5 ms·

You know, this seemed like an interesting case study right up until he quoted Scott Adam's take on "being cancelled."

• fastball 5y ago
  How come?
  • alsetmusic 5y ago
    Scott Adam’s says some pretty bizarre things in public on his blog and on his podcast. He wrote about causing his readers to orgasm via his words.[0] The tone was not that of a person with a healthy attitude towards sexuality. I found it unpleasant and gross. He’s also expressed some pretty odd ideas. From the same link: > Regular readers know that I used my background in hypnosis to accurately predict nine-out-nine political events in 2015, while most political professionals got zero right. That makes me the best political pundit of the year. The podcast QAnon Anonymous (which reports on conspiracy theories; it’s not pro-conspiracy thinking) did an episode about him.[1] It’s been a long time since I listened to it, so I won’t try to sum it up because I’d do so poorly. He came off as an unpleasant person who doesn’t seem admirable to me. I wouldn’t link to him in a post about character assassination. [0] https://www.scottadamssays.com/2015/12/31/hypnotizing-you-to-have-the-best-new-years-day/ https://www.scottadamssays.com/2015/12/31/hypnotizing-you-to... [1] https://m.soundcloud.com/qanonanonymous/episode-43-scott-adams https://m.soundcloud.com/qanonanonymous/episode-43-scott-ada...
    • njwi332 5y ago
      Even if you don't like Scott Adams (And I don't particularly like the guy myself), I don't think that should invalidate the specific statement that the article quotes, which should be able to stand on its own regardless of the background of the person saying it. See also: ad hominem, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/character-attack/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/character-attack/