10 ms·

Scott Adams is also a MRA who equates being a woman with being mentally handicapped. http://comicsalliance.com/scott-adam-sexist-mens-rights/ http://comicsallia

Scott Adams is also a MRA who equates being a woman with being mentally handicapped. http://comicsalliance.com/scott-adam-sexist-mens-rights/ http://comicsalliance.com/scott-adam-sexist-mens-rights/ He is a climate change denier with the senseless circular reasoning, that if he can't understand the science of climate change himself, why should he ever trust climate scientists and other experts in the field, because their models are complicated. https://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/status/814133681711263744 https://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/status/814133681711263744 Later in the thread, when presented with any scientific explanation of climate change, he reverts to repeating "how can I trust it?", all the while accusing climate scientists of having a financial incentive to push climate change, not providing proof himself.

Chris2048 10y ago
> who equates being a woman with being mentally handicapped Literally, or he just used a metaphor? I can say "black people are like bowling balls, they are both black". You could respond "oh my god! black people are people, not objects! How dare you!" But this would not be a reasonable response - The implication of the metaphor was not that black people share the property of being an object. That would be a purposeful mis-interpretation. Granted, the use of metaphor can sometimes be suspect, precisely because of the ambiguity of implication, but that's all it is - ambiguous in meaning/intent.
mistermann 10y ago
I don't think he is a denier, I honestly believe he is poking fun at the supremely confident masses who are absolutely sure climate change is precisely as the scientists say, and that anyone that disagress in the slightest is a denier/idiot/whatever. He also happens to be correct, the general public doesn't understand the intricacies of climate change. I'm no denier either, but you'll have to pardon me if I choose to not join the unthinking hordes who insist we must do something now, and no we will not think while we are doing this. Dissension is explicitly not allowed. Oh, is that not exaaaaaaaaaaaactly what the message is? Of course not, but there is some truth there. There are highly trained scientists who don't fully support the party line, and they are not allowed to speak. I believe it is not an intellectually honest conversation, and I'm old enough to remember other situations where dissent was not allowed and it turned out not so good. Also, don't forget that Scott is a humorist author, and part of his schtick is to deliberately cause outrage, especially with people who take themselves way too seriously.
- E6300 10y ago
  If you get diagnosed with cancer, would you go to med school and wait until you graduate and can fully understand the diagnosis and how the prescribed treatment was arrived at by your doctor before you follow it, or would you follow the treatment as closely as possible as soon as possible? Perhaps climate scientists don't know with completely precision everything there is to know about climate change. But as far as anyone can tell no one has a more accurate picture. "This theory may be imperfect [not even 'is imperfect'; we just don't know] so we should disregard it completely" is a Nirvana fallacy.
  - mistermann 10y ago
    > Perhaps climate scientists don't know with completely precision everything there is to know about climate change. Don't be surprised when people don't trust you if you don't disclose that fact.
    - DonHopkins 10y ago
      Says the guy who brings bullshit to a discussion about calling bullshit.
      - mistermann 10y ago
        Oh, which bullshit was that?
        DonHopkins 10y ago
        You claimed that Judith Curry was "not allowed to speak", for example. Here's something she allowed herself to speak: "Once we get over this little bump of activism, if the Trump administration will put us on a slightly reassuring and saner footing, that will allow all this to die down," she said. "We can always hope." -Judith Curry http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060047798 http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060047798 Good luck with that long term plan that depends on Trump putting us on a saner footing! Are you really sure she isn't allowed to speak? She's on FOX News an awful lot. And is it really true that people blink when they're lying? Starting at 3:00 I counted Judith Curry blinking 85 times in 60 seconds during this recent Tucker Carson interview on FOX News. At that rate, she must have blinked 387 times during that 4:33 minute interview! Forget about the Butterfly Effect: her eyelash fluttering itself could affect global climate patterns! https://youtu.be/g5LpwL4NKbw?t=3m0s https://youtu.be/g5LpwL4NKbw?t=3m0s
ue_ 10y ago
I don't mean to excuse the opinions he has on women, which I agree are deplorable, but I want to ask: what is wrong with being an activist for men's rights?
- DonHopkins 10y ago
  "Men's Rights Activist" is a euphemism for these people: https://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/ https://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/ Described in The Guardian as a "toxic technoculture on a spectrum of digital misogyny": https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/14/the-red-pill-reddit-modern-misogyny-manosphere-men https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/14/the-red-p... The term "red pill" is also common on 4chan's "politically incorrect" /pol/ board where taking the red pill is usually used to mean embracing conservative political thought and other related ideologies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_pill_and_blue_pill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_pill_and_blue_pill
  - mistermann 10y ago
    I wonder if it's possible to be a men's rights activist without being considered a misogynist.
    - TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago
      By not being a misogynist, yes.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > I wonder if it's possible to be a men's rights activist without being considered a misogynist. It would be possible if there was a general perception that men were generally and historically, in the context in which one is an activist, oppressed based on their sex, such that being an activist for greater rights for men was consistent with pro-equality interest rather than anti-women interests. However, there are very few societies on the world where that view is dominant or even a wide minority view, either internally or for external observers, so it's very hard to be a "men's rights activist" without the general perception being that one is acting out an anti-woman worldview.
ewzimm 10y ago
What you're saying here seems to be backing up what Scott Adams is saying. I'm not saying you're an irrational person, but your arguments against him seem to be completely irrational, based on word associations rather than arguments. He says men often avoid arguing with women over gender equality issues for the same reasons they avoid arguing with children or the mentally handicapped, because they see the process of argument as counterproductive, and he specifically says that he's not equating the groups in any way, only the reasons for avoiding arguments with the different groups. If you were thinking in terms of word associations and analogies, this disclaimer wouldn't matter because it's the association of words that's important, not the argument itself. And here you're ignoring the argument and focusing on word associations which he explains clearly are not his point. I see people making this kind of argument all the time, and it makes using analogies in any way other than emotional association usually pointless because someone will always find a way to focus on their emotional response to the words rather than the arguments. Doesn't this perfectly illustrate his point? It seems like he was manipulating people into having this kind of negative reaction to prove his point that people don't focus on arguments.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

Chris2048 10y ago

> who equates being a woman with being mentally handicapped Literally, or he just used a metaphor? I can say "black people are like bowling balls, they are both black". You could respond "oh my god! black people are people, not objects! How dare you!" But this would not be a reasonable response - The implication of the metaphor was not that black people share the property of being an object. That would be a purposeful mis-interpretation. Granted, the use of metaphor can sometimes be suspect, precisely because of the ambiguity of implication, but that's all it is - ambiguous in meaning/intent.

mistermann 10y ago

I don't think he is a denier, I honestly believe he is poking fun at the supremely confident masses who are absolutely sure climate change is precisely as the scientists say, and that anyone that disagress in the slightest is a denier/idiot/whatever. He also happens to be correct, the general public doesn't understand the intricacies of climate change. I'm no denier either, but you'll have to pardon me if I choose to not join the unthinking hordes who insist we must do something now, and no we will not think while we are doing this. Dissension is explicitly not allowed. Oh, is that not exaaaaaaaaaaaactly what the message is? Of course not, but there is some truth there. There are highly trained scientists who don't fully support the party line, and they are not allowed to speak. I believe it is not an intellectually honest conversation, and I'm old enough to remember other situations where dissent was not allowed and it turned out not so good. Also, don't forget that Scott is a humorist author, and part of his schtick is to deliberately cause outrage, especially with people who take themselves way too seriously.

E6300 10y ago
If you get diagnosed with cancer, would you go to med school and wait until you graduate and can fully understand the diagnosis and how the prescribed treatment was arrived at by your doctor before you follow it, or would you follow the treatment as closely as possible as soon as possible? Perhaps climate scientists don't know with completely precision everything there is to know about climate change. But as far as anyone can tell no one has a more accurate picture. "This theory may be imperfect [not even 'is imperfect'; we just don't know] so we should disregard it completely" is a Nirvana fallacy.
- mistermann 10y ago
  > Perhaps climate scientists don't know with completely precision everything there is to know about climate change. Don't be surprised when people don't trust you if you don't disclose that fact.
  - DonHopkins 10y ago
    Says the guy who brings bullshit to a discussion about calling bullshit.
    - mistermann 10y ago
      Oh, which bullshit was that?
      - DonHopkins 10y ago
        You claimed that Judith Curry was "not allowed to speak", for example. Here's something she allowed herself to speak: "Once we get over this little bump of activism, if the Trump administration will put us on a slightly reassuring and saner footing, that will allow all this to die down," she said. "We can always hope." -Judith Curry http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060047798 http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060047798 Good luck with that long term plan that depends on Trump putting us on a saner footing! Are you really sure she isn't allowed to speak? She's on FOX News an awful lot. And is it really true that people blink when they're lying? Starting at 3:00 I counted Judith Curry blinking 85 times in 60 seconds during this recent Tucker Carson interview on FOX News. At that rate, she must have blinked 387 times during that 4:33 minute interview! Forget about the Butterfly Effect: her eyelash fluttering itself could affect global climate patterns! https://youtu.be/g5LpwL4NKbw?t=3m0s https://youtu.be/g5LpwL4NKbw?t=3m0s

ue_ 10y ago

I don't mean to excuse the opinions he has on women, which I agree are deplorable, but I want to ask: what is wrong with being an activist for men's rights?

DonHopkins 10y ago
"Men's Rights Activist" is a euphemism for these people: https://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/ https://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/ Described in The Guardian as a "toxic technoculture on a spectrum of digital misogyny": https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/14/the-red-pill-reddit-modern-misogyny-manosphere-men https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/14/the-red-p... The term "red pill" is also common on 4chan's "politically incorrect" /pol/ board where taking the red pill is usually used to mean embracing conservative political thought and other related ideologies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_pill_and_blue_pill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_pill_and_blue_pill
- mistermann 10y ago
  I wonder if it's possible to be a men's rights activist without being considered a misogynist.
  - TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago
    By not being a misogynist, yes.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > I wonder if it's possible to be a men's rights activist without being considered a misogynist. It would be possible if there was a general perception that men were generally and historically, in the context in which one is an activist, oppressed based on their sex, such that being an activist for greater rights for men was consistent with pro-equality interest rather than anti-women interests. However, there are very few societies on the world where that view is dominant or even a wide minority view, either internally or for external observers, so it's very hard to be a "men's rights activist" without the general perception being that one is acting out an anti-woman worldview.

ewzimm 10y ago

What you're saying here seems to be backing up what Scott Adams is saying. I'm not saying you're an irrational person, but your arguments against him seem to be completely irrational, based on word associations rather than arguments. He says men often avoid arguing with women over gender equality issues for the same reasons they avoid arguing with children or the mentally handicapped, because they see the process of argument as counterproductive, and he specifically says that he's not equating the groups in any way, only the reasons for avoiding arguments with the different groups. If you were thinking in terms of word associations and analogies, this disclaimer wouldn't matter because it's the association of words that's important, not the argument itself. And here you're ignoring the argument and focusing on word associations which he explains clearly are not his point. I see people making this kind of argument all the time, and it makes using analogies in any way other than emotional association usually pointless because someone will always find a way to focus on their emotional response to the words rather than the arguments. Doesn't this perfectly illustrate his point? It seems like he was manipulating people into having this kind of negative reaction to prove his point that people don't focus on arguments.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]