1. 14
  1.  

    1. 2

      account suspended. what was that?

      1. 4

        The tweet was two screenshots.

        One of Twitter user @KrangTNelson tweeting (paraphrased) “No thanks, I only get my crypto tips from the guy who made garfield”.

        The second was a screenshot of Scott Adams Twitter account showing he had blocked Krang.

        No idea why Krang was banned.

        1. 1

          Best guess is a parody tweet promising “antifa super-soldiers” on November 4th, which some strange people took seriously and complained about. His account’s been restored.

      2. 20

        I’ll just leave one of many quotes from Scott Adams below, in which he details just how hard it is for white men to make it in corporate america.

        Adams has said, his professional advancement was thwarted by diversity hires. “There was no hope for another generic white male to get promoted any time soon,” he wrote in Dilbert 2.0: 20 Years of Dilbert. (Later in the book, he noted that his Dilbert TV show was canceled after “the network made a strategic decision to focus on shows with African-American actors.”)

        https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-03-22/how-dilbert-s-scott-adams-got-hypnotized-by-trump

        That sort of mindset makes me extremely uninterested in his business ventures. I assume this is just his next bright idea now that he’s done with his “Dilbertos” (Dilbert Burritos) venture.

        1. 12

          That only made me think of “Quotas aren’t anathema to meritocracy: they increase competence levels by displacing mediocre men” http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/2017/03/13/gender-quotas-and-the-crisis-of-the-mediocre-man/

          I didn’t mention Adams’ interesting personal views in this article, but his admitted track record of mostly-failure in business was brought up by one of his fans.

          I’ll give him credit on Dilberitos for his description of their failure mode: “The mineral fortification was hard to disguise, and because of the veggie and legume content, three bites of the Dilberito made you fart so hard your intestines formed a tail.”

          1. 6

            That article is insane rambling. It doesn’t put forward a single salient point; it just keeps repeating the same tag line over and over again in the hope that it will overpower whatever rational faculties the reader has.

            Let’s start with this ridiculous, arbitrary definition of “competence” that sounds like it was almost certainly generated by data dredging:

            A competent politician, we argue, is a person who makes more than the median amongst politicians with similar characteristics

          2. 4

            Iirc, he said thought it was probably necessary and a good thing to help even the playing field and probably good for business. In fact he never even said he thought it was a bad strategic decision.

            regardless, better to hear the exact story from his own mouth instead of comments that don’t really reflect his opinion:

            https://youtu.be/4AMV6SLT9KI?t=8m37s

            My opinion is if you attribute malice (instead of self interest and being eccentric) to Scott Adams it is from a position of propaganda. He seems like a rational person who sometimes does dumb things like anyone else.

            1. 21

              I used to follow his blog, but then it got… weird, to pick one word. My take is any post in isolation you can probably explain as misunderstood, but not the whole. Listen to him if you like, but I wouldn’t conclude that anyone deciding to tune out Adams is in the wrong.

              1. 3

                I think it is fine to dislike him. I just don’t understand what shanemhansen meant by “That sort of mindset”. If Scott Adams was told this in direct terms, like he said, then I don’t think it is a mindset. Of course it’s totally possible Scott Adams is faking this story to gain support from his trump leaning audience (Especially after everything he has said about ‘exaggerations’ in the correct direction). Who knows.

                1. 6

                  He’s stuck by this story for years and I see no reason to doubt him.

            2. 1

              Wow, that article was some crazy stuff to read except a little bit about Trump’s skill. He’s clearly smart about manipulation and shock politics given how much further he advanced than others that use similar tactics. The quote you mentioned is something I’ve experienced plus seent happen esp for H1-B or minority-controlled environments. That I know that means I also saw they’re uncommon to rare events versus the norm where a white male would have an advantage (privilege) if presenting themselves well in a white or mixed organization (esp big companies). Him writing that says more about his skewed perspective than anything. He almost certainly didn’t get jobs due to his work, people skills, or places he chose to work.

              1. 0

                maybe things were significantly different then but given the state of things in the tech world I find it hard to summon much incredulity for that statement

                1. 3

                  Every company I have worked for scrambled to hire women (I was in the interview teams and part of the discussions), just not enough applied for us to accept them. So from my perspective I totally believe what he said. Maybe this is not the typical experience for everyone though.

                  1. 10

                    No disrespect/indignation intended, but I believe it’s a bit rude/off putting for many women to see themselves referred to as “females” instead of “women”. It’s a minor point, and I don’t want to instigate a flame war, but I think small acts of courtesy can go a long way towards building a welcoming community.

                    1. 2

                      I don’t understand, I would refer to myself as a male, I’ll edit my post even though I’m not sure why you want me to.

                      1. 9

                        Thanks for the edit! I wasn’t intending to explicitly ask for that, but I really appreciate you giving me the benefit of the doubt.

                        I don’t understand…

                        That’s fair. If I’m going to make a suggestion, I should be able to justify it. I’ll do so to the best of my abilities, but like much in human communication, it’s wrapped up in a fair bit of nuance and connotation. My apologies in advance if this gets a bit long as a result.

                        To avoid potential confusion, I think it’s specifically the noun form that’s problematic: refering to a woman as “a female” or women as “females”.

                        I know you say you’d refer to yourself as “a male”, but at least in American English, that’s a fairly unusual phrasing. It’s far more common to refer to oneself or someone else a “a man”, or possibly “male”, but “a male” is relatively rare. Choosing an uncommon phrasing for something is often a signifier of a different contextual meaning.

                        However, there is a context where the noun form is more common, and that’s when talking about non-human animals. That of follows naturally from the broader meaning of female vs woman. Any animal can be a female, but only a human can be a woman. As a result, the term woman is strongly associated with people and humanity, and the term female is loosely associated with non-human animals.

                        The first two points together create a slightly dehumanizing connotation, but I’ve also heard from women that being referred to as “females” is more common when the speaker is expressing a grievance or disdain toward them. That’s an that indicator at least some people are making use of the dehumanizing connotation in practice, whether via conscious or unconscious choice.

                        I want to make it absolutely clear that my intent was not and is not to suggest that you specifically intended to be rude in your word choice. I’ve never seen anything to suggest that you had any ill intent.

                        I suspect someone may show up in the thread to ask for hard data on word usage and connotation, or to suggest that we should only interpret words based on their literal meaning. On the first point I will say that even without data, this is a very reasonable explanation that lines up well with what we know about human cognition and communication in general. I also can’t see any compelling reason for people to be lying about their subjective experience on this point. For me, that’s good enough for me to slightly modify my word choice if it helps women feel more welcome. On the second point, human communication has always relied heavily on subtext and connotation. It’s a natural part of our biology as social animals and ignoring that truth is counterproductive in a social setting.

                        1. 4

                          I suppose that makes sense. In my head I think female engineer, or female developer and I shortened it.

              2. 5

                The funniest (saddest?) thing in my opinion is, reading Scott Adams’ blog posts about WhenHub, you can see him using the persuasion tactics that he describes in other blog posts.

                1. 5

                  I think I’ve figured out his business strategy and it’s similar to Alex Jones. He has recently been getting a lot of love from Trump supporters. Many of whom used to be Ron Paul types. He plays on their fears similar to Alex Jones, who then turns around and sells gold. Scott is selling the digital variety. It’s a good strategy from a guy who claimed to be left of Bernie. If it works, he is laughing all the way to the bank.

                  1. 5

                    Why is this here? There isn’t a lot of technical information, it’s mostly a business review, and it’s just going to have “discussion” where people circle jerk about how dumb/lame/problematic Scott Adams is.

                    1. 3

                      I thought it might be of interest because it’s being marketed on the basis of its technological aspects. That these are a smokescreen for a fairly straightforward offer of a (risky) security seemed a relevant phenomenon worth discussion. I appreciate the hazard of even mentioning Adams, which is why I kept away from discussing him personally in the original post …