The Dilbert guy really went off the deep end, didn’t he?
Wait, I thought that was just a random idiot, are you telling me that’s the author of Dilbert?
Yep, he’s completely lost it and was dropped by pretty much every newspaper after describing black people as a “hate group” (among other crazy stuff).
I really don’t understand successful people attaching their wagon to Conservatives… The entire human history is just a parade of religious Conservatives resisting change, trying to subjugate others and looking like absolute assholes in hindsight.
There is ZERO examples in history of “hey we were going to expand freedoms, but good thing we didn’t, thanks to the religious opposition!”…
Conservatives are wrong and have been wrong on every single social issue since the dawn of time.
I’m sure they had their victories when it comes to economic issues, but they haven’t had one of those in over half a century either, since the only idea they seem to have is tax cuts.
Actually, economically, conservatives have mostly failed as well.
Hah yeah… It also wasn’t until this post that I made that connection. For the past few years I’ve heard of “the Dilbert Guy going off the deep end” and seen random posts (like this) with this Scott character being an absolute moron
mind blown meme
He went far enough, that there’s a Behind the Bastards episode about him.
- 20230711 - Part One: How The Dilbert Guy Lost His Mind - 1h32m
- 20230713 - Part Two: How The Dilbert Guy Lost His Mind - 1h46m
Is there really 2 hours and 18 minutes worth of content devoted to Scott Adams losing his goddamn mind? I don’t know if I have that kind of time to invest in that douche canoe.
Having listened to some other Behind the Bastards I’d say it’s really an entertainment show that uses their topics as a basis to joke around than a serious biography wherein explaining the subject is the primary goal.
They’re usually fun and you’ll tend to learn something new but it’s not really ever going ot be a serious deep dive.
Sounds a bit like Drunk History! Though I think I’d have to take that one with a bit more salt
I keep hearing about the podcast and it sounds great. Could you recommend any outstanding episodes to check out? My interests are wide so anything is on the table
I’ve not long listened to it so probably can’t make great recommendations of classic episodes but I enjoyed their series of episodes about Vince McMahon titled: “Histories Greatest Bastard!” (partly because it features Seanbaby.) I’ve really just dipped in an out of a couple of random episodes otherwise.
I really enjoyed it. But I was also playing rocket league or driving when I listened to it. Behind the bastards is moderately funny so it’s an easy listen.
Really good episodes too
Along with Chachi, Hercules, and the Wheel of Fortune guy. Conservatism (read: Fox News) will rot your fucking brain.
What’s this about Wheel of Fortune?
Be fair to Conservativism, Kevin Sorbo’s (Hercules’s) brain was already damaged by the time he fell into its warm dark embrace.
It’s almost as if Fox News rots your brain! Or maybe boomers just licked a lot of lead paint as kids…
He certainly did
deleted by creator
Anyone listen to the Behind the Bastards pod on Adams? It was a two-parter that was awesome. Google it Lemmies.
Care to synopsize?
He was a very special boy who thought he was smarter than everyone else.
Now he’s a dipshit racist alt-righter (redundant, I know) who thinks he’s smarter than everyone else.
That took a two-part podcast to regale? Hunh.
edit: When summarizing, it’s fairly elementary, if not outright essential, to include salient points from the source in question. For instance, the “summary” below completely omits the section (wherein the host blasts this nazi clown for his islamophobia) that, apparently, went on for several minutes. Downvote all you want, former Redditors. Go touch some grass. 🤗
Why did your summary leave out that he blamed black people for his getting fired?
3/10, try harder next time.
Because summaries are supposed to leave things out.
You’re being unnecessarily antagonistic and just plain unpleasant. Neither is acceptable here. If you can’t follow the rules of this community, instance and lemmy, please refrain from participating.
One can sum up The Odyssey as “a bunch of dudes try to get home from war,” but it’s more about the journey than the destination.
Are you equating the nuance of a timeless literary classic to a sheltered white guy’s childhood? For real?
No, I’m saying that if you ask someone to summarize a lengthy piece then it’s a bit ridiculous to complain about the lack of details.
Yes, and I’m starting that if you attempt to summarize, do be sure to touch on key points rather than boiling it down to such a degree that it’s indistinguishable from mud. Pretty basic stuff, friend. Thanks for trying, though.
Well actually the KPD and the NSDAP did work together as they saw the SPD as their combined enemy.
https://etheses.lse.ac.uk/4102/3/Daycock__KPD-NSDAP-Weimar-Germany.pdf
Here is a PhD thesis to the topic.
Edit: I did not mean literally all the time, one single time before the NSDAP rose to power.
See @[email protected]’s comment below
No. No it wasn’t. Antifaschistische Aktion was a paramilitary wing of the communists, fighting both the social democratic Iron Front and the Nazi Sturmabteilung.
The only way in which it could be said to be allied with the Nazis is that both of them opposed the social democrats, but the enemy of your enemy is not in fact your friend. The KPD saw both the SPD and the NSDAP as fascists, rather than in any way allying with the NSDAP against the SPD.
Bro I literally linked a PHd thesis
I’m not sure what to do with that information.
There’s a grain of truth to this, but I don’t think most people here would accept it.
I don’t think anyone, no historian anywhere would accept such a bologna. I bet that it’s just a huge mental acrobatics and misrepresentation of cherry picked facts.
Except on one action, a strike of train workers of the Berlin transportation department, the KPD (party of the historical Antifaschistische Aktion) and NSDAP have never cooperated and fought each other viciously on the street. Please elaborate the point or event you’re referencing.
Every word uttered by a conservative is either a lie or profoundly incorrect. Every communication is an attempt to manipulate. This is who conservatives are.
Never trust the word of a conservative. Never.
I’ve been putting off seeing family for so long, but I’ve been begged to come to the reunion this year as my Grandma is not doing so great. Every single one of them were once proud Trump supporters who grew silent after j6. Now all they do is scream about Phil Murphy and…bears? Windmills causing whales to beach? This weekend is going to be dreadful.
Why do they all hate windmills so much?
I had an old family friend meltdown, unfriend me from facebook, and avoid me like the plague ever since I told him he was wrong when he claimed it takes more electricity to make a single windmill than a windmill can ever produce in it’s usuable lifetime…
Pure culture wars. Renewable energy is an amazing boon for decentralization, which means rural communities and those who want to go off-grid. It’s a no brainer. But because they’ve tied themselves to social conservatism and their thought leaders in that sphere have major financial ties to gas & oil, they have to morally oppose windmills.
Actually that is really really interesting what you said, “morally opposed to windmills.” They obviously are against them from a “moral” perspective, but I’ve never seen even an attempt at a moral argument against windmills, its all crazy conspiracy theory stuff. I would almost respect it more if one of them just said something like “I don’t like windmills because I think it is morally wrong to harvest wind”.
Meanwhile, drive through Kansas sometime…thousands of windmills along I-70, sometimes stretching as far as the eye can see. Maybe 10s of thousands. The discrepancy between that fact and the opposition is astounding. Look what states have the most power generation by windmills.
Every word uttered by a conservative is either a lie or profoundly incorrect
Or projection, so much projection.
You forgot my favorite: every accusation is a confession.
I was about to advise you to chill a bit, then saw your username and now am sort of impressed by such staunch commitment to being pissed off.
That’s not correct; you’re taking a black and white, absolutist view to the question, and that just doesn’t work.
For instance, take economics; many traditional conservative positions square pretty well with economic theories and practices. Social conservatism also has a place, given the tension that exists between concepts of community and society. I do not agree with many conservative interpretations, but it’s not accurate to say that all conservatives are intellectually dishonest.
OTOH, modern “conservatives” aren’t conservatives in any meaningful way. It’s now more like regressive populism.
“conservative” is starting to feel like a meaningless label that assholes throughout history have tried to use to describe themselves because they didn’t like the other words people were using to describe them.
And don’t get me wrong, I’m sure there are “real” conservatives out there and in history, but it sure feels like they are outnumbered by the people that use the word as a mask, and that is weird.
Conservatism took a weird turn with Reagan. Reagan was socially regressive, and not an orthodox fiscal conservative. George HW Bush (Dubya’s dad) was in many ways more of a traditional conservative. Eisenhower was a particularly notable conservative, and is generally regarded as a successful president. Nixon was likewise extremely successful, and managed to significantly dampen inflation, despite being generally bad on racial issues (although he did enforce desegregation orders, but he was also working to pull the teeth of the civil rights act to appease white southerners), and generally being a thief and liar. His re-election was a complete blow-out, winning every single state except Delaware.
We’ve also got this weird idea that being ‘liberal’ is some kind of magic, that libs are going to do wonderful, magical things as soon as they have majorities in the house and senate, and have the presidency. We’ve seen that NYS, CA, and IL can’t address shit in their own borders–e.g., housing/homelessness, and Obama did very, very little to advance a significant progressive agenda aside from the very weak and watered down ACA. Biden is just going to policies that existed prior to the Trump toxic clownshow.
That is kinda my point, the meaning of “conservative” changes a lot through the centuries it has been used, and the only consistent part seems to be the assholes using it as a “friendly” sounding mask.
And your perspective of the public opinion of liberals is entirely too informed by mainstream media. Many leftists dislike liberals for not being leftist enough, and moderates seem to only expect maintenance of the status quo, not magic
Many leftists dislike liberals for not being leftist enough,
That would be me, right there. The older I get, the farther left I go, and the more disillusioned I get with what I thought Dems had been promising for the 45+ years of my life. Not that Republicans have made my life better in any meaningful way; NAFTA might have improved the bottom line of businesses, but it killed my career in it’s infancy when GM/Ford/Chrysler all moved manufacturing south of the border to take advantage of cheap labor. Meanwhile Biden doesn’t seem to be doing a lot to help labor either, esp. since he killed the railroad strike before it happened.
I don’t want a status quo.
I don’t want a status quo either, I’m also a leftist.
I’m just trying to describe things as I see them.
take economics; many traditional conservative positions square pretty well with economic theories and practices
Like trickle down theory, corporate personhood, that tax breaks will result in tax revenue, and that government austerity is preferable to stimulus to move an economy from recession to expansion? They’re zero for four in the most popular 20th century conservative economic theories. I’m not sure that economics is the best lens to view conservative theory in a positive light.
Dude. What you consider “the left” IS CONSERVATIVISM. The USA is soooooo far afield, people are sooooo brainwashed, they can’t hold a liberal thought in their heads if they fucking tried.
US liberals are more centrists in a European sense, no argument there. I’m just pointing out that offering up US conservative economic theory as a shining star of success is not the boast they think it is.
neoliberalism is conservative ideology and it has been doing very well the last 40 years, to our vast detriment
No, Reaganomics was a bad-faith move by social regressives. Corporate personhood has been a reality since Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co. in 1886, so I guess that’s conservative, but also not exactly. The idea of laissez-faire economics–that the market will mostly sort itself out with minimal gov’t intervention–is generally upheld by prevailing economic theories, and is a fundamentally conservative view. I happen to disagree with the economists though, because they’re only looking at it as an economic issue, rather than economics being a manifestation of the social realities.
No true Scotsman much?
So Manchin and Sinema are libs, right? Because they claim to be.
Nobody on planet earth thinks they are liberals. No one.
When two random assholes claim a label and all the other pressure who claim it disagree, they’re just two random assholes.
When 99% of the people claiming a label are a certain kind of asshole, that label describes what kind of asshole they are.
^ how you radicalize yourself
Hey now, I know the average Bush voter in the late 90s wasn’t like this. Blind hate for half the country just destroys the country. This is a new problem.
Whatever this new thing is, the small group doing this - not the ever growing group being exposed and converted by it - deserves everything you’re saying. But don’t give up on your conservative family members. We’ll figure out how to stop the flow of hateful brain junk food eventually. We can go back to just politically disagreeing with them, instead of being irrationally hated by them. And vice versa.
They weren’t quite like this but there was still shitty conservatives in much the same way… The extremists weren’t the core yet though. They were absolutely still there and voting for Bush, they just weren’t allowed to be the face of the party… Yet.
Respectfully disagree. Since Reagan the right has been completely fine with utter hypocrisy in the service of - well, ultimately nothing though for awhile they would say it was in the service of national security, or Christianity or something like that. Reagan republicans actively worked to fool the working class into giving them more and more power by lying, using “morning in America” commercials, and otherwise laying the groundwork for what became the fox news nation we now know and love so well.
The fact that otherwise good people who would help others and meant for everyone to get a fair chance etc. would steadfastly give their votes to them every election became more of a house of mirrors and lots of analysis as to how that could possibly be when their policies are so obviously cruel / stupid / nonexistent.
TL;DR - Propaganda works. “The average person” is criminally under-informed in many ways.
I hope this is ok to say, but I don’t think there was any part of what I said that you disagreed with.
I completely agree on all points. Those people have a dishonest agenda and they’ve figured out how to manipulate human nature to get what they need from part of an otherwise-good populace.
I used to read ToiletPaperUSA on reedit and yeah, fuckin Charlie Kirk. EVERYTHING he posts online contains fallacies and conflations attempting to manipulate people, like he knows his ideas can’t stand on their own without dishonesty.
This dude is basically just writing historical fanfiction at this point. Add vampires or zombies and maybe he could sell a book.
Unfortunately, he’s sold LOTS of books.
Lol what?
I’m so disappointed in Adams. That idiot chugged so much Kool-Aid that the cavities have rotted up to into his brain
Like Peterson, Scott Adams was at least interesting to read in 2016, even if you don’t agree with him. His analysis on why Trump eventually won was actually a pretty good read.
But it seems that going deep into the conservative echo chamber turns everyone in it completely insane and paranoid, until they are nothing but a parody of their former self.
So I think the main idea of conservatism is ironically being self destructive.
4k retweets and 8k likes. I’d say twitter is a shithole, but those morons are people, and they will just go sonewhere else when twitter dies.
They are probably already on Truth Social.
Always neat to see Tweets of people who are about to be blocked by Scott Adams
I think you mean “Xeet”.
I presume that’s pronounced “skeet”?
Tenet
LOL, Scott Adams can’t cope with reality so he has to make up history to make himself feel better.
The fact that he’s rich is the only reason he hasn’t been Baker acted.
Dude has really went off the deep end.
He’s become the ignorant “manager” he got famous making fun of.
I don’t think that is so surprising. Scott Adams spent most of his career as a manager, not a developer. He probably prided himself in not being the ignorant manager, but at this point I have to question if he was just deluding himself.
r/brandnewsentences
Unfortunately, claiming the anti fascists are the real fascists is not a new sentence at all :(
Wow, had to check this one was real, and jokes on me it’s still up on his Twitter, complete with him stubbornly defending himself against everyone telling him he’s nuts. How did the Dilbert guy lose his mind so completely?
He never had much of it in the first place.
I would like to direct your attention to the Behind the Bastards podcast episode entitled “Part One: How The Dilbert Guy Lost His Mind” from July 11th, 2023.
Your wording was perfect.
Summary? I’m technically at work right now, so pulling out the headphones I left at home anyways isn’t quite an option.
He’s always been a little like this but pretty quiet and subtle about it. However once he started losing his ability to speak he lost a lot of social interaction and kinda went nuts.
It absolutely is worth a listen though (as is the rest of the podcast).
I remember him being on TV (want to say it was Real Time) and talking up Trump. He definitely was on the right before he lost his voice.
He lost his voice starting in like 2005 or 2006, then got surgery to fix it in 2008. Real Time was running starting in '03, but that was way before Trump was politically relevant so I’m betting you saw him after he’d lost his voice, alienated everyone in his life and gone nutty, then gotten it back.
That about sums it up. Love the podcast as well.
Fantastic! Didn’t know they did an episode on him, I’ll definitely check it out. Thanks for the recommendation!
He had a weird disease that took his voice from him for years. He basically was a huge shut in for awhile and that made him go crazy
The Behind the Bastards feature on him posited he was always obsessed with predestiny and being some kind of fountain of wisdom. His fame and seclusion just tipped him over the edge from mere asshole into raging lunatic.
He needs to go from a shut-in to a shut-up.
Or he was a shut in for a while because he experienced a massive personality change
