MovieChat Forums > Scott Adams Discussion > Long Overdue for Cancellation

Long Overdue for Cancellation


In principle, I'm not keen on cancelling anyone, but it's quite right that the consequences of this man's actions are finally catching up with him.

Besides his racism, he's mocked women for demanding equal pay with men, he described himself as being 'to the left of Bernie Sanders', and yet objects to inheritance tax (sorry pal, but when you're both socially conservative [racist], and socioeconomically conservative [anti-tax], you have NO business calling yourself 'left-wing'), and most offensively of all, suggested that any parent who believes their son is a danger to themselves or others should either murder them, or watch them die.

After this DISGUSTING display of ABLEISM (attacking young men who have mental illnesses or addiction issues), he should have been automatically 'cancelled'.

But hopefully, this will now encourage my fellow leftists to realise that the mentally ill and neurodivergent are NOT the enemies, but the natural allies of other oppressed and marginalised people. Keith Olbermann to his immense credit described Adams as a 'fascist' for advocating infanticide.

Like I say, Adams was *long overdue* for 'cancellation' (i.e. consequences for his repugnant bigoted actions).

reply

The fact that you are giving credit to Keith Olbermann shows how twisted your ideology is. Olbermann said that Fox News has hurt American than Al-Qaeda and is more dangerous than the foreign terrorist group. What a class act.

reply

I don't know that much about Olbermann. All I know that he stood up for mentally ill and neurodivergent young men. That means A LOT more to me than friggin Fox News or frickin Al-Qaeda. 😠

reply

Neurodivergent? Lol. Now there's an insidious - yet meaningless - label sired by a university jackal at some school of education somewhere. I agree that Scott Adams is an arrogant jackass. I disagree that he should be canceled. Encouraging cancellation feeds fascism.

reply

What does being 'cancelled' have to do with fascism? Should newspapers be forced to carry his comic strip?

reply

Because cancellation is closely linked to political litmus tests. Who said that any business should be forced to publish his work? The "cancellation" I'm referring to is the politically-motivated mob attitude of the perpetually enraged herd that seeks to deny a living to anyone who doesn't conform to even benign aspects of their ideology.

reply

Lots of things people have said have always been temporarily at least career ending.

And 'cancelling' in this context has more in common with communist-adjacent authoritarianism, I'd argue, not fascism.

reply

That's fine. I accept your articulation. I don't care for communism or fascism, and I don't consider their intersection to be empty.

reply

I'm generally ambivalent about cancellation, but I do think employers have a reasonable right to terminate relations with anyone who has potentially brought them into disrepute. Who wants to be associated with anyone who has badmouthed *all* Black people, suggested that Biden's election will lead to Republicans being murdered within a year or two, and has argued in favour of parents killing their own children?

Also, neurodivergence is a thing. Autism, for instance, isn't a mental illness, but it is a neurological condition that leads to individuals behaving differently to the 'norm'. The same applies to ADHD, and OCD, the latter of which is a condition I have.

reply

The OP is a troll farmer. If you look at his post history, it becomes evident.

First of all, he's not from the United States and only knows what to post about based on what's trending on specific circles, but tries to pass for American, Brit, Leftwing, Rightwing, Incel, feminist, progressive, Conservative, etc. depending on who he wants to bait. He probably had no idea who Dilbert or Scott Addams were until it trended online.

reply

"I don't like someone's opinions so their life should be ruined."

By your own logic I've decided that you should be cancelled. Please don't complain when you lose your job.

reply

I'm being hyperbolic. I don't generally approve of anyone's *literal* cancellation.

That said, you attack people, for no good reason, then your employers are liable to quite reasonably terminate your contract. When you badmouth *all* Black people, and suggest parents should kill their own children, of course any sensible employer is going to want to distance themselves from you.

reply

Where did he attack people? He was referring to 50% of people that responded to a poll saying it's not okay to be a certain skin color. AKA racists. Surely you can agree that we shouldn't tolerate racism, and he advised that if you're living among racists you should move. I.e., not tolerate it.

reply

"Get the hell away from Black people"

How is that rhetoric remotely acceptable?

reply

50% of black people refuse to say it's ok to be white yet you completely ignore that rhetoric. Why should I care about racism against black people when people ignore racism against whites?

reply

If those black people think you should die, then, obviously?

reply

when you're both socially conservative [racist]

🤦🏼‍♀️

No, being racist isn't a "socially conservative" value, but that's a great way to show your prejudices.

BTW, I never liked Scott Adams' stupid cartoon, Dilbert. I never understood the appeal. The few times I read it, it was as boring as watching paint dry, with moronic "humor." I wouldn't know what Scott Adams promoted or didn't. Apparently you do. Odd, that.
Keith Olbermann to his immense credit

Words no one ever thought they'd see. Keith overuses the word "fascist," as do all liberals, and himself is a proponent of infanticide. He just believes that the baby has to remain in the womb or be partially born. He believes that babies should be able to be aborted up to the moment of birth -- brains sucked out and skulls collapsed (unless PP could get money for "harvesting" the brains).

Remember the good old days when liberals would say, "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it!"? Of course not. You're a Neo-liberal, with all that implies. Social conservatives never thought they'd have more in common with classical liberalism than what passes for "liberalism" today, but here we are.

reply

Scott Adams advocated killing mentally ill *human-beings*. Not fucking foetuses.

I am not a foetus. Our HUMAN and SENTIENT lives count more than a collection of fucking cells that ONLY exist in a woman's womb.

reply

Now you see -- or likely DON'T, and never will -- the problem with people arbitrarily deciding WHEN someone deserves to live. An idiot cartoonist says you don't deserve to live, and you think a child in a mother's womb is just a collection of cells until you decide it deserves to live. One would think if you're all that sentient, you'd see you have a problem with your logic. From one, equally sick point of view, YOU'RE just a collection of cells. The point then is when, and who, gets to decide those collection of cells should be terminated.

Justin Trudeau, liberal par excellence, advocates assisted suicide -- killing -- the mentally ill. And, of course, abortion, because others get to decide who should continue to live, and who should have their lives terminated in Liberal Land. I would say that's even worse than the diseased opinion of some stupid cartoonist, since Trudeau can, and did, sign it into law. Expansion to the mentally ill became law just this month, March '23. Where's your outrage, human clump of cells? Reserving it for the opinion of some mere celebrity rando?

BTW, fetuses try to evade the abortionists' weapons. How sentient does a human clump of cells have to be for you to decide they have the right not to have their lives terminated?

reply

You are arguing with a disinfo troll farmer who pretends to be different nationalities and political bents depending on who he is trying to bait.

I hope you realize that.

OP is not an American. He probably didn't even know who

You're a Neo-liberal, with all that implies.


You don't know what a Neoliberal is. A Neoliberalism is an ECONOMIC theory that believes in complete deregulation and free market trade. It has nothing to do with what you think it is.

reply

The political realm has co-opted the term as the opposite number of "Neo-con." It's a term used by those in the political commentary line to differentiate between these new "liberals" and the old-fashioned or "classical" liberals.

You'd have me believing it if I hadn't heard so many conservative commentators using the term as I used it.

~~~~~~

On the IMDb Passion of the Christ board, there was this guy who'd pretend to be anybody, man or woman, of any race. Out of sheer boredom and to troll. Is this person that flexible, or does he or she have limits?

reply

The political realm didn't co-opt it. It's just using the word incorrectly. I understand what you're saying, but to say that they co-opted it is to legitimize incorrect vocabulary. Neoliberalism will never mean anything other than what it means in economics no matter how many times people in politics keep using it.

reply

I'm old enough to know how much language evolves. I was there when we were told to use "Ms." and pronounce it, "Miz." One person said it would never catch on because "Ms" already means something -- "manuscript." And yet, here we are, having not only adopted it, but mainstreamed it.

You're familiar with the economic term just as the writer who pronounced doom on "Ms." was familiar with that term in his line of work. But words crossover all the time. Would that terms would never change meaning, but that's not the nature of language.

reply

Equating "social conservatism" and "racism" cancels anything you have to say. With the "progressive" push for "safe spaces" (i.e., segregation) and, essentially, blaming one "race" for all the world's evils (the exact same way Hitler blamed the Jews for the world's evils), the racist side of the aisle is clearly the leftist or erroneously labeled "progressive."

reply

Hear, hear!

reply

Even if I were to hypothetically accept your argument, how can anyone remotely justify a blanket derogatory statement about *all* Black people, and pretend that it isn't racist?

reply

We're not talking about what an individual said. We're talking about your hasty generalization about an entire group of people (which is, essentially, an error on the same level as bigotry or 'racism' as the word racism was originally defined).

reply

Which entire group have I generalised about?

Conservatives? Really? Unlike race, gender and sexuality, one's political allegiance isn't an immutable characteristic, and is defined by how one thinks and acts, not something one has no control over.

But don't worry, I occasionally bash liberals too.

reply