him around with a battle axe!
http://news.change.org/stories/sex-trafficking-survivors-group-to-dilbert-creator-rape-isnt-natural-instinct
Sex Trafficking Survivors Group to Dilbert Creator: Rape Isn’t “Natural Instinct”
His response?
Yes, poor persecuted Scott. Getting called out on hate is just SOO unfair.
The fact that other people have the privilege of expressing their opinions that your opinion is boneheaded does not, in fact, negate your privilege. *facepalm*
“I thought the ferocious backlash to my blog was evidence that males don’t have the privilege of expressing their opinions. — Scott”
No, Scott, privilege is having the expectation that you can express whatever fool opinion pops into your head without encountering any kind of backlash.
I think ppl should just ignore him -_-;; Mud wrestling w/ a pig and all
(apology to all pigs out there >_> )
@Plymouth the power curve in magic is completely wrecked -_- esp in the last like 5 years… I feel a lot like your fiance in that I feel like things are too powerful often, but rly huge creatures with casting cost about the same as it’s power isn’t that unusual : Maybe I should make the sacrificing creature thing a little more harsh? 2 +1/+1 counters or something.. but yeah, back when I played, big creatures had ALL sorts of caveats to them, but now they don’t xD
if you want I can make it weaker tho!
Ami – don’t make it weaker! i think it’s actually fairly balanced, considering [as you said] the way the power curve has been totally fucked over the past several years [i no longer play. but i used to – and i look at “new” or newer decks, and when i find myself thinking “my alpha-arabian nights-antiquities deck can’t even compete” you KNOW there’s something wrong!]
on your page where you’re posting the cards – i went there yesterday and there were 21; i went today and there were 25, but only TWO were new cards? it was strange.
in case i don’t see it in a thread, when you have my card done, can you email me [i wanted/hoped you’d email me on that other thing. did you see that? over at Pervocracy… if you didn’t, that’s ok and i can explain – but if you did, please please please, i hope i didn’t offend/upset! if i did, please tell how i can fix it :(] my email is denelian at yahoo dot com
as for Scott Adams – my dad met him several years ago.
when my DAD is annoyed at a man for sexist remarks, there’s a problem.
that’s all.
Here’s your reading comprehension test that I assume all of you will fail:
If I say all men have a natural urge to eat, and some men are cannibals, have I implied that all men are natural cannibals? Did I condone the practice of eating people?
Scott Adams
Scott, here’s a comprehending-what-you-actually-wrote test that you have already failed:
If you say that men have a natural urge to rape, and then suggest that society is a virtual “prison” preventing men from acting on this desire, have you implied that all men are natural rapists?
Also, in my post I didn’t imply you condoned this, exactly. Your post was pretty muddled and seemed to suggest at points — with all that “prison” stuff — that men were being oppressed by having to, you know, not run around putting their pegs in other people, but as I noted you also suggested (with what degree of seriousness I cannot tell) that it would better for men to be chemically castrated.
Feel free to spell out what you actually do believe, and what was all part of yet another “social experiment” of yours.
Keep digging, Scott. You’ve almost reached the outer core.
Next stop: Skartaris!
It would be more accurate to say “all men like sex and some are rapists” because then that would not imply all men are rapists. The sad thing is that is not what Adams said.
And that was weird that he pulled a DKM.
And how many books have any of you geniuses written?
If any of you women understood how it felt to be a man and the raging inferno within us, you would be on your knees every day thanking us for being able to control it as much as we are able to just to fit in with ridiculous and unnatural social construction and legalities.
Also, sex is not the same thing as eating. Some people are asexual but nobody, not even anorexics, can survive without eating.
nobody, not even anorexics, can survive without eating.
I believe you’ve just made Mr. Adams’ point for him.
Plus, every time ANY male suggests that “society” is hostile to MEN while offering women unparalled freedom, I write them off immediately–becuase, wow, look at the pesky history that Scott does not like to hear about, and tell me WHO was writing the laws and setting up the institutions and conventions and all for controlling PEOPLE?
Hint: It was NOT women. It was MEN.
Mr. Adams, I continue to be impressed with the patience, intelligence and self-awareness that you have shown in this latest tempest in a teapot that has broken out among the mental dwarfs of Feminism. I don’t know if you are aware of this, but this blog exists purely to mock and spread lies about men, they won’t be anything but dishonest with you.
You know you’ve made the big time when…
no wait xD It’s just Trollbert xD I think he’d troll 4chan if he wasn’t afraid of what they might do to him… XD
Gee, Scott Adams, I’m certainly glad that a commenter on your site was able to help you come up with that amazing and accurate reading-comprehension test. I can see why you weren’t able to come up with it on your own; despite your obvious certified geniusness, it’s pretty difficult for any one human being to create such a bad parallel.
Why don’t you let David debate you on your site? I think that would be fun. Or would you rather just keep this framed as a men-against-women/women-against-poor-Scott-Adams thing?
@Scott Adams:
Seconded Bee’s opinion. How about, instead of writing one-off comments with bad analogies, you offer David the same “respect” you showed other bloggers? You get to keep your spotlight a little bit longer, and we all get a few laughs on the side. Win win.
The ‘reading comprehension’ bit only goes so far. Sure, there might be a problem on the user end if they don’t understand what you wrote (Andrea Dworkin is a pretty good example of this).
However, the writer also has a responsibility to make their writing as comprehensible as possible. If a significant number of reasonably intelligent people missed whatever your intended message was, you’re probably a bad writer.
I agree with David Futrelle, because I hate men.
Scott — But that wasn’t what you wrote. What you wrote was more like, “Men have a natural urge to eat, therefore we should be allowed to knock women down and steal food from them. And if there are laws against that, it’s proof that society hates men and their urges. Hell, maybe we should just all have our stomachs surgically removed, huh? Is that what you want from us, society?”
Does your wife know you’re writing this stuff? The two of you seemed perfectly nice when I met you at the NCS meeting in L.A. a couple of years back.