Talk:Scott Adams

Delusions of grandeur
This guy has some strange ideas about his own importance. In June he suggestion that he would be "a top-ten assassination target" for Clinton supporters. Now he reckons it's treason if Twitter shadow-bans him. 18:34, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Dilbert
I'm trying to understand the contradiction here. Here you've got a classic comic strip, a culturally significant portrait of white collar America. Some of the Dilbert cartoons are brilliant, yet the guy who made them happens to be a crackpot and textbook narcissist. Does anyone have examples of the real Scott Adams seeping through in his work? Some loony Dilbert cartoons would be good for the entry.Wowmuchrational (talk)

Some weird quote
https://www.reddit.com/r/EnoughTrumpSpam/comments/5b7g2t/scott_adams_if_hillary_clinton_gets_elected_there/

If Hillary Clinton gets elected, there will never be another male President 18:45, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * An interesting quote from the Reddit user BigSphinx:


 * His divorce broke him, that was the point when he started blogging right wing stuff and leaking crazy into his comics. I get the impression that he lost a big chunk of his wealth to his ex-wife, and now just can't let the bitterness go.
 * 19:05, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

He made a book called Win Bigly
The cover is Dogbert from Dilbert that looks like Trump 17:51, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * OK...RoninMacbeth (talk) 17:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

BoN checks in
I've arrived on this page due to recent accusations of "Holocaust denial" regarding Scott Adams. I found the quote on this page to be void of context and borderline slanderous. The topic of the blog post was the media representation of Iran and the Holocaust "denial" (or rather "minimization") of its leadership. Scott *does* give a reason on why he isn't looking up the numbers himself: The questions are rhetorical, they are the questions he would have liked preemptively answered in the media coverage, so the lazy reader could judge whether what the Iranians are claiming is entirely unreasonable or not. To suggest that Scott "could've just googled" is entirely uncharitable and (willfully?) ignorant of the rest of the text. I will be submitting a change to this article to reflect this.


 * I've got to agree with the above, Adams does explicitly state this, making the article incorrect:


 * "Before I give you some examples, allow me to stipulate the obvious. I know that if I researched these questions on my own, I could often find answers. And in some cases I have done that. My complaint is that these things should be included prominently in the news so the ignorant and lazy viewer such as me receives the right context without working too hard. Without proper context, the news is misleading at best, and intentionally biased at worst."

2607:FB90:A171:7565:69EF:CD6A:6821:7EA3 (talk) 17:08, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * IMO, the whole section is fatally flawed and should be removed, as well as the jibe about him saying he was taken out of context...since, that being one of the most prominent sections on the page, he was. We fucked up here, badly. It won't let me do the edit, so can someone with the proper access do it?2607:FB90:A171:7565:69EF:CD6A:6821:7EA3 (talk) 17:16, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It should stay. The header is correct because it says "borderline". Adams did use a stupid tactic in discussing the Holocaust (just asking questions), which is used by Holocaust deniers. He claims to be a genius, so he should know better. Bongolian (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2021 (UTC)