Comment by anonymars
1 day ago
I am really confused how one can read Holocaust denial into words that literally say "No reasonable person doubts that the Holocaust happened" and "I want to know if people who think [it was] exaggerated ... are equally nuts"
You should probably quote where you think I made that claim.
Ok, I'll restate: I am really confused how one can claim as "neo-nazi adjacent rhetoric" words that literally say "No reasonable person doubts that the Holocaust happened" and "I want to know if people who think [it was] exaggerated ... are equally nuts"
> Arguably Scott Adams was one of the least curious famous persons in history.
That's a bold claim, and I would argue against it based on The Dilbert Future and God's Debris
I'll also re-quote OP: "...it's an example of how at the time his statements got oversimplified and distorted...[a]nyway, I saw a lot of examples of that -- he'd have a relatively nuanced take probably expressed too boldly, but people wanted to just lump him in to some narrative they already had going."
Because that is an extremely common neo-nazi talking point. It is tailored to people who aren't yet radicalised enough to accept denialism but puts them on a trajectory towards it, in a similar way that fossil fuel companies have designed their campaigns against climate action initiatives. 'Climate might be changing, but haven't it always? Who's to say what's really going on here, maybe they're trying to fool you again.'
It's also an extremely low effort take on the issue. That entire article can basically be summed up in a sentence, 'I know very little and I have no explanation for why no one is spoon feeding me'. It's characterised by a blatant lack of curiosity, and presenting things that wouldn't come across as particularly ambigous if you actually were curious about them as highly ambigous and contentious.
And this tactic is really, really common among far-right activists. 'I'm just a dumb dude asking innocent questions, are things really as they seem or could women be another species that you need a bit of manly coercion to perfect? Is it really the oil or is it natural causes, like this dude in a suit on the telly said it might be? How come there are so many jews among nobelists, isn't that weiuhrd...?'
Again and again he's proven that he does not have either the intellectual integrity and rigour to examine subjects he brings up, and that he somehow thinks he's the most appropriate person to do it. His attempt at Dilbert Reborn is itself a good example of this. I'm not sure whether it's a grift or material he tried to put some authenticity into but I also don't really care, he was told both in words and actions that he should be better and as far as I know never tried to be.