There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.
If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2021.
| Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.|
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with !
Currently nothing about him here.
- To be honest, while Adams does seem to be nominally a free-market, Reagan Republican, it's hard not to be considerate of Poe's Law on his endorsements of Trump. At the end of the day, he is a humorist. That being said, he does appear to support Trump over Hillary. Petey Plane (talk) 13:38, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Read the sixth paragraph down on this archived copy of a piece Adams posted on his blog in 2006. Is he seriously suggesting what I think he's suggesting? -Shtrominer (talk) 20:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- He appears to be suggesting that he'd like a source for a commonly-given number. However, given his tech background, he could easily have found out before clicking save.. SophieWilder 21:01, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Right to privacy
In a recent blog post, Adams demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of the right to privacy, basically arguing that people don't need it if they having nothing to hide. He argues in the post that "my guess is that you would not need privacy because most of what you want to do would be legal" and "but in a pure democracy, so long as you don’t violate the law, no one cares what you do on your own time." Which is completely ignoring the fact that, just because personal information doesn't involve anything illegal or widely viewed as immoral, doesn't mean that people should be comfortable with it being public knowledge. It's not illegal to draw NSFW furry art or use wart cream, but do people who do want everyone from their boss to their mother to know about it? Don't know whether this is something worthy of coverage in the article. -Shtrominer (talk) 04:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Scott Adams's brainfarts inserted into Dilbert strips. Worth linking to in the article? Vulpius (talk) 06:35, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
HRC or death!!!
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. WéáśéĺóíďMethinks it is a Weasel 18:34, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
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
“”If Hillary Clinton gets elected, there will never be another male President
- 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.
He made a book called Win Bigly
The cover is Dogbert from Dilbert that looks like Trump—127.0.0.1 (talk • stalk) 17:51, 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. — Unsigned, by: 22.214.171.124 / talk / contribs