Dilbert decides to join the profit from tragedy chain...

[K Frame]

This is pretty goddamned disgusting. I don't know what the guy's politics are generally, but from various things he's said over the years he's no friend of the Second Amendment.

https://news.yahoo.com/dilbert-creator-scott-adams-tries-162902776.html

[Hawkmoon]

"Despicable" is the word that comes to mind.

[Ron]

From what I can tell he is non-religious and doesn't believe in God in the traditional sense.

He believes we are "moist robots" and may be living in some type of simulation.

It must be next to impossible to construct a moral/ethical framework with that as a starting point.

It wouldn't surprise me if he was surprised and confused at the push back.

His posts on Trump during the run up to the election were excellent though, I must say.

I stopped reading or listening to him not long after the election. He is a very clever guy, he's a major pot head and has as we can see here, questionable ethics.

He became superfluous to me after I read many of the books on his recommended reading list.

 

[Ben]

This is actually quite surprising to me. At least from his political/social stuff that I have read about, he seemed like an all right guy. I may have missed stuff, or maybe he short-circuited.

[Ron]

He's a pot head, he was just oblivious to potential ramifications.

Or, maybe not. Free advertising, there is no bad "press" etc ...

I don't think he is a bad guy per se, just doesn't have a great moral/ethical foundation to build on as far as I can see, YMMV.

[Nick1911]

I don't think he is a bad guy per se, just doesn't have a great moral/ethical foundation to build on as far as I can see, YMMV.

Because he's not a theist?

[Ron]

Because he's not a theist?

The whole moist robot living in a simulation thing as well.

It is sort of an improvement on atheism I guess.

Edited to add: I really meant materialistic determinism more than atheist. Atheists can believe in anything except God 😁

[dogmush]

Maybe I'm being dense but what's the issue?

The media certainly profits from the inevitable aftermath interviews from something like this, why not give the people a way to get some of that?

I personally wouldn't give an interview like this, but there are inevitably witnesses that go for their 15 min of fame. If they can get paid for it I'm not upset.

It's worth remembering that they are not necessarily smart or holding of any insight. Just unlucky.

[Ron]

Here is an article about Adams from 2015:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/10/06/dilbert_creator_predicts_master_wizard_trump_will_win_election_with_his_linguistic_kill_shots.html




Sent from my Moto E (4) Plus using Tapatalk

[brimic]

I don’t see the problem.... he’s simply doing what every news agency out there does.

[Ron]

I don’t see the problem.... he’s simply doing what every news agency out there does.

But we hate the news. I don't hate Dilbert.

It has an ambulance chasing feel to the whole thing.

It's not a big deal.  What can you expect from a moist robot that lives in a simulation anyway?

😁

Sent from my Moto E (4) Plus using Tapatalk

[Fly320s]

I don’t see the problem.... he’s simply doing what every news agency out there does.

Does media typically pay for interviews?

[brimic]

Does media typically pay for interviews?

Maybe... then they heavily edit the interviews to fit their own spin, hype the 'Human tragedy drama' story, then collect advertisising revenue.

[K Frame]

Does media typically pay for interviews?

No.

No reputable news organization covering a news story will pay sources.

Reporters have lost their jobs when they've paid a source. Some have even gotten in trouble for "paying" with dinner, drinks, etc.

[brimic]

https://www.today.com/popculture/networks-blur-policy-no-pay-interviews-wbna34679167

From my understanding, when ABC did the interview of Monica Lewinski, ABC paid her through her lawyers for the 'exclusive rights' to interview her. That whole definition of what the word 'is' is.

No reputable news organization covering a news story will pay sources.

You have to define the word 'reputable'- I don't think I would consider any of the mainstream news sources as reputable anymore.

[K Frame]

You've answered your own question now, haven't you?

[Pb]

Scott Adams is a really weird guy.  I suspect he is not "neurotypical."

I recall on his blog a few years ago he was wondering why people parented their own kids, and didn't let their children be raised by "experts".   

[brimic]

Scott Adams is a really weird guy.  I suspect he is not "neurotypical."

I recall on his blog a few years ago he was wondering why people parented their own kids, and didn't let their children be raised by "experts".   

I read his 'Win Bigly' book, he's certainly an odd duck.
He claims to be a liberal, but got on the Trump train after predicting that Trump would win.
He goes into the the 'we are a simulation' theory that Ron was referring to.

[Jocassee]

Does media typically pay for interviews?

They don't but they still make money on them.

I see this as Adams trying to balance the scales.

I follow him on Twitter and have for some time. Definitely a strange dude. Doesn't seem like a jerk but who knows.

[brimic]

I see this as Adams trying to balance the scales.

 

That's how I see it as well.