Careercow Scott Raymond Adams / @ScottAdamsSays / “Real Coffee With Scott Adams” - The Washed Up Cartoonist Behind “Dilbert”, Creator of “The Dilberito”, Professional Bullying Victim, Political Grifter, Terminally Online Narcissistic Boomer, Divorced Twice, Is (Not) Glad His Stepson Overdosed. This is Not a Racial Politics Debate Thread
- Thread starter Blacked
- Start date
Jacob Schiff
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2022
The top hats you’ve dished says otherwise.
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2018
The comics are starting to get a bit more unhinged.
Because I need to add commentary, I'm not sure why Scott Adams claims to know what Biden's penis looks like or why this is supposed to be funny. A possible hypothesis emerges - could he have dementia?
Because I need to add commentary, I'm not sure why Scott Adams claims to know what Biden's penis looks like or why this is supposed to be funny. A possible hypothesis emerges - could he have dementia?
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2023
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2022
recolor digimon being hated has been a time-honored tradition in Digimon since DW1 came out
The question is, considering that he's now into Digimon, is he also into Monster Rancher?
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2019
he did these things years ago, and they were all kinda based on a single "idea/joke/meme/gotcha" and they all kinda sucked. I think I get what he's going with (lol trump named someone something, jill has biden by the balls joke) but man it's not great.
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2022
Even the most talented people need producers, editors or someone who can keep them from doing stupid things like this. (As they say, even Tiger Woods has a golf coach.) Adams probably should have passed the Dilbert pen to someone else a few years ago.
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2019
It's the Kanye/Donald Trump problem, and it's as old as Howard Hughes. When you cast out everyone who can say no to you, you remove the last barrier stopping you from becoming completely unmoored from reality.
Like how the media shat on Clint Eastwood back in 2012 for his chair monologue at one of the Republican events. Everyone, including big celebrities such as Eastwood and Kanye, have done some very questionable stuff, yet the media and other celebrities are even worse when throwing rocks at glass houses.
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2022
the empty suit bit was funny for like, thirty seconds, and then it kept on going
But I've heard it massively pissed of Romney and some other dipshit class GOPs so that's cool
Yep. And then Romney made a comment about jet beam fuels and the media turned against him instead.
- Joined
- May 17, 2023
I knew the guy was a bit weird but to see him venture into lolcow territory is a bit of a shame. The Dilbert Principle is an excellent view of corporate insanity and helps put in perspective why nothing ever gets done, I'd highly recommend it.
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2016
I call it "The Anne Rice Effect" because Anne Rice (who was a locow in her prime) was a perfect example of this. After the massive success of her first few vampire novels, she decided she didn't need an editor any more, and demanded a new contract in which she had complete control over the content of subsequent books. She compared herself to Charles Dickens, whose literary genius shone forth untouched by any editor (but lezbereal; Dickens was a wantonly logorrheic tl;dr motherfucker, just like Rice).
Rice got the no-editing contract she demanded, because she was guaranteed to sell a shitload of books. But the quality dropped way off, and so many of her books from the mid-'90s onward are virtually unreadable—stuffed with bloated prose, with plots hinging on profoundly stupid, illogical ideas, and they're more interesting as documentation of one woman's rampant id at work than they are as works of fiction.
She lost a lot of previously-devoted fans over that, but most stayed, and she picked up new fans who had different standards. Her books kept selling, because when you have intensely devoted fans of a given series and its charismatic author, it takes a lot to finally make them give up on it, plus they'll keep picking up new fans You can coast on early glory for a long, long time, especially if you're also at the center of an emotionally-invested cult of personality—as Rice was and Adams is.
So I'm not surprised that Adams can churn out shitty Dilbert strips and still have an audience for them That's because his fans aren't there for Dilbert strips, they're there for Scott Adams, who says provocative shit, sprinkled with bits of useful advice. He can quit drawing Dilbert at any time, and hardly anyone will care, but for whatever reason he still feels the need to—I think he's got something he needs to get out of his system by doing so, and I also thinks he wants to drive the strip into the ground and kill it himself, rather than have anybody else take it over. He could kill Dilbert off by simply not drawing it any more, but that's the magic of a lolcow—when they ruin something and render it an embarrassment, they do a thorough job of it.
Just because he's a lolcow doesn't mean he can't be genuinely good at what he does within his specific area of expertise. I still see a lot of his books recommended by people who don't follow Dilbert, don't watch his livestreams, and think he's a nut. If the work is good, it will stand up, even if the author is a raging lolcow—and that's okay.
Such as John K. for example. He;s done a lot of very horrifying, creepy, shady and questionable stuff, but is a great artist. But just because you make art doesn't automatically mean you are a good artist.
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2022
I don't think Scott's idea of "History on demand" has gotten enough ridicule.
According to him, it's easier for the simulation to just make up history as it goes along than keep a consistent record of what previously happened, so any archaeological find is just something the simulation made up yesterday because you started digging. Evolution or not? Doesn't matter because neither happened, the simulation just makes up evidence as you dig. When did the first humans come to America? Scott says it might as well be 15,000 years earlier or later because it was neither. It's some real Lastthursdayism thinking
He speaks of the founding fathers of America as if they were real people who wrote the constitution, so it makes me wonder when he thinks the simulation actually started. 1620?
According to him, it's easier for the simulation to just make up history as it goes along than keep a consistent record of what previously happened, so any archaeological find is just something the simulation made up yesterday because you started digging. Evolution or not? Doesn't matter because neither happened, the simulation just makes up evidence as you dig. When did the first humans come to America? Scott says it might as well be 15,000 years earlier or later because it was neither. It's some real Lastthursdayism thinking
He speaks of the founding fathers of America as if they were real people who wrote the constitution, so it makes me wonder when he thinks the simulation actually started. 1620?
Something that Scott doesn't understand is that America has always been flawed even before its formation and especially its discovery.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
Something the Framers understood that few have since is they knew the country would eventually be taken over by evil mongoloid idiot fucks and they made a framework where even that would be survivable.
One of the most obvious examples is how John Adams, who drafted parts of the Constitution specifically to prevent the government from outlawing criticism of itself, because he could see that was going to happen, literally immediately passed laws as soon as he became President outlawing criticism of himself (the Alien and Sedition Act).
There was a period where being anti-Federalist would land you in jail (most of the people who ended up in jail actually doubled down on calling the government a bunch of evil fucks even while they were behind bars), and this was so unpopular the Federalist Party got wiped out in the next elections and essentially ceased to exist a few years later.
It wasn't until New York Times v. Sullivan that the First Amendment actually had serious support from SCOTUS. They literally did nothing about the Alien and Sedition Act, and while it was generally considered unconstitutional, it wasn't because SCOTUS said that. It was just because the one administration that tried to wipe its ass with the First Amendment got burned so badly that nobody else (until recently) tried that shit again.
Anyway, the reason the U.S. has lasted as long as it has, even with the intervening Civil War, is it's literally based on the concept that people are stupid, greedy and evil and will fuck up anything you give them if there aren't rules that stop that. In our case, it's setting up three branches of government that hate and detest each other and are in such incessant internecine warfare that they don't have the ability to join together and really fuck us up the ass.
At least until recently.
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2022
Kristina whines that Scott divorced her while she was fighting cancer, but when I heard that the first thing I thought was, Idiot! He should've waited and seen because it's cheaper to get widowed than divorced!
If she died, his money would be his and he wouldn't have to share it with anybody, he'd even inherit from her estate. But since he got divorced first, she gets part of his estate and alimony and after she dies all that money and property goes to her kids and never comes back
If she died, his money would be his and he wouldn't have to share it with anybody, he'd even inherit from her estate. But since he got divorced first, she gets part of his estate and alimony and after she dies all that money and property goes to her kids and never comes back
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2019
Well, that's the rub, ain't it? The whole system that Madison and Adams and the others set up depends on the notion that everyone in the nation is generally on board with the idea that liberal democracy is good and should be protected. It never contemplated the possibility that a large percentage of the public would someday decide that it would be really great to be ruled by a strongman without regard to what the people want.