Is the Dilbert creator, Scott Adams, the most important public intellectual of our time?

Never heard of Scott Adams or Dilbert.

Bigly!

bigtool05 wrote:

Dilbert was, from the late 80s to around 2000, one of the funniest comic strips out there. It started going downhill after that, but managed to stay decent for another half decade before descending into utter irrelevance. Too bad Scott Adams didn't follow Bill Watterson's example and retire Dilbert once he began to run out of ideas. I mean, I totally understand why he's kept going for all these years, but it's just a shame that Dilbert's been crappy for so long that some people forget or don't even realize that it used to be really good.

I agree that Dilbert has gone downhill in the last several years but I still enjoy it and get a good laugh from it maybe every 2-3 weeks. Adams is obviously intelligent and creative, finding a socially acceptable way to laugh at stupid people is an accomplishment. But there also seems to be a lack of compassion for human shortcomings that's off putting. Stupid people didn't ask to be stupid.

But calling him an intellectual is a reach. Writing a blog post that complains about estate taxes or explaining that you're voting for Clinton because you're afraid her supporters will beat you up if you don't but Trump's won't beat you up no matter what is not real profound.

Ummmmm ever hear of Sam Hyde?

It would certainly say a lot about our time if the most important public intellectual were a cartoonist.

He is neither important nor an intellectual. He is an avid student of (the art of) manipulation and loves Donald Trump for what he sees as Trump's ability to manipulate. He's a huge fan Trump and his methods and appreciates how Trump doesn't bother, or need to bother, with the truth - Trump just says whatever he wants to say that will help him to achieve his own goals. Scott is taking a page out of Trump's book. Also, Trump has a hell of a lot more twitter followers that Scott, so Scott's just jumped onto Trump's coat tails to try to win over the same core group of true believers. Not a bad strategy to sell himself. It's easy to see that the sort of person who would be impressed and won over by Trump's persuasive style, would equally be won over by Scott's.

Mostly, Scott's descent into what he is currently becoming reminds me a lot of Charlie Sheen when he was losing it. In Charlie Sheen's case it was due to drug use, Scott's descent is more interesting; a self created mental illness based on his need to believe in and promote his own superiority. I feel sorry for the guy. I doubt he will seek help, so the strange path he has chosen is sure to just get more and more strange.

Lazy fare wrote:

The fact that so many people absolutely loathe him seems to be a good indication that he is saying important things that nobody wants to hear.

Good point, a lot of people loathed Hitler too ...

If Scott Adams is the best intellectual that the Republicans can come up with, it's not wonder they are floundering in this election.

You didn't read the article. He lives in Cali and between the feds & state pays 50% in taxes. When he dies, he would have to give away another 50%. That's 75% in tax, 25% to his heirs.

Lazy fare wrote:

The fact that so many people absolutely loathe him seems to be a good indication that he is saying important things that nobody wants to hear.

"You can argue whether an estate tax is fair or unfair, but fairness is an argument for idiots and children. Fairness isn’t an objective quality of the universe. I oppose the estate tax because I was born to modest means and worked 7-days a week for most of my life to be in my current position. (I’m working today, Sunday, as per usual.) And I don’t want to give 75% of my earnings to the government. (Would you?)"

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/150919416661/why-i-switched-my-endorsement-from-clinton-to

Wait...your measure of intellect is how much a person is hated? That seems....imprecise.

Yeah man, this guy is a loser. I used to really be into reading all the stuff in the manosphere, but all of those guys promote Trump as a messiah and have interviews with Scott Adams. At a base level, these are guys I would not want to spend time around because they're crazy and bathed in negativity.

Noam Chomsky >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anybody else

David S. Pumpkins wrote:

Lazy fare wrote:

The fact that so many people absolutely loathe him seems to be a good indication that he is saying important things that nobody wants to hear.

"You can argue whether an estate tax is fair or unfair, but fairness is an argument for idiots and children. Fairness isn’t an objective quality of the universe. I oppose the estate tax because I was born to modest means and worked 7-days a week for most of my life to be in my current position. (I’m working today, Sunday, as per usual.) And I don’t want to give 75% of my earnings to the government. (Would you?)"

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/150919416661/why-i-switched-my-endorsement-from-clinton-to

Wait...your measure of intellect is how much a person is hated? That seems....imprecise.

No, he said that how much a person is hated is an indicator of saying things that nobody wants to hear. Maybe adult reading lessons are for you.

Reality Bath wrote:

He certainly is smarter than the people running things. Whether that makes him an "intellectual" is a matter of opinion.

Smarter? No. He worked at it.

Gary Larson (far side comic) smarter by far.

An Econ Major wrote:

If "fairness is an argument for idiots and children", why require every single person to pay taxes? Why don't we just arbitrarily pick out 10,000 Americans and require them to pay a 100 percent effective tax rate?

Besides, the argument in favor of estate tax is that it's among the least distortionary forms of taxation. People (usually) won't alter their present consumption patterns in anticipation of a post-death tax. Even if some do, it will have a far less adverse impact on the economy than a sales tax, or an income tax.

I love Dilbert, and respect Scott Adams, but what you quoted is one of the stupidest things I've ever read. It sounds like something an idiotic loudmouth at a community college would spout when put on the spot in an economics lecture.

The problem with your argument is two-fold, the estate tax often ruins great businesses. Often these businesses start small and the founder's children work (for free) in the original shop and know the business better than any one but often when the founder dies it forces large stock holdings to be dumped on the market and idiot fund managers push through short-termist decisions that ultimately harm the company's growth trajectory. Just look at the confiscating taxes on large Estates in Britain, first through the Liberals (WW1) and Labour after WW2. Totally ruined these great Estates. Secondly, it is immoral to punish someone for dying.

I assume the Dilbert character is based on his own personality which instantly tells me self-righteous snob. He'd fit right in posting here.

I am more like Wally, laughing at all the idiots working 60 hour weeks to gather toys. What the hell is wrong with those people?

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

Secondly, it is immoral to punish someone for dying.

There are many things intellectually dishonest about this statement.

herp derp wrote:

David S. Pumpkins wrote:

Wait...your measure of intellect is how much a person is hated? That seems....imprecise.

No, he said that how much a person is hated is an indicator of saying things that nobody wants to hear. Maybe adult reading lessons are for you.

And the title of the post indicates that somehow saying things people don't want to hear makes you an important intellectual. The basic premise is stupid, as the Hitler example signified. Sometimes people don't want to hear things someone says because they're stupid, wrong, hateful, etc. Not because they're right and no one wants to admit it.

David S. Pumpkins wrote:

herp derp wrote:

No, he said that how much a person is hated is an indicator of saying things that nobody wants to hear. Maybe adult reading lessons are for you.

And the title of the post indicates that somehow saying things people don't want to hear makes you an important intellectual. The basic premise is stupid, as the Hitler example signified. Sometimes people don't want to hear things someone says because they're stupid, wrong, hateful, etc. Not because they're right and no one wants to admit it.

Nope. Stupid people get ignored. Scott Adams is not being ignored.

Accra wrote:

David S. Pumpkins wrote:

And the title of the post indicates that somehow saying things people don't want to hear makes you an important intellectual. The basic premise is stupid, as the Hitler example signified. Sometimes people don't want to hear things someone says because they're stupid, wrong, hateful, etc. Not because they're right and no one wants to admit it.

Nope. Stupid people get ignored. Scott Adams is not being ignored.

I can think of plenty of stupid people who do not get ignored. Kim K, Britney S, a multitude of Hollywood stars, Sarah Palin.