Scott Adam’s is a Fascist 6-8-16

Today, Amanda Marcotte published an article in Salon maintaining that Dilbert has Gone Fascist.

As an interesting aside, I discovered this when I was typing in the words “scott adams” into my search bar to get to Scott Adams blog. Google and/or Apple is apparently heavily invested in making sure that everybody who wants to go to Scott Adam’s blog gets a chance to read Amanda Marcotte’s wisdom on Dilbert’s/Scott Adams’ embrace of racism.

scottadamssearchbar

Anyway, onto Marcotte:

In the real world, Trump has off-the-charts unfavorability ratings, but in the world of Scott Adams, Trump is  a svengali of politics, headed for a landslide in November, due to the enormous persuasive power of racist cracks and non sequitur ramblings. If you read enough of Adams’s blog, it becomes quickly apparent that the only reason Adams thinks this is because he himself is persuaded to vote for Trump. And, like his fellow narcissistic Donald Trump, Adams mistakes his views for the majority.

I think this is a legitimate objection to Scott Adams’ insistence that Trump will win by a landslide in November. Specifically, what I have not seen Adams address is the difficulty of persuading entrenched opposition. Persuasion and branding are powerful things, but their effects are also often semi-permanent to permanent. Once successfully persuaded to buy fully into something from a car brand to a computer ecosystem to an ideology, it’s very difficult to brand and persuade someone out of it.

If you’ve been buying Apple Macintosh computers for years, your next one is likely to be an Apple Macintosh, and no amount of compelling persuasion techniques by Lenovo or Intel or Microsoft is going to change that. No matter how good. This is why Trump’s powerful persuasion techniques identified by Adams’ are unlikely to result in a landslide for Trump in November. This is not a competition between two brand new products in an entirely new category. There is already a lot of baked-in brand loyalty, and a good advertising campaign may move the needle, but the shift will not be seismic.

However, things like this are awesome:

Despite claiming not to support anyone, Adams has largely handed his blog over to defending Trump from his critics.

He doesn’t really do a lot of defending Trump from his critics. He’s asserting that Trump’s dispensing of facts and logic in favor of persuasion techniques, intentional or accidental, is superior to what anybody else is doing in the campaign, and that certainly proved to be true as far as the Republican primary went.

Trump makes a blatantly racist remark about Judge Gonzalo Curiel being “Mexican” and therefore, in Trump’s opinion, unable to render an impartial verdict in the Trump U case? Adams says that Trump critics must therefore be saying Curiel is a “robot” because “100% of humans are biased about just about everything.”

She includes a link to the original blog post which makes it pretty clear Adams is writing a satirical piece on the absurdity of identity politics and the concept of impartiality (in his opinion), and analyzing Trump’s strategy from his perspective on the art of persuasion:

Curiel looks human on the outside, and he has passed as human for decades. But Cooper made it clear in his interviews yesterday that while science understands that 100% of humans are biased about just about everything, this robot judge is not susceptible to being influenced by his life experiences. It sounds deeply implausible, but no one on CNN challenged Cooper’s implication that Judge Curiel is the only bias-free entity in the universe. Ergo, he must be a robot.

Anyway, lots of folks on Twitter are asking me why Trump would accuse the robot judge of being “Mexican” when that is obviously a racist thing to say. Did Trump make a huge mistake, or is it some sort of clever persuasion thing?

Clearly, Adams is defending both racism and fascism. It is not possible to reach any other conclusion.

The nut of Adams argument (as with pretty much all his Trump posts) and basically untouched on by Marcotte, who tries to use her own lame skills at persuasion to convince us that Adams only wants to slavishly defend Trump and was only using the above blog post to assert that Trump critics were saying the judge, Curiel, is actually a robot (literal, much?) … and, where was I? Oh, yes, the nut of Adams argument regarding Trump and Curiel:

1. Trump wins in court, in which case, Trump wins.

2. Trump loses in court, in which case, Trump says Democrats rigged the system to give him an unfair trial. We’re already primed to believe it.

From a legal perspective, race is not a reason to remove a judge. I haven’t heard anyone argue otherwise. But from a persuasion perspective, Trump is setting the stage for whatever is to come. So yes, it is smart, albeit offensive.

Not quoted by Marcotte, of course, presumably to avoid her readers being offended by reading what Adams actually said, instead of her skewed interpretation of it.

Adams writes a whole blog post sneering at the very idea that one is capable of predicting a person’s future behavior on their past record.

Except, of course, Adams is demonstrably correct in his actual assertion. Also, there are no quotes, of course, because things like this would erode her primary assertion:

So, how did President Obama do on the job? Was he a good president?

If you have an answer in your head – either yes or no – it proves you don’t know how to make decisions. No judgement can be made about Obama’s performance because there is nothing to which it can be compared. No one else in a parallel universe was president at the same time, doing different things and getting different results.

I’m not a fan of everything our president has done, but I feel as if historians will rank him as one of our best presidents. Definitely in the top 20%.

Wait, what? Am I crazy?

Many of you think Obama nearly destroyed civilization. You and I can’t both be right. But both of us can be irrational in trusting our opinions. We are literally comparing Obama’s actual performance to imagined alternatives that exist only in our minds. Maybe you think the imaginary president in your mind is way better than the real one, whereas I think the real one did well compared to my imaginary alternative.

That isn’t thinking. Science is pretty clear on that.

Marcotte never mentions that this Trump-infatuated sycophant thinks Obama will be ranked in the top 20% of US Presidents. Hmmm.

I will not dive into the plenitude of evidence that people are horrible at prediction, and wildly overestimate their own ability to predict the future, their own future behavior, and the future behavior of others beyond the simplest degrees of complexity.

Back to Marcotte:

Now Adams has a real doozy of post, where he pretends to endorse Clinton, but of course it’s a cover story for his real endorsement: Trump. In the post, Adams literally accuses Clinton of trying to get Trump killed because, “once you define Trump as Hitler, you also give citizens moral permission to kill him.”

I understand that when people lampoon our sacred cows, we don’t find the humor funny. However, I am prone to believe that Marcotte doesn’t understand that part of what Scott Adams is doing is parody. I find it also ironic (and interesting un-self-aware) that Marcotte does not seem to associate that post as using an inversion of the same logic Trump’s critics do when they blame him for violence at his rallies.

Obviously, this is not a Clinton endorsement. The purpose of this is to try to convince people that Clinton is some kind of dangerous fascist demagogue who will send her brownshirts into the street to force people into compliance with violence. This opinion, of course, has nothing to do with the real life Clinton and everything to do with Adams’s fantasy version of her.

I’m not sure she understands satire. Or irony. There has been a constant and ongoing comparison of Trump to Hitler and his supporters to brownshirts for the more hyperbolic elements of the left and the Democrats. Did Marcotte miss that?

It’s a fantasy version of Clinton that is quite obviously a direct result of Adams’s own bizarre hang-ups about women. Adams has a long history of being obsessed with the idea that women have grown too powerful and they are pushing hapless men around in our new feminist dystopia.

Oh, well. Of course she missed it. When you are a hammer, I suppose everything looks like a nail.

For instance, there is the classic post where he argued that ours is a “female-dominated” society, because, in what he clearly believes is a grave injustice, “access to sex is strictly controlled by the woman.” They are allowed to turn you down even if you pay for dinner first. And you ladies think you have it bad just because you get paid less, are far likelier to be raped, and have to endure politicians trying to force childbirth on you against your will.

Some of that she’s just making up. An important part of that post that Adams’ perhaps should have emphasized is this:

Now compare our matriarchy (that we pretend is a patriarchy) with the situation in DAESH-held territory. That’s what a male-dominated society looks like. It isn’t pretty. The top-ranked men have multiple wives and the low-ranked men either have no access to women, or they have sex with captured slaves.

He’s arguing that a real patriarchy looks like ISIS or the Taliban or Saudi Arabia. Yet she asserts that Adams is suggesting the fact that America isn’t run by the Taliban is a “grave injustice”.

About another post, in which Adams suggest there’s really no middle ground in the war between the sexes, either men or women will win (and he seems, to me, to think it’s sad that men can’t win, but it’s better for humanity that women do) , Marcotte writes:

 He concludes that the only solution to this problem is to “come up with a drug that keeps men chemically castrated” and eliminate all copulation, because clearly, in his mind, the only way men can express themselves sexually is by abusing women.

Always comes to the same thing with feminists. Men and women having sex = abusing women.

I gotta say, she needs to work on her persuasion skills.

17 Responses

  1. Good work, KW. Really good.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. Thanks. It was mostly because I was worried Brent wasn’t going to post something, and things were getting old, but then he did while I finished it, so I delayed the publishing until the afternoon.

    Like

  3. I’ve read that all PiV is rape. I have no reason to challenge it.

    Like

    • McWing:

      Oops.

      That was f’n hilarious.

      Like

    • They are defending themselves by saying that the main point of the paper was to demonstrate the magnitude of correlations between personality traits and sociopolitical attitudes, and hence that the ideological direction of the correlation doesn’t matter.

      I bet this can ultimately either not be verified through multiple studies by different organizations, or has to be walked back at some future point. To whit: I’ve witnessed all sorts of personality traits in all sorts of people that in no way correspond to their ideology. People can be assholes and also identify as liberal or conservative. It’s an illusion of pattern imposition, a limitation of how our brains think, that make us wanted to see not just causality in correlation but correlations that are not there. I’ve known neurotics across the political spectrum.

      It started with a desire to find that unpleasant personality traits correlate to ideological positions the authors don’t approve of. The fact that they got it exactly reversed might be indicative of this initial desire, sublimated though it may have been.

      As an aside, we have frequent evidence that the predictions of disaster in regards to anthropogenic climate change are greatly exaggerated, or completely made up. While there is a difference in collected climate data and social sciences data (most of which involve studies with low levels of additional studies that reproduce results), Global Warming and the social sciences converge at the point of predicted future disasters and doomsaying. They become easily distorted by biases and the very nature of our thinking equipment. At least, thus far.

      Like

  4. The emergence of Scott Adams as a whipping boy for Donald Trump surprises me as Adams has been a curmudgeonly contrarian for years and only now is gaining widespread attention. What happened was that Adams correctly, in defiance of conventional wisdom and all polling, called Trump as the eventual nominee early and decisively.

    Like the oddball stockpicker who strikes it big in a downturn, he is now being hailed as a great analyst when in reality he just got lucky. He claims to not be a Trump supporter and I take him at his word, but he clearly is a Trump admirer. That may because his world view aligns with Trump or not. What he admires is the way Trump has bypassed the establishment and created his own support base independent of the traditional party structure.

    Adams’ views on women are a little more problematic. Again, he claims to not be a Men’s Rights Advocate, but he clearly sympathizes with their complaints. In some ways he exaggerates their viewpoints but he also may just be kidding on the square.

    Liked by 1 person

    • “What he admires is the way Trump has bypassed the establishment and created his own support base independent of the traditional party structure.”

      I think this is true, and he admires him for the reason many people admire others: in that way, Scott Adams own approach to life has been very similar.

      I think his views on women are problematic in that he prefers to be an iconoclast. He clearly does not believe that men are the ideal and should be in charge, although his position that we are a matriarchy seems inaccurate to me, as matriarchies are not just cultural but also political—a true matriarchy would have women ruling in all positions of power and men would be excluded from leadership. Also, there is some difference between men genuflecting to women in order to please them because it is important to men to do that, and a culture that it is mandatory to please women. Although I’m sure to some folks, it’s one and the same.

      “Like the oddball stockpicker who strikes it big in a downturn, he is now being hailed as a great analyst when in reality he just got lucky.”

      Which I expect Adams would agree to, ultimately. If you’ve read the book he’s promoting in his blog, he talks about the significance of luck in success. I would suspect the same is true of this. However, I believe his prediction, based on what Trump was doing, was relatively accurate, and so would his landslide win in November . . . if this was purely a fight over persuasion and branding and influence. But just as you can’t hypnotize someone who refuses to listen to your voice and look at your pocket watch, Trump’s not going to be able to brand and persuade Democrats, liberals, and other’s predisposed to hate Trump or his apparent positions. That is, Trump’s brand of influence did work in the primaries, but can’t lead to the same kind of victory in the general.

      Like

  5. So is this a great brief or the greatest brief? The opening line:

    Donald Trump is too busy to be honest.

    And it gets more sarcastic from there.

    Liked by 1 person

    • When the material is supplied by your opponent you must use it. Sarcasm is tricky in the courtroom, but this is a case for it.

      Great find, YJ.

      Like

    • Trump wrote his motion in Bizarro World!

      Although I feel, in some ways, the existence of Trump is what is allowing even legal briefs to gain personality and sarcastic humor.

      Like

  6. BTW, very happy to see you here, @yellojkt!

    Liked by 2 people

  7. So I just read that Judge Gonzalo Curiel, the judge that Trump called a “Mexican” and who every news report points out was “born in Indiana”, is actually a member of the California La Raza Lawyers Association, a special interest group for Latino lawyers.

    Why is it troublesome for Trump to go out of his way to highlight Curiel’s ethnicity but not troublesome for Curiel himself to do so?

    Like

    • Because shut up, that’s why.

      Like

    • The wisdom of Trump’s strategy of suggesting the judge’s heritage makes him incapable of judging his case aside, one wonders what a white judge who is also member of a white-activist group called “The Race” might be treated by the media if, say, a black businessman or activist accused said judge of being unable to fairly adjudicate his case, given that he was a proud member of a white-activist group called “The Race”.

      “Why is it troublesome for Trump to go out of his way to highlight Curiel’s ethnicity but not troublesome for Curiel himself to do so?”

      Race is a 3rd rail of instant death for caucasians to bring up or discuss in any form that isn’t complete surrender and groveling. That’s why. And, you know, slavery, institutional racism, Jim Crow laws, Japanese internment camps, yada yada.

      Like

Be kind, show respect, and all will be right with the world.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: