4 ms·

I’m not convinced that many actually need a tutorial on free speech (the principle.) You can talk but you can’t make people listen and you can’t make others hos

I’m not convinced that many actually need a tutorial on free speech (the principle.) You can talk but you can’t make people listen and you can’t make others host you. I think the crying wolf that tends to happen is more of an emotional response to being shown the door. I had some run-ins with Scott Adams on Twitter over the Trump years. The thing that caught my attention was how he was so insecure and petty that he would argue with complete “nobodies” like myself for extended periods of time if you tried to be reasonably persuasive. I think some people badly crave validation of their positions.

KerrAvon 4y ago
[flagged]
- Waterluvian 4y ago
  It’s possibly a survivorship bias. All the smarter ones know their opinions are unpalatable. We just hear from the intellectually weak, who crave validation that they think comes from uttering their nonsense. Though maybe there’s a correlation between being intellectually weak and being a bigot.
ninjin 4y ago
> [H]e was so insecure and petty that he would argue with complete “nobodies” like myself for extended periods of time if you tried to be reasonably persuasive. I do appreciate Adams’ work, although I think he has “gone off the deep end”. However, is what you write here not potentially a very uncharitable take? Is it not also possible that this man genuinely cares about a fellow man and believes he can somehow get through to you? This is of course putting aside whether he is on the right side of the argument and whether he himself can be argued out of his own position.
- Waterluvian 4y ago
  Ad hominem attacks aren’t a great way to get through to anyone. Perhaps “argue” is the wrong word.
  - ninjin 4y ago
    Yes, I would tend to agree that delivering a tirade of ad hominem attacks does not qualify as providing a solid argument to a fellow man. =) I hope Adams’ comes around eventually. Until then, we will always have the good old times: https://dilbert.com/strip/1995-06-24 https://dilbert.com/strip/1995-06-24
    - Waterluvian 4y ago
      Hah. That’s a good one. It’s an interesting situation I find myself in more often than I wish: someone has become fairly deplorable but I still like their earlier work. Adams, Roiland, Rowling, Louis C.K. etc. How does one reconcile that? It really sours things.
      - porkbeer 4y ago
        'Deplorable' are we still using that hateful dog whistle?
klyrs 4y ago
That's the thing that really stands out to me in his response to this. > My publisher for non-Dilbert books has canceled my upcoming book and the entire backlist. Still no disagreement about my point of view. My book agent canceled me too. It's no surprise that he's digging his heels in, no surprise that he's playing the victim... but when he says "no disagreement" he seems to think that people not debating him is tacit agreement that he's right. Or maybe that's what he wants his audience to think. People like you have been debating him on this stuff non-stop for years now. It's inconceivable that people in his professional strata haven't been doing the same. That he's getting canned for crossing the line so blatantly cannot even remotely be a surprise, he must have gotten warnings over his years of edgelording. His only response is the sea lion's battle cry: "debate me!"
sdenton4 4y ago
There was that time he showed up on Metafilter anonymously and called himself a genius in third person, eventually getting outed... https://mefiwiki.com/wiki/Scott_Adams,_plannedchaos https://mefiwiki.com/wiki/Scott_Adams,_plannedchaos
- foogazi 4y ago
  From the mefiwiki: > He wrote that he makes contrarian predictions as calculated bets that in the unlikely event they pan out, he would get credit. Doesn’t care about being right or wrong, but getting credit for the appearance of being right. Poisoning the well for his own amusement. To clever to be caught but when it happens it’s because it was all part of the master plan
  - Waterluvian 4y ago
    In high school we had a person who did that. We called him Nostradumbass. It got bizarre and then kind of sad, just how much effort he put into it. At one point he would make lots of timestamped claims and then delete anything that didn't come true.

KerrAvon 4y ago

[flagged]

Waterluvian 4y ago
It’s possibly a survivorship bias. All the smarter ones know their opinions are unpalatable. We just hear from the intellectually weak, who crave validation that they think comes from uttering their nonsense. Though maybe there’s a correlation between being intellectually weak and being a bigot.

ninjin 4y ago

> [H]e was so insecure and petty that he would argue with complete “nobodies” like myself for extended periods of time if you tried to be reasonably persuasive. I do appreciate Adams’ work, although I think he has “gone off the deep end”. However, is what you write here not potentially a very uncharitable take? Is it not also possible that this man genuinely cares about a fellow man and believes he can somehow get through to you? This is of course putting aside whether he is on the right side of the argument and whether he himself can be argued out of his own position.

Waterluvian 4y ago
Ad hominem attacks aren’t a great way to get through to anyone. Perhaps “argue” is the wrong word.
- ninjin 4y ago
  Yes, I would tend to agree that delivering a tirade of ad hominem attacks does not qualify as providing a solid argument to a fellow man. =) I hope Adams’ comes around eventually. Until then, we will always have the good old times: https://dilbert.com/strip/1995-06-24 https://dilbert.com/strip/1995-06-24
  - Waterluvian 4y ago
    Hah. That’s a good one. It’s an interesting situation I find myself in more often than I wish: someone has become fairly deplorable but I still like their earlier work. Adams, Roiland, Rowling, Louis C.K. etc. How does one reconcile that? It really sours things.
    - porkbeer 4y ago
      'Deplorable' are we still using that hateful dog whistle?

klyrs 4y ago

That's the thing that really stands out to me in his response to this. > My publisher for non-Dilbert books has canceled my upcoming book and the entire backlist. Still no disagreement about my point of view. My book agent canceled me too. It's no surprise that he's digging his heels in, no surprise that he's playing the victim... but when he says "no disagreement" he seems to think that people not debating him is tacit agreement that he's right. Or maybe that's what he wants his audience to think. People like you have been debating him on this stuff non-stop for years now. It's inconceivable that people in his professional strata haven't been doing the same. That he's getting canned for crossing the line so blatantly cannot even remotely be a surprise, he must have gotten warnings over his years of edgelording. His only response is the sea lion's battle cry: "debate me!"

sdenton4 4y ago

There was that time he showed up on Metafilter anonymously and called himself a genius in third person, eventually getting outed... https://mefiwiki.com/wiki/Scott_Adams,_plannedchaos https://mefiwiki.com/wiki/Scott_Adams,_plannedchaos

foogazi 4y ago
From the mefiwiki: > He wrote that he makes contrarian predictions as calculated bets that in the unlikely event they pan out, he would get credit. Doesn’t care about being right or wrong, but getting credit for the appearance of being right. Poisoning the well for his own amusement. To clever to be caught but when it happens it’s because it was all part of the master plan
- Waterluvian 4y ago
  In high school we had a person who did that. We called him Nostradumbass. It got bizarre and then kind of sad, just how much effort he put into it. At one point he would make lots of timestamped claims and then delete anything that didn't come true.