| ▲ | Itoldmyselfso 2 hours ago |
| He was - Anti-evolution (https://scienceandculture.com/2018/12/scott-adams-intelligen...) - Racist (https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/02/23/dilberts-scott-adams-...) - Misogynist (https://web.archive.org/web/20220822171610/https:/www.scotta...) - Anti-vaccine (https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2023/jan/26/scott-adam...) - Questioned holocaust numbers (https://forward.com/fast-forward/538571/dilbert-cartoon-crea...) - He also ironically supported the cuts to cancer research. Yeah I'd go with little more than "I respectfully disagreed with him" on that one chief, there's no need to try to pretend these views of his are perfectly acceptable political disagreements that warrant some kid-glove treament. |
|
| ▲ | bigstrat2003 38 minutes ago | parent | next [-] |
| I'm a grown up. I can handle it if someone has different views from my own, it's not a big deal. |
| |
| ▲ | twixfel 34 minutes ago | parent [-] | | How is it grown up to not recoil from people holding abhorrent views? If you can't judge people for the things they say and do, then... what's left? | | |
| ▲ | tinfoilhatter 16 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Why is questioning a historical event abhorrent behavior? Every historical event is fair game except for one, even historical events where far more people died due to their religions or cultural affiliations. There's only one we aren't allowed to question however. We even have special made-up terms to describe people that question this one specific event. We don't do it for any other historical event. Why is that? | | |
| ▲ | twixfel a minute ago | parent [-] | | >We don't do it for any other historical event. Why is that? Sure we do, there are lots of things (usually genocides) that are considered crass or hateful to deny or downplay (let's be honest he was downplaying, he certainly wasn't suggesting the numbers were underestimated!) I guess it comes down to this: If you're an already racist nut job and start questioning the holocaust, then I assume you're acting in bad faith and are racist. Anything else would be supremely naive, sorry, I don't have to be infinitely credulous. |
| |
| ▲ | moralestapia 25 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | Everyone's views, evern yours, are abhorrent to at least some other person on the planet. The grown up thing is to accept that and still be able to hold meaningful dialogue. | | |
| ▲ | twixfel 5 minutes ago | parent [-] | | >Everyone's views, evern yours, are abhorrent to at least some other person on the planet. Yes and I accept that they won't respect me. I do not demand that they respect me, it's fine, of course they won't respect me if they find me abhorrent. I don't care. >The grown up thing is to accept that and still be able to hold meaningful dialogue. Not really, I don't debate every one and every topic. It's totally valid to just write people off as bastards based on their behaviour and move on with your life. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | EnergyAmy 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Your first link seems like he was just trolling. He says "intelligent design" and then defines it in a way that nobody else would. > What he means by intelligent design is the idea that we are living in a computer simulation. We are overwhelmingly likely to be “copies” of some other humans who intelligently designed us, in a virtual reality. That seems to have been pretty common with him. "I believe in X. And by X I mean Y. Look at all these people talking about X, aren't they stupid?" |
