← Back to context

Comment by hearsathought

2 days ago

Why does every other comment apologize for adams' political views? It's like a bunch of people were conditioned or brainwashed into reflexibly regurgitation nonsense.

Long ago where one's politics is elevated to the position of identity the culture shifted and continues to shift.

I realized early on through IRC that some people cannot have a professional or cordial relationship with someone opposed to their position. The moment someone found out I believed in the opposite of the group I was attacked.

  • I have no idea what the politics of the CEO of Boeing or Ford or Home Depot is. They don't stand on stages brandishing chainsaws, or writing op-eds about political viewpoints, thus I don't disagree with them on politics. Some CEOs do that and thus choose to associate their companies and their business with politics.

    If you make your politics part of your identity, as Adams increasingly chose to do throughout the 2010s, then it will become your identity, and that associates his output with his politics.

    • I will agree, that promoting a specific ideology will put one at odds. What if you learn about Ford's deleted documents? Home Depot's preferential treatment for some people over others? Does this change your position of the quality of their product? I personally can do business and work with people who are outspoken of their hate toward my belief. I am kept around because of my delivery, despite my religion, which I am thankful. I do not hide my faith within the company but I do not actively speak out because I am conducting professional work.

    • > stand on stages brandishing chainsaws

      That was a call out to Javier Milei who famously used a chainsaw during his campaigns in Argentina to talk about cutting waste and he's doing it very successfully while raising Argentina out of poverty & hyperinflation. Milei gave a chainsaw to Musk as a gift for DOGE.

I know three things about Scott Adams. He wrote comics, he wrote management books, he was passionate about his politics. He clearly very much wanted his politics to be part of his public persona, why is it wrong to make it part of the three things one eulogizes about him?

  • Because they're not eulogising him through his politics or eulogising his politics, and they're not really talking about him when they do it.

It's quite bizarre I agree. The fact that the only comment I've read that doesn't follow the pattern was this one is disheartening.

>It's like a bunch of people were conditioned or brainwashed into reflexibly regurgitation nonsense.

Has happened on a grander scale in the past in China, Germany, Russian and others. This is hardly anything.

Brainwashed, you say…

All you need is

A cup or a mug or a glass

A tankard chalace or stein

A cantine jug or flask

A vessel of any kind

Fill it with your favorite liquid, I like coffee

And join me now for the unparalled pleasure

The dopamine hit if the day

The thing that makes everything better

Its called the similtaneous sip

And it happens now

it's an internet comment section, reflexive regurgitation is literally what they are for

Because Adam was a spawn of a greater society.

It's better to read of what he thought of and learn from that, than to try to align oneself to the weird anti-human reaction his passing has raised from the woodwork.

Left wingers viciously attack their own if they don't sing from the hymm book. They are scared of being labeled.

Because everybody is scared of being cancelled or doxxed by the angry mob. Because everything you write online will be out there forever and it's smart to be concerned of being branded guilty by association in some dystopian-but-not-unlikely future.