'Dilbert' gets really angry
September 23, 2007 2:39 PM   Subscribe

 
Scott Adams says something stupid. News at 11.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 2:44 PM on September 23, 2007 [4 favorites]


No one calls him a "Jew hater". Some commenter (who doesn't know how to use apostrophes) jumps to the conclusion that "the media" will paint him as a "Jew hater" as a way of dismissing his critics in advance.
posted by rottytooth at 2:46 PM on September 23, 2007


rottytooth writes "No one calls him a 'Jew hater'."

I read it as the commenter calling him that, but yeah, it can be read both ways.
posted by orthogonality at 2:49 PM on September 23, 2007


I think this comment, a few more down, pretty much says it all:

This was my first time standing on this branch. Excellent insight and analysis, however, I don't feel that you used the word "Fuck," enough. For some fun, take a look at one of my blogs. For beginnewrs I recommend: http://imperfectmessenger.blogspot.com

Szia From Budapest,
Suil

posted by drjimmy11 at 2:52 PM on September 23, 2007


Plenty of good quotes there to use out of context. Limbaugh and his ilk should have a field day. His style of making a point is extremely dangerous, as it assumes a certain amount of intelligence and intellectual honesty on the part of all his readership. It was ill-advised and he can blow me.
posted by spock at 2:55 PM on September 23, 2007 [4 favorites]


"Ahmadinejad believes his role is to pave the way for the coming of the Twelfth Imam. That's a primitive apocalyptic belief! I thank Jesus I do not live in a country led by a man who believes in that sort of bullshit. Imagine how dangerous that would be, especially if that man had the launch codes for nuclear weapons. "

That's pretty damn funny.

Or scary.

Yeah ... yeah, scary, now that I think about it.
posted by Relay at 2:59 PM on September 23, 2007 [5 favorites]


"Sometimes it feels as if the Palestinians are only one Gandhi away from fixing their problems. But he’d need to be bulletproof."

What a great quote.
posted by Malor at 2:59 PM on September 23, 2007 [11 favorites]


It's an enigma wrapped in a riddle wrapped in irony wrapped in sarcasm wrapped in a comic strip wrapped in a blog.
posted by gwint at 3:01 PM on September 23, 2007 [1 favorite]


Come the rapture, Dilbert books are yours...
posted by TrialByMedia at 3:04 PM on September 23, 2007


Scott Adams says a lot of funny things because he says a lot of things.

I guess he's kind of a hero to me.
posted by Citizen Premier at 3:06 PM on September 23, 2007


The next day, when Adams clarifies his position, he ends on a perhaps even more provocative hypothetical.

How is it provocative? If members of the government committed such a significant act of treason — and at this point it is all but certain that the Republicans lied about WMDs in Iraq, not such a hypothetical situation — citizens should feel obligated to call for impeachment hearings, among other options. I'd hope that any fellow American who's taken a history lesson would feel similarly.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 3:06 PM on September 23, 2007


I had no idea Scott Adams was such a dork.

But still, the whole thing reminds me of how Khrushchev was denied permission to visit Disneyland.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 3:11 PM on September 23, 2007


Blazecock Pileon writes "How is it provocative?... citizens should feel obligated to call for impeachment hearings, among other options."

He didn't write impeachment. He wrote a word beginning with an "o", which comes disturbingly close to what Article 3, Section 3 addresses, or what Mr. Burgess Henry apocryphally asked Mr. Speaker to make the most of.
posted by orthogonality at 3:17 PM on September 23, 2007


In an hour or so Ahmadinejad will be interviewed on 60 Minutes and I betcha the first question will be about his Holocaust denial. Just like the last time when it was Mike Wallace's first question.

I get kinda tired of the U.S. media barking like trained dogs everytime the subject can be turned to Holocaust denial.

The earth is round and the Holocaust was real. Those two are on the same plane. Why dignify Holocaust deniers with attention?

That's easy. Because it advances the political agenda of certain people and nations.
posted by wrapper at 3:18 PM on September 23, 2007 [4 favorites]


Why dignify Scott Adams with attention?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 3:23 PM on September 23, 2007


... what Mr. Burgess Henry apocryphally asked Mr. Speaker to make the most of.

I'm curious as to what you're talking about, and I can't figure it out with Google. (Though I do know the o-word.)
posted by blacklite at 3:27 PM on September 23, 2007


Ortho is, I imagine, referring to this guy, who was not Henry Burgess but rather Henry, a burgess.
posted by nasreddin at 3:36 PM on September 23, 2007


blacklite writes "I can't figure it out with Google."
posted by orthogonality at 3:37 PM on September 23, 2007


He wrote a word beginning with an "o", which comes disturbingly close to what Article 3, Section 3 addresses, or what Mr. Burgess Henry apocryphally asked Mr. Speaker to make the most of.

"Overthrow" can have many meanings. I would consider Watergate an example of a scandal that overthrew a presidential administration.

Again, why would Adams' comment be provocative — not at all out of the realm of possibilities given the current administration's lies regarding Iraq — yet Coulter and Limbaugh can call for assassination of federal leaders without the mainstream media batting an eye?

I just don't see how one comment can be construed provocative or seditious while the others aren't.

For that matter, he's not really out of line, anyway. I would agree that launching an unprovoked nuclear attack would require corruption on such a scale that a federal government should be disbanded — if America survived the resulting global war against it.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 3:39 PM on September 23, 2007


From the 2nd days entry:
Likewise, if the Iranians really are developing a nuclear weapon with the intent of using it on Israel, and there was some way to confirm that other than suspicious translations of speeches, then attacking Iran makes perfect sense, and I would support it completely. My problem is that I keep seeing patterns:

1. Iraq* is helping Al-Qaeda
2. Iraq* has weapons of mass destruction
3. Al-Qaeda is operationally non-functional
4. The surge is working
5. Iran is helping Iraqi insurgents kill Americans


*Eh? Does he mean Iran?

'Iraq' as a government helping Al Q'aida? Iraq, in 2007, has WMD?

And no-one here or there noticed this common, yet crucial, confusion?

Crikey.
posted by dash_slot- at 3:48 PM on September 23, 2007


I can't watch 60 Minutes online, can I? Sky News always shows Eye On America in the late European evenings, but they won't carry this live, will they?
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 3:49 PM on September 23, 2007


It's a Dilbortion!
posted by kuujjuarapik at 3:53 PM on September 23, 2007


dash-slot: I think he means the old story was Iraq, and the pattern is starting to repeat with Iran.
posted by athenian at 3:56 PM on September 23, 2007


dash-slot- - he's making a list of the administration's assertions from over the years that have all turned out to be false, and including the latest - that Iran is helping Iraqi insurgents. Point being that, as John Kerry said in the first debate, just because George says something is true doesn't mean that it's true. In fact, usually the opposite is the case, it seems.
posted by fingers_of_fire at 3:57 PM on September 23, 2007


My bad.

Er, his bad...writing.
posted by dash_slot- at 4:01 PM on September 23, 2007


(and it's athenian for the win...)
posted by fingers_of_fire at 4:01 PM on September 23, 2007


dash_shot, are you being serious, or sarcastic, or what, I'm starting to loose track amoungst all Scott Adam's satire.

At one point in time, we were told Iraq was helping Al-Queda. We were told, at one point in time, they had WMDs. And we were told we had to got to war with them because of this.

Now that all that has been shown to be a total lie, we're being told Iran is helping Iraqi insurgents kill Americans. Scott Adams is just saying, fool me once...
posted by Jimbob at 4:05 PM on September 23, 2007


Erm..on preview..yeah.
posted by Jimbob at 4:05 PM on September 23, 2007


And, for the record, nothing Scott Adams really appears the slightest bit controversial, as far as I can see. He certainly raises a point about the two alternative meanings of the word "myth" and the potential problems in translating a double-meaning word like that from Farsi.

Of course, for people who's brains melt and whos' skins get a nasty rash everytime someone says "Israel"...their mileage may vary.
posted by Jimbob at 4:08 PM on September 23, 2007 [1 favorite]


Slightly off-topic, I know; but where is all the Scott Adams hate coming from? He strikes me as pretty spot-on in his criticism of corporate America, though I will grant I've not read everything he's ever written.
posted by malaprohibita at 4:18 PM on September 23, 2007 [1 favorite]


Jimbob: Really? You don't consider the assertion that America created Israel because of of its excessive national guilt over the Holocaust to be controversial? I don't disagree with a lot of what Adams says here, but a lot of his Holocaust chatter is deliberately controversial. I think he weep bitterly if people took your view that it was just so much MetaMeh.
posted by The Bellman at 4:19 PM on September 23, 2007


I don't believe this happened.
posted by Poolio at 4:26 PM on September 23, 2007


um...he's a cartoonist.

Next up Tom Hanks' take on the surge.
posted by mygoditsbob at 4:29 PM on September 23, 2007 [2 favorites]


um...he's a cartoonist.

Says the guy snarking on a website.
posted by Cyrano at 4:36 PM on September 23, 2007 [4 favorites]


um...he's a cartoonist.

Who seems more informed about current events than most every single talking head "analyst" on TV. What's your point?
posted by mr.curmudgeon at 4:41 PM on September 23, 2007 [3 favorites]


malaprohibita, some of the hate might come from previous blog wars that are indicative of Adams's willingness to volunteer his opinion without understanding the topic.
posted by Taargus Taargus at 4:43 PM on September 23, 2007


Scott Adams writes stupid shit on a regular basis; I'm more familiar with his "hurf durf I don't unnerstan' science I eats poop" postings.
posted by Pope Guilty at 4:44 PM on September 23, 2007


When I was a young nerdlet, I loved Dilbert. As I aged into an elder nerd, I gradually grew less and less interested in it, and eventually I hadn't bothered reading one in years and years. But I always remembered it fondly.

And then came Adams' much-publicized take on creationism and evolution.

It was downright embarrassing.

I know that it shouldn't have changed my fond memories for Dilbert, but it did. Significantly. For the worse.
posted by Flunkie at 4:45 PM on September 23, 2007 [2 favorites]


Meh, nothing to see here.

If he tells Jesus to suck it, then you've got yourself some copy.
posted by Reggie Digest at 4:52 PM on September 23, 2007


Man should stick to cartoons.
posted by Aloysius Bear at 4:55 PM on September 23, 2007


goodnewsfortheinsane: that 60 minutes interview would have been laughable if it weren't so embarrassing. The reporter asked Ahmadinejad what he admired about Mr. Bush. When Ahmadinejad hesitated, the reporter said, "Well I'll tell you what I admire about the man. He is very religious."
posted by Sailormom at 5:04 PM on September 23, 2007 [1 favorite]


Scott Adams is my new hero...he's saying what I and my friends have been saying for years. I for one can tell the difference between Jews and Zionists....Israel stole that country from the Palestinians over the last 100 yrs and any educated person can see it!!!! hahahahahaha....I love him.
posted by brneyedgrl at 5:05 PM on September 23, 2007


You don't consider the assertion that America created Israel because of of its excessive national guilt over the Holocaust to be controversial?

No, not really. That doesn't mean I think it's true or correct necessarily, but it's certainly something that should be able to be put on the table for thought and analysis, not out-right rejected as crazy trolling.

To be the devil's advocate; America didn't immediately appear to care about the suffering and violence against Jews under Hitler - they waited until they were attacked by Japan before they got involved in World War II. What reason could the American administration suddenly have to change their mind about the Jewish people after the war? Guilt for past inaction is a clear possibility.

Of course, this is something historians will argue about for centuries to come. I'm going to go read some comics.
posted by Jimbob at 5:18 PM on September 23, 2007


I for one can tell the difference between Jews and Zionists....Israel stole that country from the Palestinians over the last 100 yrs and any educated person can see it!!!! hahahahahaha....I love him.

It's the same education that taught you punctuation, I presume.
posted by Astro Zombie at 5:22 PM on September 23, 2007 [6 favorites]


Re:"...um he's a cartoonist"

Just that. In response to those who feel that Mr. Dilbert stands far above the masses in his understanding of the human condition in general and the ongoing crisis in the Mideast, you need to really start doing some serious reading on the topic.
posted by mygoditsbob at 5:24 PM on September 23, 2007


Scott Adams is an idiot. He has written repeated rants criticizing evolution from what was obviously an uninformed and mistaken viewpoint. When called on this he has wrote weak replies, claiming to be kidding, while simultaneously claiming that he was right.

And then he waited a while and removed the entries from his blog, because he's fundamentally dishonest.

Scott Adams is only worth listening to if you're interested in knowing what uneducated, hard-headed, Christian crusaders generally think.
posted by Tacos Are Pretty Great at 5:46 PM on September 23, 2007 [1 favorite]


It's just like that time Cathy Guisewite poked fun at the foibles of modern women's lives.
posted by stavrogin at 5:53 PM on September 23, 2007


Um...Scott Adams? I Have seen Orson Scott Card bash evolution, but his posting there was anything but that of a hard headed christian crusader.
posted by prodigalsun at 5:58 PM on September 23, 2007


You know, all of this actually explains a lot about the direction Dilbert's been taking lately.


...the assertion that America created Israel

What the hell are you talking about? Do you even know what the Balfour Agreement was?
posted by Bletch at 6:00 PM on September 23, 2007


Wow...Dilbert made me chuckle more than a few times. But I had no idea Scott Adams was such a moron.
posted by zardoz at 6:12 PM on September 23, 2007


@prodigalsun: Yes, Scott Adams went and got a little I.D. on everybody a while back. A quick Google turns up most of the story, although he deleted the postings in question from his blog after the fact.

Orson Scott Card has some pretty controversial beliefs as well, but does a much better job articulating them than Adams has.
posted by Kadin2048 at 6:22 PM on September 23, 2007


Bletch: Are you talking to me? I'm not sure, but if you are then yes, I certainly know what the Balfour Declaration is (and what it isn't) but I'm not the one who made the assertion, Adams is. I was just paraphrasing it to point out how wrongheaded (and, I think, controversial) it is. To be fair to Adams, he said "the world" not "America", but he meant "America" since he was talking about America's alleged overwhelming Holocaust guilt.
posted by The Bellman at 6:26 PM on September 23, 2007


just like astro zombi to be concerned with punctuation rather than the issues....I'm still glad Scott Adams is saying what a lot of people have been thinking. better him, with his high profile, then some goofball nobody listens too.
posted by brneyedgrl at 6:26 PM on September 23, 2007 [2 favorites]


He's funny, and I don't mean that in a nice way. Fuck Scott Adams.
posted by caddis at 6:26 PM on September 23, 2007


although he deleted the postings in question from his blog after the fact.

Well, at least he learned something, then. This is a great post he's written though. A++ troll. Would read again.
posted by IronLizard at 6:29 PM on September 23, 2007


just like astro zombi to be concerned with punctuation rather than the issues.

Yeah, that's me in a nutshell. Any educated person knows it.
posted by Astro Zombie at 6:55 PM on September 23, 2007 [3 favorites]


...lm-educated-ao...
posted by brneyedgrl at 7:02 PM on September 23, 2007


Huh?
posted by Astro Zombie at 7:03 PM on September 23, 2007


I think some people in this thread may be confused over what Adams was trying to say. I know I was on the first reading. Probably putting the "Jew hater" bit in the FPP was leading the audience a bit.

I may still have it a little wrong, but what I see is a man who has come to mistrust the media to a great extent, enough so that that he sees expects spin every time a media figure mentions Iran.

Considering recent history, this does not seem very crazy to me at all.
posted by JHarris at 7:12 PM on September 23, 2007 [3 favorites]


...lm-educated-ao...

that's what all the bigots say
posted by caddis at 7:13 PM on September 23, 2007


Scott Adams is my new hero...he's saying what I and my friends have been saying for years. I for one can tell the difference between Jews and Zionists....Israel stole that country from the Palestinians over the last 100 yrs and any educated person can see it!!!! hahahahahaha....I love him.

Troll or idiot? You decide.
posted by Krrrlson at 7:14 PM on September 23, 2007


troll or idiot?...your not hurting my feelings...I'm just glad people are talking. If we talk more, maybe fewer American men and women will die in some unnecessary foreign war....I love him...my hero....
posted by brneyedgrl at 7:19 PM on September 23, 2007


Adams made some pretty good points, and I usually don't like what he writes about.

Ahmadinejad is being turned into a boogy man just exactly like Saddam was. The "threat" posed by Iran is exactly like the "threat" posed by Saddam, and is being treated as such by most of the media and nearly all of the right-wing whackos.

And, yes, I'm sick of watching my country, the USA, start to sing and dance every time Israel snaps its fingers.

And, no, that doesn't mean I hate Israel or Jews.
posted by rougy at 7:23 PM on September 23, 2007 [1 favorite]


Ahmadinejad is being turned into a boogy man just exactly like Saddam was.

Well, one big difference is that Saddam was actually in charge in his country, rather than being a public relations puppet with a nice sounding title. Don't believe the hype.
posted by caddis at 7:30 PM on September 23, 2007 [1 favorite]


I was never a fan of Dilbert, but I don't disagree with some of the things he said here. I've thought some of them myself. My opinions on Israel have definitely changed the more I've traveled. We are immersed in a Hell of a lot of propoganda that is leading general opinions in this country, especially regarding Israel & the Middle East. It's so inherent, so native and ingrained in media and politics that it's super easy to not even know it exists. I only started to really recognize it after leaving the country for extended periods of time and seeing the totally different propoganda that's dished out in other countries.

Every country throws bullshit at its citizens in order to control them, it's just different flavor of bullshit.
posted by miss lynnster at 7:34 PM on September 23, 2007 [2 favorites]


Caddis, what part of "Israel stole Palestine from the Palestinians" is bigoted? 100 yrs ago, Palestine was inhabited by Muslims, Jews, and Christians who lived in relative peace. 100 yrs later that land is now called Israel and the Palestinians are fighting for their lives and country. The Jewish religion is a fine and noble religion, but whatever made Zionists think they had the right to move into Palestine and take over, I would have trouble believing.
posted by brneyedgrl at 7:34 PM on September 23, 2007


um...he's a cartoonist

A profession that has never delved into addressing politics. Sheesh.

Anyway, I think Dilbert is a funny cartoon, and Adams is an intelligent writer, but while he makes some good points here I can only reflect upon his political insight as such:

About six or seven years ago I read The Dilbert Principle, in which Adams writes that he doesn't understand how people can be against building more prisons, because obviously there will be no crime once you put all the criminals in jail. I only remember that because it is, and I have said specifically this to friends, the stupidest thing I have ever read in my life.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 7:37 PM on September 23, 2007 [3 favorites]


"may have just alienated a good fraction of [Dilbert's] readership."

Don't let the door smack you in the tail on the way out.
posted by spiderwire at 7:52 PM on September 23, 2007


way to oversimplify things, brneyedgrl. Something tells me that the Jews who were pelted by stones as they tried to pray at the Western Wall might take exception to your idea of "relative peace".
posted by fingers_of_fire at 7:52 PM on September 23, 2007


oh, and you think Jews were the only ones "pelted by stones" way to oversimplify things, right back at cha.
posted by brneyedgrl at 7:55 PM on September 23, 2007


Nope, I absolutely don't think that everyone lived in relative peace - you were the one who said that. I DO think that countless events, incidents, negotiations, battles, wars, deaths, etc., happened between 100 years ago and today, which have resulted in the thoroughly fucked up situation that we currently find ourselves in. To blame it all on the Jews is, I think, a gross over-simplification.
posted by fingers_of_fire at 7:58 PM on September 23, 2007


what I see is a man who has come to mistrust the media to a great extent

He mistrusts the media? For years now, I've been looking for a dog that works in an office and is smarter than the engineers there. Not once have I seen such a thing. Not once, I tell you...

100 yrs ago, Palestine was inhabited by Muslims, Jews, and Christians who lived in relative peace.

You mean when it was ruled by the French? The Turks? Or the British?
posted by PeterMcDermott at 8:00 PM on September 23, 2007


I had no idea Scott Adams was such a dork.

Really? Have you read Dilbert?
posted by humannaire at 8:04 PM on September 23, 2007


Oh, and I should add... it's also changed my opinions to go to places that I'd heard all about and to discover that an AWFUL lot of things I had been led to believe were facts... weren't actually true. Yes, it's awful to realize and difficult to fathom that sometimes the things you've believed your whole life are actually propoganda you were fed at some point and fell for.

But it's important to know.

I'm happy to live in a country where people like Scott Adams can say what they think and be heard, even if it goes against what people are told or what you believe. Especially if it does.
posted by miss lynnster at 8:12 PM on September 23, 2007 [1 favorite]


I'm happy to live in a country where people like Scott Adams can say what they think and be heard, even if it goes against what people are told or what you believe.

Yeah, well, Canada's too cold for most of us, so we take what we can get.
posted by spiderwire at 8:15 PM on September 23, 2007 [1 favorite]


The most fascinating thing I find about Scott Adams, is that he got a rare disorder where his brain forgot how to talk. He could sing, he could rhyme, but he couldn't talk.

Then, through tortuous efforts, he cured himself. I read somewhere where he is the only person on record to have cured himself of this disorder, and it offers hope to other sufferers, both now and in the future.

and less fascinating is that, yes, his sarcastic humor occasionally goes too far.
posted by eye of newt at 8:18 PM on September 23, 2007 [1 favorite]


right back at cha.

Go away. You're getting your stupid all over me, and that shit stains.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:28 PM on September 23, 2007 [4 favorites]


I think some people in this thread may be confused over what Adams was trying to say.

Indeed. But in all fairness, that's completely his own fault. If you're trying to clarify something, it's probably better not to bury it in irony and sarcasm and general dickitude, no matter how righteous said dickitude may be. I personally agree with everything he says here, but it all comes off a bit too Glenn Beck-ish, and one of those is two too many.

(Get him writing for Colbert, though...)
posted by Reggie Digest at 8:34 PM on September 23, 2007


Scott Adams: ...would it be in the best interest of the citizens of the United States to overthrow their government?

Dear Scott:

I am in favor of overthrowing the president every four years, the Senate every six, and the House every two. So are most Americans. Doing it on a rotating schedule helps avoid bloody civil war, pogroms, military juntas, mass executions, and all the other inconveniences that commonly accompany the overthrow of a government. This has worked out so well that many other nations are now doing the same thing.

We plan to overthrow our President, and a fair number of Congressmen and Senators, in a little over a year from now. Won't you join us?
posted by Slithy_Tove at 8:40 PM on September 23, 2007 [1 favorite]


whatever made Zionists think they had the right to move into Palestine and take over, I would have trouble believing.

Actually, before this thread I had ignored the history of teh creation of Israel - other than hearing all what I have heard while in other countries (ala miss lynster) - and now after looking into it, I seem completely incapable of discovering what did the Zionists think.

So I looked up the Balfour Aggreement, and found Balfour Declaration to be the more preferred subject title.

From there, it devolved into freemasonry, Rothchild this, Rothchild that, and inevitably everything else. "Everything else," of course, meaning "nothing sensible." Not that I have anything against conspiracy theory, it's just that it all seems so the same ie confused.

From an outsider's viewpoint looking in, if the state of the world today is a result from this type of global mismanagement, we are, in a word, fuckerered.

On a more upbeat note, I was planning on moving off planet and into space at the early possible convenience. Not that I think earth sucks or anything, but this kind of shit sure seems small. And if the jews/zionists/whoever get to have their own homeland, put my vote in for the homeland for "happy-go-lucky screwlooses who think dolphins and whales are far more interesting than anything having to do with politics or religion." We can call it Christophermooreland. And since any desert land seems sort of controversial, we would be happy to avoid that trouble all together. You can put Christophermooreland somewhere that isn't being used in the Bahamas. Like Cuba.
posted by humannaire at 8:47 PM on September 23, 2007


About six or seven years ago I read The Dilbert Principle, in which Adams writes that he doesn't understand how people can be against building more prisons, because obviously there will be no crime once you put all the criminals in jail. I only remember that because it is, and I have said specifically this to friends, the stupidest thing I have ever read in my life.

The Dilbert Principle was pretty clearly sarcastic. I mean, this is a book where he adds in a footnote that reads, "and if you haven't tried having sex all willy-nilly, you really should".
posted by spaceman_spiff at 8:50 PM on September 23, 2007 [1 favorite]


Yes, we should all think the same thing. This makes things a *lot* easier.

Shame on you Mr. Adams!

I only remember that because it is, and I have said specifically this to friends, the stupidest thing I have ever read in my life.

...and your friends no doubt gave you a blank embarrassed look.
posted by carfilhiot at 9:56 PM on September 23, 2007


Clumsy sarcasm isn't typically an indicator of considerate analysis, wherever you've landed on the issue. I haven't read such a whiny sounding screed from an adult in, oh I don't know how many MeTa threads. Seems like he muddied the waters himself, with no attention paid to the fact that half the stock in his pond are Tardfish to begin with.

...As long as we're on the topic of conflation of Jews and "Zionists," I'll recommend that responsible people stop using the latter term, which is terribly stained with malfeasant euphemism, when what's really on the table for reproach is the behavior of the government of Israel, not necessarily the attitudes of international Jews.
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 10:28 PM on September 23, 2007


Personally, I tried to overthrow George Bush before he was elected President the first time.

Couldn't do it by myself tho.
posted by miss lynnster at 10:35 PM on September 23, 2007 [1 favorite]


I had no idea Scott Adams was such an anti-Semite...or such a loony (well, after reading some of his non-Dilbert stuff, I realized he was pretty strange, but not genocidally so).
posted by KokuRyu at 11:30 PM on September 23, 2007


Ambrosia, FWIW, I don't think that when people say Zionist they're talking about the gov't of Israel, but rather the founders & forebearers.
posted by Wood at 11:31 PM on September 23, 2007


Well... hmm, that doesn't look right. Let's try: I think some people use Zionist the way I suggest & that seems defensible.
posted by Wood at 11:35 PM on September 23, 2007


"...As long as we're on the topic of conflation of Jews and "Zionists," I'll recommend that responsible people stop using the latter term, which is terribly stained with malfeasant euphemism, when what's really on the table for reproach is the behavior of the government of Israel, not necessarily the attitudes of international Jews."

I hope I haven't conflated the two, because the difference between a Jew and a Zionist, to me, is the difference between a German and a Nazi (fuck Godwin).

Franken, Chomsky, Zinn, Randi Rhodes, Jon Stewart - I hate to name names, because I can't name them all, but I really love these people.

David Brooks, Cohen, Kurtz, Kristol, Feith, Krauthammer – Zionists by any other name - I really hate those fuckers.

The first group tells the truth and believes in justice, the second twists facts and believes in their own agenda, and fuck everybody else.

“Long Live Israel” - and I know that, in a perverted way, Israel gets used by the USA as a kind of outpost or testing grounds.

But for fuck's sake: a nuclear Iran is just not the threat that it's being painted to be - except maybe the threat to the profits of some unscrupulous assholes who have come to wield too much power.

The only reason Iran is, or might be, seeking nukes is because the USA and Israel have openly threatened them for at least the past six years.
posted by rougy at 11:40 PM on September 23, 2007 [1 favorite]


Zionists != Nazis. (In fact, the use of "Zionists" by avowed anti-semites makes such use ironic, bitter, and something of banal evil.)

Zionists != Israel's government. Not exactly.

Please use words more carefully. Just read the wiki at least.
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 12:04 AM on September 24, 2007


"F" the wiki.

Ambrosia, Zionists are not equal to Nazi's, true.

Zionists were a group of people who worked together to bring into being a state that did not previously exist. The blackguards I mentioned above happen to be American Jews who put the welfare of Israel above that of the USA.

Kristol and Feith and the likes are modern extensions of the Zionist cult.

The Nazi's were similar in that they were faux-intellectual liars who associated their aims with a plot of land and accused everyone who disagreed with them of being traitors (or ~= anti-Semites) etc.

I do use words carefully, and so should you.
posted by rougy at 1:18 AM on September 24, 2007


The guy works best in the three-panel format. His satire's clumsy enough that it needs to be explained, and his explanation is rife with fallacies and logical lacunae.

Stick to Dogbert, Scott. Leave the politicking and the philosophy to, as you once put it in an email to my old college address, "graduates of overpriced diploma mills."
posted by ikkyu2 at 1:37 AM on September 24, 2007


Yes...be silent...it makes everything better, for now.
posted by rougy at 1:59 AM on September 24, 2007


The simple fact is that you cannot criticize the Israeli government without being called anti-Semitic. It just won't happen.

This is how the conservatives poison the well to try to prevent discourse. They desperately want to stop the conversation, so a primary tactic is to paint people, who correctly believe that deliberately shooting children in the head is wrong, as 'vicious anti-Semites'.

I got into this conversation with an Australian Jewish woman. When I said to her that shooting children was immoral and wrong, she said back to me, in utter seriousness, "Malor, Israel defines morality."

That's the best example I've ever seen for the separation of church and state. Churches should not have guns. Ever. A government that believes it defines morality is dangerous.

(and, to whatever degree you think that applies to the US government, and to many Muslim governments, go right ahead and apply it. I probably won't be too far behind.)
posted by Malor at 2:20 AM on September 24, 2007 [5 favorites]


"Sometimes it feels as if the Palestinians are only one Gandhi away from fixing their problems. But he’d need to be bulletproof."

A good rule of thumb, regarding justice, is to switch roles.

Seven million Palestinians have cornered three and a half million Israelis.

Each year, the Palestinians encroach on the Israeli land with tanks and outposts.

Each year, 3 Israelis are killed, to 1 Palestinian.

The Palestinians have occupying forces in Israel, and bomb certain areas at will.

The Israelis are forced to show their papers, and have their land confiscated or destroyed by fiat.

Every once in a while, an Israeli boy or girl will tie some heavy explosives to their midriff, and launch a suicide attack, which ultimately only makes the Palestinians stronger.

The Palestinians live in European luxury while the Israelis live in pathetic, ghetto misery.

Who’s the good guy?


Let's talk about fair.
posted by rougy at 2:48 AM on September 24, 2007 [4 favorites]


Oh no, a cartoonist is trying to make me use my brain! Whatever shall I do? Click away, that's what!

Let's just climb in the SUV, drive to the mall [watching American Idol on the LCD screens] and pretend nothing is happening.
posted by chuckdarwin at 3:01 AM on September 24, 2007


What is it about sarcasm that Americans find so difficult to understand? There does seem to be a cultural difference between North Americans and the British (for instance) as regards expression of thought via sarcasm.
posted by asok at 3:13 AM on September 24, 2007


Please don't respond with 'we know it's sarcasm, but we don't think it's very good' or similar. This is a general observation that I think is related, not an attempt to insult or deride.

Just the fact that I feel the need to write such a caveat is part of the issue.
posted by asok at 3:17 AM on September 24, 2007


What else are we supposed to say, asok? I don't see any hint in this thread that anyone didn't get that this was sarcasm. Nobody here is having any trouble understanding it.

Perhaps, just perhaps, the sarcasm isn't very good? I like a lot of what he's saying, and I think the bulletproof line is one of the best I've ever seen, anywhere.... but as others are pointing out, a lot of it IS rather heavy-handed and inept.

I see you've taken your name from the series, so I would suggest perhaps re-examining your biases a little. :)
posted by Malor at 3:49 AM on September 24, 2007 [1 favorite]


The Palestinians live in European luxury while the Israelis live in pathetic, ghetto misery.

It has struck me, many times, that modern Palestine is an awful lot like the Warsaw ghetto.
posted by Malor at 3:50 AM on September 24, 2007


"It has struck me, many times, that modern Palestine is an awful lot like the Warsaw ghetto."

It is.

The "abused becoming the abuser" is also applicable.
posted by rougy at 3:57 AM on September 24, 2007


Awesome. Speaking truth to the Israel-first monopoly on "truth" can be bad for your career, I hear. Ask Joseph Massad or Nadia Abu al Haj.

I am a Jew. But I have had it with the immunity of Israel from critique. Let Israelis indulge that shit (and they don't). I see no reason for an American, of any faith, to put Israel ahead of the national interests of the US.
posted by fourcheesemac at 5:02 AM on September 24, 2007 [3 favorites]


WAIT!!! This isn't "say the opposite" day is it? When I said I wanted to win a million dollars and get laid, I meant I didn't. Unless I am confused, and it's not "say the opposite" day. Crap. Maybe nobody should say anything, that way we won't get it wrong.
posted by Eekacat at 5:48 AM on September 24, 2007


where is all the Scott Adams hate coming from? He strikes me as pretty spot-on in his criticism of corporate America

Scott Adams is corporate America. Go ahead and subscribe to his email list, and watch the spam tsunami roll in.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 6:57 AM on September 24, 2007 [1 favorite]


I had no idea Scott Adams was such an anti-Semite...or such a loony (well, after reading some of his non-Dilbert stuff, I realized he was pretty strange, but not genocidally so).

I didn't notice Adams advocating genocide of Jews or anyone else in either of the linked posts.... unless you somehow think that opposing the bombing of Iran is the same as advocating a genocide of Jews, which is pulling a fast one to say the least.
posted by L.P. Hatecraft at 6:58 AM on September 24, 2007


ortho, why did you repoint to google with those search words after blacklite complained? Totally unfair. That would be like:
Q: Can anyone help me figure out how to write a script that works like diff?
A: Did you try Google?!?
Okay, so people didn't get your reference. If you're going to shame them with a google link, at least make it look something like this.
posted by Deathalicious at 7:13 AM on September 24, 2007


I don't see anything wrong with his statement.

Don't the assholes see that this could be a potential opening for negotiations and a diplomatic relationship with Iran. Ahmadinejad has made a few other overtures, like his letter to Bush, but we would rather tell him to go f*** himself and bomb them instead of trying to negotiate.
posted by mike3k at 7:56 AM on September 24, 2007


You know who else had some funny ideas about Jews?

Jesus Christ!

didn't expect that one, did you?
posted by Gervais Brooke-Hamster at 8:41 AM on September 24, 2007


Isn't it nice that there's now a simple word to distinguish the 'good Jews', who entertain you, agree with your opinions, and don't ask for anything much, and the 'bad Jews', who have dual loyalties (where have I heard that before?), disagree with your political views, and agitate for secure self rule?

Obviously, the entire history of the middle east over the last hundred and fifty years comes down to bad Jews oppressing other people through their masterful wielding of money, power, and political influence. How clever of them to engineer all the Arab attacks on Israel, but *especially* the war of '48, which made it *appear* as though it was someone else who rejected a binational solution. Those Zionists! It's as if they had an international conspiracy or something!
posted by Salamandrous at 9:12 AM on September 24, 2007 [5 favorites]


Don't the assholes see that this could be a potential opening for negotiations and a diplomatic relationship with Iran.

This is not the opening for negotiations. Ahmadinejad isn't going to visit the WTC site and have a change of heart about nukes. Bush isn't going to see him visit the WTC site and think, "Wow, this Iranian guy might actually be a nice fellow."

No, negotiations are always ongoing, both openly and through back-channels. This little event is grandstanding on Iran's part and gamesmanship on the U.S. side. The U.S. is denying Ahmadinejad a photo-op that provides him with more leverage, betting that the fallout from the refusal is less damaging than the leverage that might have been gained from the photo-op. Both sides know this. This is all rather predictable, actually.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 9:30 AM on September 24, 2007


The simple fact is that you cannot criticize the Israeli government without being called anti-Semitic. It just won't happen.

Alan Dershowitz disagrees, and does so in a particularly useful and informative fashion.
posted by ikkyu2 at 9:41 AM on September 24, 2007 [5 favorites]


I just watched the National Press Club interview with Ahmadinejad. Gor fuck's sake, couldn't they have picked a moderator/interviewer that would have put hard questions to him and made him answer them? Ahmadinejad make a monkey out of that pussy.
posted by DarkForest at 10:15 AM on September 24, 2007


Gor = For
posted by DarkForest at 10:17 AM on September 24, 2007


OK Malor, very amusing.

As it goes I have not read Dilbert since I signed up here all those years ago, so my Adams fanboi status is questionable.

Also, it does seem that irony and sarcasm are indeed not a North American speciality. The reason that Adams felt he had to write the follow up post was due to readers mis-understanding his sarcasm to the extent they thought he wasn't being sarcastic.
posted by asok at 10:34 AM on September 24, 2007


Bulletproof Gandhi is my new band name
posted by subtle_squid at 11:05 AM on September 24, 2007


I find Adams's immense self-regard more annoying than his political views, whether ironic or not. He has an economist's conceit about understanding people's motivations better than they do themselves, and about the world being reducible to logic and reason. He also has a annoying tic of claiming that taking bizarre positions (such as the creationism one) is some sort of cognitive dissonance that will jolt the idiot masses into the proper understanding that only he, S. Adams, is privy to.

As George Orwell said in another context: one has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that - no ordinary man could be such a fool.
posted by athenian at 12:43 PM on September 24, 2007


someone upthread said: I had no idea Scott Adams was such an anti-Semite...


See...he's not being antisemitic by criticizing Israel. Israel is not "The Jews", it's not "The Semite Race". It's a country. A country that has made some decisions that we, as American taxpayers who provide enormous, vast, HUGE piles of treasure to support every year, are allowed to criticize without being painted with the Nazi brush of antisemitism.

Disagreeing with Israel is NOT suggesting that ZyclonB should be pulled out of storage. Stop parroting the line that disagreement with a country is equal to wanting an entire race exterminated.

Just because I think Israel shouldn't kill children, shouldn't bulldoze houses, shouldn't steal land, shouldn't force an entire people into ghettos without water or food or medical care, shouldn't drop cluster bombs on civilians, shouldn't have concentration camps that are nearing 60 years old, does not under any conditions make me a Nazi, or a self hating Jew, or an anti Semite.

It makes me a compassionate human who is sickened by what has been done in the name of Judaism. As Malor said above, Israel is the perfect example of why there should be separation of church and state.
posted by Peecabu at 12:52 PM on September 24, 2007 [2 favorites]


I had no idea Scott Adams was such an anti-Semite...or such a loony (well, after reading some of his non-Dilbert stuff, I realized he was pretty strange, but not genocidally so).

Link to whatever-the-fuck article you were reading, please?
posted by Navelgazer at 2:03 PM on September 24, 2007 [1 favorite]


Bulletproof Gandhi by Recaall
posted by humannaire at 2:08 PM on September 24, 2007


Alan Dershowitz disagrees, and does so in a particularly useful and informative fashion.

Amazing post, ikkyu2.

All right everyone, now read this post, follow these rules, and take it from the top...

* goes and gets something crunchy and salty to snack on - this should really be good *
posted by humannaire at 2:12 PM on September 24, 2007


Geez Adams, is there ANY necon propaganda that you don't swallow whole?
posted by telstar at 3:32 PM on September 24, 2007


You know who else stole some land and started their own country?
Non-native Americans.
(Its base irony, but its a hoot.)
posted by Fupped Duck at 4:50 PM on September 24, 2007


Geez Adams, is there ANY necon propaganda that you don't swallow whole?

Um... What???
Seriously, are you guys even reading the post?
posted by Reggie Digest at 5:24 PM on September 24, 2007 [1 favorite]


NYT: U.S. Focus on Ahmadinejad puzzles Iranians
posted by russilwvong at 5:55 PM on September 24, 2007


More important: Ahmadinejad: Hot or not?
posted by rottytooth at 6:05 PM on September 24, 2007


Hot. Hottest world leader of them all, in fact. Too bad he's gay.
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 6:21 PM on September 24, 2007




I know a certain somebody who's not in Iran. Oh-ho! Tricksy.
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 7:02 PM on September 24, 2007 [1 favorite]


(NOT EDUCATED) I liked it.
posted by subaruwrx at 7:42 PM on September 24, 2007


Ahmadinejad isn't going to visit the WTC site and have a change of heart about nukes.

Uh, its his country and who are we to say what they can and cannot develop? According to all their publications, they are developing for power and peaceful intentions... What makes the US to high and mighty to dictate what people can and cant do?
posted by subaruwrx at 7:45 PM on September 24, 2007


Uh, its his country and who are we to say what they can and cannot develop?

Co-signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty?
posted by spiderwire at 7:53 PM on September 24, 2007


All right everyone, now read this post, follow these rules, and take it from the top...

[reads post]

[considers rules]


Anti-Semite!

goes and gets something to snack on, confident that Flaming Rules are still fully functional
posted by spiderwire at 8:10 PM on September 24, 2007


Uh, its his country and who are we to say what they can and cannot develop?

Uh, I was disputing the idea that his visit is anything more than a PR stunt...?

Uh, come down off the high horse...?
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 8:13 PM on September 24, 2007


Co-signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty?

And who penned that exactly?
posted by subaruwrx at 9:21 PM on September 24, 2007


And who penned that exactly?

Are you asserting that these treaties are fronts for U.S. interests?

If so, you're not very good at this, are you?

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty -- "...was proposed by Ireland, and Finland was the first to sign."

Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty -- The Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO), an international organization headquartered in Vienna, Austria, was created to build the verification regime, including establishment and provisional operation of the network of monitoring stations, and development of the On Site Inspection capability. The US has signed the CTBT, but not ratified it.

posted by Cool Papa Bell at 9:37 PM on September 24, 2007


So you think that Iranians do or do not / should or should not give a shit about the treaties that were signed by the Shah?

"Article X. Establishes the right to withdraw from the Treaty giving 3 months' notice. It also establishes the duration of the Treaty (25 years before 1995 Extension Initiative)."

International "law" is slightly less valid than church law.
posted by Wood at 10:55 PM on September 24, 2007


The question was: under what political authority can the United States make a demand that Iran refrain from developing nuclear weaponry and/or introduce transparency into its nuclear programs?

Regardless of the "validity" of international law, one potentially compelling answer to that question is that the US and Iran are co-signatories to the CTBT and the NPT, which would both provide the necessary authority.

Other possible answers include: UN Security Council authority, sovereign authority (i.e., if you don't believe in international treaty law or UN authority, the US would therefore be within its national rights to pursue sanctions and other political/economic strategies against Iran in order to protect its perceived security interest), etc. Regardless, these are all potential responses to the original question asked, which is not the same as the question you asked. Your premise seems, to me, to beg the question.

So you think that Iranians do or do not / should or should not give a shit about the treaties that were signed by the Shah?

Iran signed the CTBT in 1996. As your snippet indicates, the NPT was extended in 1995. They are currently a signatory to both treaties. I think that if they had a problem with treaties signed by the Shah, they are perfectly free to withdraw from the treaty regime, or even to withdraw and re-sign under independent authority.

Regardless, I'm not sure what the point is that you're making.
posted by spiderwire at 11:17 PM on September 24, 2007


My point is that Iran doesn't take their signature on the NPT seriously & there's nothing we can do to make them think it's a real law with real consequences. They've been under unilateral sanctions by the US ever since the hostage crisis. Their being in violation of the NPT doesn't give us any more power than we would have anyway. We clearly reserve the right to take any unilateral action against Iran that we see fit.

I suspect they will withdraw eventually but that would reduce the cover for their European allies so they'll continue playing games for as long as they can.
posted by Wood at 8:22 AM on September 25, 2007


"Bulletproof Gandhi is my new band name"

The whole point of Ghandi's nonviolent resistance, what enabled him to take the victorious moral high ground, was that he wasn't bulletproof.

A "bulletproof" Ghandi would be about as effective in changing the world as something like Live Aid (lots of drama demanding zero personal sacrifice). So, yeah, it's a perfect band name.
posted by straight at 9:12 AM on September 25, 2007


How about SuperGhandi?
posted by humannaire at 5:59 PM on September 25, 2007


Atomic Ghandi!
posted by Kirth Gerson at 10:49 AM on September 26, 2007


Ghandi Rice!
posted by Reggie Digest at 2:47 PM on September 27, 2007


Ghandisaurus Rex!
posted by humannaire at 7:05 PM on September 27, 2007


« Older Pork Spray! Keep Muslims at Bay!   |   It's quieter than you think on the Wellesley... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments