5 ms·

I used to LOVE Dilbert. His comics are so funny. I didn't mind the Trump stuff. I think Scott Adam's insights were valuable even if his comments were extreme

I used to LOVE Dilbert. His comics are so funny. I didn't mind the Trump stuff. I think Scott Adam's insights were valuable even if his comments were extremely frustrating and contradictory. But his somewhat new Climate Change denial stuff finally made me unfollow him. https://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/status/1099685582140170240 https://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/status/109968558214017024...

merlincorey 8y ago
> But his somewhat new Climate Change denial stuff finally made me unfollow him. I don't follow Scott Adams, but my understanding from when he started talking about that subject is that he is not denying climate change, but he is acting as a climate skeptic in order to bring about debate and enlighten people on all sides. For a (possibly bad and certainly trite) metaphor, it's somewhat like saying "Gravity is settled science" to a gravity denialist. You could instead provide some facts and experiments they could try such as holding their hands above their head to fight the force[0] of gravity. They could decide they don't think your facts are correct and perhaps theorize other reasons why they cannot hold their hands above their head indefinitely. That's science, where even gravity is "just" a theory[1]. [0] Apparently in the Theory of Relatively, gravity is not actually a force, but a consequence of the curvature of space-time and uneven distribution of mass [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity#Modern_alternative_theories https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity#Modern_alternative_the...
- coldtea 8y ago
  >I don't follow Scott Adams, but my understanding from when he started talking about that subject is that he is not denying climate change, but he is acting as a climate skeptic in order to bring about debate and enlighten people on all sides. Apparently this is not allowed in polite company.
  - ghostbrainalpha 8y ago
    Of course its allowed. And I would love Adam's attempt to "enlighten people" if that was really his goal. But I'm saying this as a long time super fan... that isn't what it feels like to follow him anymore. I think he is less passionate about entertaining people or enlightening people, and more interested in bolstering his conservative credibility. I don't know why his career arched in that direction, and its his right to do whatever he likes. But for me I have had to jump off the train because doesn't seem to be tied to what I liked about his humor. I'm the conservative version of an Al Franken fan. We came for the comedy, but at some point it isn't about that anymore.
    - acqq 8y ago
      I agree with you, he doesn't write/speak about that topic like somebody who's just uninformed and is ready to learn. He uses invalid arguments and false claims there, which is not contributing to anything but, like you say, his "credibility" among those that need to identify with such public personas, for whatever reason they have. And his is getting "attention". It would not be different if he were a flat earther, and it's equally worthless.
- dontbenebby 8y ago
  >I don't follow Scott Adams, but my understanding from when he started talking about that subject is that he is not denying climate change We don't need debate on climate change. There are not "sides". (Unless you count reality and magical thinking as "sides".)
  - edmundsauto 8y ago
    We absolutely need debate and skeptics on climate change. Debate doesn't mean adversarial; it means questioning the evidence and possible interventions. If we aren't debating on climate change, how do we decide where to put resources to reduce emissions and clean up existing pollution?
    - dontbenebby 8y ago
      >Debate doesn't mean adversarial; it means questioning the evidence Questioning the evidence of climate change is de facto adversarial. The evidence is overwhelming and beyond question. No intelligent, sane person arguing in good faith would argue otherwise.
      - edmundsauto 8y ago
        Your derision and perspective are more appropriate for a religious zealot than a scientific thinker. Skepticism is the heart of science. I have not invested enough time in understanding the currently best climate models. I must, therefore, take a skeptical approach and question conclusions drawn from that evidence. Especially so for a projection. For the level of assurance you seem to have, I assume that you have rerun models yourself, have a deep understanding of complex systems and statistics, and done other climactic work? Even that is skepticism applied and questions asked.
coldtea 8y ago
>But his somewhat new Climate Change denial stuff finally made me unfollow him. To avoid an echo bubble, don't unfollow people for such reasons. In fact find more people with opposite views to follow.
- amdavidson 8y ago
  One does not have to subject oneself to nonsense in order to keep an open mind about the world.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    Opposing opinions are not necessarily nonsense. Not that you said that, but many imply it or assume it. It's like their worldview or nonsense. At best, they allow small diversions from their worldview. I say, we should allow huge diversions from our worldview. In fact, even if its nonsense, if its influencial we should study it and understand it (that is, we don't have to suffer any random nonsense, but if something is both nonsense and big, the real active citizen should study it at least, even if just to try to grasp why their fellow people fell for it and what consequences it might have). Of course if they start with "they fell for it because they're bad/stupid/crazy/lazy etc" that's just something to make themselves feel better, and doesn't really explain everything. First of all, this or that people can be bad/stupid/crazy/lazy: those are characteristics of the individual. Millions of people can't be said to be that, there are other forces at play when masses make decisions or adopt things, not personal pathologies. E.g. it's surely it's not because all the "stupid/crazy" people are in the fly-over states that Trump was popular there. And vice versa, it would be improbable that most of the smart/sane people are in the coasts. (You could reverse this with how MAGA supporters view Hillary supports, and it would be the same argument). Perhaps its a cultural thing that made this people vote this way and the others that. Or a historical thing. Or an economic shift that's felt in one area and not in another. People should strive to understand those things then, instead of assuming the others are into "nonsense". Of course people conveniently call their fellow people good/sane/etc when they agree with them (e.g. a vote goes how they liked) and then explain the opposite result at some later point (e.g. people voting something they don't like) as "people being bad/crazy/duped/etc"). They're not bothered to see the contradiction in calling the same masses both things at different times.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
MiddleEndian 8y ago
On the other hand, I read Dilbert and when I noticed his political rants a few years ago, I just adblocked the css for his blog posts.

merlincorey 8y ago

> But his somewhat new Climate Change denial stuff finally made me unfollow him. I don't follow Scott Adams, but my understanding from when he started talking about that subject is that he is not denying climate change, but he is acting as a climate skeptic in order to bring about debate and enlighten people on all sides. For a (possibly bad and certainly trite) metaphor, it's somewhat like saying "Gravity is settled science" to a gravity denialist. You could instead provide some facts and experiments they could try such as holding their hands above their head to fight the force[0] of gravity. They could decide they don't think your facts are correct and perhaps theorize other reasons why they cannot hold their hands above their head indefinitely. That's science, where even gravity is "just" a theory[1]. [0] Apparently in the Theory of Relatively, gravity is not actually a force, but a consequence of the curvature of space-time and uneven distribution of mass [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity#Modern_alternative_theories https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity#Modern_alternative_the...

coldtea 8y ago
>I don't follow Scott Adams, but my understanding from when he started talking about that subject is that he is not denying climate change, but he is acting as a climate skeptic in order to bring about debate and enlighten people on all sides. Apparently this is not allowed in polite company.
- ghostbrainalpha 8y ago
  Of course its allowed. And I would love Adam's attempt to "enlighten people" if that was really his goal. But I'm saying this as a long time super fan... that isn't what it feels like to follow him anymore. I think he is less passionate about entertaining people or enlightening people, and more interested in bolstering his conservative credibility. I don't know why his career arched in that direction, and its his right to do whatever he likes. But for me I have had to jump off the train because doesn't seem to be tied to what I liked about his humor. I'm the conservative version of an Al Franken fan. We came for the comedy, but at some point it isn't about that anymore.
  - acqq 8y ago
    I agree with you, he doesn't write/speak about that topic like somebody who's just uninformed and is ready to learn. He uses invalid arguments and false claims there, which is not contributing to anything but, like you say, his "credibility" among those that need to identify with such public personas, for whatever reason they have. And his is getting "attention". It would not be different if he were a flat earther, and it's equally worthless.
dontbenebby 8y ago
>I don't follow Scott Adams, but my understanding from when he started talking about that subject is that he is not denying climate change We don't need debate on climate change. There are not "sides". (Unless you count reality and magical thinking as "sides".)
- edmundsauto 8y ago
  We absolutely need debate and skeptics on climate change. Debate doesn't mean adversarial; it means questioning the evidence and possible interventions. If we aren't debating on climate change, how do we decide where to put resources to reduce emissions and clean up existing pollution?
  - dontbenebby 8y ago
    >Debate doesn't mean adversarial; it means questioning the evidence Questioning the evidence of climate change is de facto adversarial. The evidence is overwhelming and beyond question. No intelligent, sane person arguing in good faith would argue otherwise.
    - edmundsauto 8y ago
      Your derision and perspective are more appropriate for a religious zealot than a scientific thinker. Skepticism is the heart of science. I have not invested enough time in understanding the currently best climate models. I must, therefore, take a skeptical approach and question conclusions drawn from that evidence. Especially so for a projection. For the level of assurance you seem to have, I assume that you have rerun models yourself, have a deep understanding of complex systems and statistics, and done other climactic work? Even that is skepticism applied and questions asked.

coldtea 8y ago

>But his somewhat new Climate Change denial stuff finally made me unfollow him. To avoid an echo bubble, don't unfollow people for such reasons. In fact find more people with opposite views to follow.

amdavidson 8y ago
One does not have to subject oneself to nonsense in order to keep an open mind about the world.
- coldtea 8y ago
  Opposing opinions are not necessarily nonsense. Not that you said that, but many imply it or assume it. It's like their worldview or nonsense. At best, they allow small diversions from their worldview. I say, we should allow huge diversions from our worldview. In fact, even if its nonsense, if its influencial we should study it and understand it (that is, we don't have to suffer any random nonsense, but if something is both nonsense and big, the real active citizen should study it at least, even if just to try to grasp why their fellow people fell for it and what consequences it might have). Of course if they start with "they fell for it because they're bad/stupid/crazy/lazy etc" that's just something to make themselves feel better, and doesn't really explain everything. First of all, this or that people can be bad/stupid/crazy/lazy: those are characteristics of the individual. Millions of people can't be said to be that, there are other forces at play when masses make decisions or adopt things, not personal pathologies. E.g. it's surely it's not because all the "stupid/crazy" people are in the fly-over states that Trump was popular there. And vice versa, it would be improbable that most of the smart/sane people are in the coasts. (You could reverse this with how MAGA supporters view Hillary supports, and it would be the same argument). Perhaps its a cultural thing that made this people vote this way and the others that. Or a historical thing. Or an economic shift that's felt in one area and not in another. People should strive to understand those things then, instead of assuming the others are into "nonsense". Of course people conveniently call their fellow people good/sane/etc when they agree with them (e.g. a vote goes how they liked) and then explain the opposite result at some later point (e.g. people voting something they don't like) as "people being bad/crazy/duped/etc"). They're not bothered to see the contradiction in calling the same masses both things at different times.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

MiddleEndian 8y ago

On the other hand, I read Dilbert and when I noticed his political rants a few years ago, I just adblocked the css for his blog posts.