You're viewing a single thread.
I love that I have seen comments responding to comments about him being crazy with something like. So everyone you disagree with is crazy. Its not a disagreement when someone says a relatively new, modern age group, was behind a historical group. Im not going to even get into its the opposite of what their group is about. Its like no. People are called crazy for saying crazy shit. Like slavery was beneficial to slaves. Thats not about disagreement its just patently wrong. Its like saying when you murder people it can sometimes be good for their health.
Adams is "crazy" because he seems to disagree with himself. Donald Trump impresses Adams, yet he voted for Hillary Clinton to protect himself. White people should "stay the hell away from black people," yet in a tweet after his tirade he explained he is not bothered by black people, but instead bothered by white advocates for black people (which... may include himself, I mean he identified as black for solidarity or something, which is kind of meaningless, but he did used to support black cartoonist Robb Armstrong's comic Jump Start quite a bit, and even wrote the foreward to his book). Yeah, his views can be upsetting, but the following day they will likely be upsetting yet completely contrawise to his previous views. That's why he's "crazy," and while I dislike the connotation of the word it seems apt. He has a constant paranoid mania in his videos, blog posts, and tweets. I really only have a layman's knowledge of mental disorders, coupled with my own experience, but Adams really needs an evaluation. PTSD, any bipolar disorder, any schizophrenia, or maybe something else I don't know about could likely be in the cards.
But also like... In an entirely self-contained way the person who wrote the original post is crazy because they are claiming a group was part of events that ended decades before that group formed.
Yeah when stuff first came out I watched like half a dozen episodes of his coffee talks. I kept on trying to go with that hes joking or being sarcastic in some way but eventually its like nope. there is no way to spin this. biden turning into a werewolf. sort a joke or something. don't really get it. does not fit in as funny. come on bring this around to some sort of sarcasm. crap hes just lost it.
He was a big inspiration to me too for a while. I started reading Dilbert when I was first learning how to read. Then I started making my own comics for a bit. My mom and a lot of her colleagues loved him and his comic too, since they worked for Nynex, later Bell Atlantic, while he was working for Pacific Bell. I have this fantasy that maybe my mom or her colleagues might've even spoken/written to him once while they worked in purchasing. Maybe she or someone else got a phone call saying "Hey, this is Scott. The Seattle office needs more paper. Please order some." Though that probably isn't too likely since Nynex only dealt with New York and New England, and Bell Atlantic with the East Coast. Still, everything seemed somewhat interconnected in the Baby Bell days of the phone companies that I feel like he could have crossed their paths. Anyway, I hope he reexamines his views and has a support network in getting better. He deserves his punishment but the funnies aren't the same without Dilbert.
Yeah. Its so strange as I feel this is happening with a lot of people. From well known public figures to even my own family memebers. I sometimes wonder if its a result of modern things that are unfixable for the individual. Climate change and such. I sometimes wonder if some folks brains can't handle not having a solution so has to go into all sorts of strange beliefs or directions in search of a fix. Like back when musk was a bit more normal there was talk around his various endeavours trying to push technological development to sorta fix things (getting off fossil fuels, moving industry to space, etc) and I sorta wonder if it just became clear that the math did not add up and his mind went to a social issues fantasy to fix the world.
Antifa isn't all that new though. While the American antifa isn't actually a branch of the original 1930s German one, it likes to think it is, and it's the German one that Scott's claiming helped Hitler gain power.
No. No it isn't. Scott is just a moron who happens to also be able to draw (badly) characters that corporate office drones relate to. He's absolutely trying to attack the current Anti-facist movement in the USA.
I mean yeah, he is, but saying it's new isn't why he's talking bollocks. There was an Antifa that the modern antifa claims ideological descent from, and that is what he is claiming supported Hitler.
The issue is that what Antifa actually is and how the public perceives it are two different things. This is why certain people will believe this as much as NSDAP being socialists because it is in the name which makes them leftists unless you really give a history lesson. And from experience that will end up in that they either say that's just your opinion, look at you with glassed eyes or never even listened to you into the end.
Yes, both are historically really incorrect and at the level of a glance funny in inaccuracy. But on more deeper level this (insert the right fallacy or tactic as it escapes me) is a lot more insidiously dangerous. How do you efficiently encounter it in a way that most people will come out of the discussion with the most accurate knowledge?