Welcome to today’s episode of “wait, did Scott Adams really say that, Scott Adams the Dilbert guy, really?”
And the answer to that question is, as always, “yes, yes he did say that.”
In a post on his blog yesterday, Adams continued his evolution into a living Men’s Rights subreddit comment by lamenting what he sees as the MAN-DESTROYING MISANDRY of the Democratic party.
“On the surface, the convention is going great,” Adams wrote.
Michelle Obama made a speech for the ages. Bill Clinton was his masterful self. Bernie gave a full-throated endorsement of Clinton. The whole affair has been a festival of inclusiveness. The media is eating it like cake. All good, right?
Not so fast! Because beneath the sunny surface of the DNC lurks the testosterone-destroying monster that is the inadequate appreciation of dudes!
[I]f you’re an undecided voter, and male, you’re seeing … a celebration that your role in society is permanently diminished.
Adams followed this with, well, tell me if this line of thought sounds vaguely familiar to you:
And it’s happening in an impressive venue that was, in all likelihood, designed and built mostly by men. Men get to watch it all at home, in homes designed and built mostly by men, thanks to the technology that was designed and built mostly by men.
WE BUILT THE WELLS FARGO CENTER TO … er … seat you?
I mention that as context, not opinion.
Ok then.
To Adams, the most diabolically anti-male portion of the DNC so far has been … Alicia Keys.
I watched singer Alicia Keys perform her song Superwoman at the convention and experienced a sinking feeling. I’m fairly certain my testosterone levels dropped as I watched, and that’s not even a little bit of an exaggeration.
And he’s not making a joke here. He literally thinks his testosterone level dropped while he listened to Alicia Keys sing this:
Even when I’m a mess
I still put on a vest
With an S on my chest
Oh yes
I’m a Superwoman
Adams continues:
Science says men’s testosterone levels rise when they experience victory, and drop when they experience the opposite. I watched Keys tell the world that women are the answer to our problems. True or not, men were probably not feeling successful and victorious during her act.
Just how fragile does Adams think the male ego is, anyway?
Let me say this again, so you know I’m not kidding. Based on what I know about the human body, and the way our thoughts regulate our hormones, the Democratic National Convention is probably lowering testosterone levels all over the country. Literally, not figuratively.
Well, at least he’s using “literally” correctly.
Naturally, Adams thinks this will lead to the election of REAL MAN Donald Trump.
And since testosterone is a feel-good chemical for men, I think the Democratic convention is making men feel less happy. They might not know why they feel less happy, but they will start to associate the low feeling with whatever they are looking at when it happens, i.e. Clinton.
Wait, wouldn’t they associate it with Alicia Keys? I’m a little confused.
On an emotional level – where hormones rule – men have left the building…that they built.
Adams ended his post by reminding us all again of his fake “endorsement” of Hillary Clinton, whom, he explained, he fake-endorsed
for my personal safety, because I live in California where it is dangerous for people to think you are a Trump supporter. My political views don’t align with either candidate and I don’t vote, in order to protect my objectivity.
Yeah, I don’t think you quite understand how “objectivity” works, you human Men’s Rights subreddit comment.
H/T — @malki on Twitter, via @clinicboss
@Petal
I hope they have alcohol and that it’s not piss-flavored beer like bud or miller.
He is talking about persuasion, nothing more. How did you miss that?
Huh?
Troof seconded! I tend to feel the need to remind people that HRC is indeed human, not some eldritch horror coughed up from the depths.
Re: The newish name–I figured that my username needed a bit of an upgrade.
@Rob
So testosterone is linked to persuasion? Citation needed.
I think he meant to post on one of the old PUA/Roosh/date rape threads?
Either that or he’s a malfunctioning bot.
@kupo
I’ve gone through one Guinness Blonde, two grapefruit shandys, two apple ginger ciders, two Smirnoff Ices, and I’m currently on my second Moscow Mule, with 1/2 cup of vodka and a full alcoholic ginger beer in each. Quite drunk, and guess what? Scott Adams still seems incredibly stupid, even in this state
@IP – is Fingie managing his Twitter account without you? Inquiring minds need to know.
Hope you survive the bbq with nothing worse than a mild hangover 🙂
@Mish
Fingie and his sister are currently in a cat hostel! They are a little confused with the whole thing, but I left a tablet with Fingie so he can keep tweeting while we’re away.
TL;DR
In fact, that’s probably an accurate TL;DR for most of the manosphere.
@IP,
You post better drunk than I do sober…my drunk posting looks like this:
Dhigdg ydset ouurt6h rifuldoys gy55fycf kthfh. Xuhd kj skje igstuim ije.
And that’s with the one-eye-closed-to-focus.
@amnesia
True. Very true.
But I’ve given more thought to this. What I realize is that although the patri-wisdom (as explained by women) is that male egos are fragile, I have never seen a broken male ego.
I’ve seen some men who appear to be broken, but it was the whole guy, not just his ego. And I’m pretty sure that (1) a “broken” man doesn’t break because a woman laid some reality therapy on him, and (2) a broken guy can — at least theoretically, and possibly with help — reassemble himself.
Summing up: My 16-year-old self was on the right track. (Sorry, Mom!) Men’s egos are not fragile. They are often overinflated.* But either way, their egos don’t break, no matter how much a guy might hint around that his ego could shatter if you keep saying mean, truthful, hitting-close-to-home things.
*#NotAllMaleEgosThankUVeryMuch
@ColeYote
Well put.
But having lived through it, I can tell you that even back in the day, men committed to the patriarchy complained about lacking complete power.
The patriarchy: Not getting the respect it deserves for as long as it’s been in existence (roughly 6,000 years).
@Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
My main problem is there’s a naval base nearby, so a lot of them work for the government and are all, “If we did that kind of e-mail thing, we’d lose our jobs or be in jail!” And keep saying how she’s so corrupt and dishonest and pandering, and seem Very Concerned that I don’t agree with them. And then there’s one guy who’s pretty much the stereotypical Bernie Bro ranting about ‘Killary.’
Then on top of that, most of them are firmly “Both parties are equally bad!” types (you know, so they don’t have to bother paying attention to what the parties are actually doing). Even getting them to concede that Hillary Clinton is actually more competent and a better person overall than DONALD FUCKING TRUMP is like pulling teeth. *sighs*
@Amnesia
I wish I could draw people, because it’d be a perfect comic:
“Do I vote for the sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, treasonous, incestuous, paedophilic, violent conman with ties to the Russian Mafia who’s been accused of embezzlement and multiple rapes… Or the, ugh, woman?”
Titled simply “BOTH SIDES ARE BAD.”
So sad to see that a man whose drawings occasionally made me exhale softly with understated mirth has become such a twisted wreckage of male insecurities.
@SFHC:
I want to see that drawing very, very badly.
I was recently talking to a British friend who’s been travelling through the States. Because she’s quite interested in politics, she’s been asking questions in order to try to understand things. As she was on the eastern seaboard, she didn’t manage to meet a single (acknowledged) Republican. Anyhow, she was trying to get them to explain why people don’t like Hillary. Apparently the furthest she could push them was “we don’t trust her,” but no one could explain why not.
On the other hand, apparently at one of her tour stops one of the Americans called for a moment’s silence out of respect for the British present, to mourn for Brexit.
Off-topic but I found it hilarious, from a Death and Taxes article about a Howard Stern interview with Trump:
“The perfect woman, according to Trump, neither defecates nor breaks wind, and Trump claims his then-girlfriend Melania, who’s now his wife, has never done either.”
I find Dilbert to be funny. Too bad it’s creator is such an a-hole. Sigh.
Yeah, I check out his site sometimes – he says some strange things.
The whole time I was reading Adams’s sciencey rant, I was reminded of an old Cyanide & Happiness comic, the one that ends with “you don’t love science, you stare at its ass when it walks by”.
Welp, turns out I’m not the only one who appreciates metaphors involving obnoxious male behavior.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2016/07/31/stop-teabagging-science-scott-adams/
He’s at it again is he? What a pseudointellectual loser.
I really wish the creator of what is actually quite a funny comic wasn’t such a tool. Between him and Scott Baio, I’m so fed up of people I like the work of disappointing me so. I’m trying to seperate the work from the creator, but honestly it is so difficult.
I’m still salty about George W Bush, but Hillary Clinton being the direct family member of a living president is the only complaint I can make about her.
Ohlmann:
Speaking of Lovecraft, have you read Houellebecq’s Contre le monde, contre la vie?
Scott Adams is a socially clumsy sociopath worshiping a socially capable sociopath.
In his wannabe fanboy excitement over Donald Trump’s amoral lying he’s completely forgotten that everyone else watching is horrified by amoral lying.
He wishes he was Trump and he’s living vicariously through his performance.
Which, you know, means he feels inadequate where he is and is trying to compensate. In that department he genuinely is on Trump’s page.
Hey, Scott – go back to sockpuppeting your real thinking through Dogbert before you make everyone on the planet hate you.