Dilbert - C or D?

dilbert/catbert is just as jerky as adams though?

another fun thing, if you look at the negative reviews of his latest book, he basically comments on all of them some variation of "you read it wrong". at least he's doing it under his own name.

http://www.achewood.com/index.php?date=07312008

Later on, horse dogg maniac

the disses were not the best when Ray went at Dilbert, but they were accurate

his runs at Cathy and Garfield were classic

omg i forgot about the last panel of the cathy one

what do you think the odds are of this guy posting an angry article about Gawker being bought in the next couple days

Scott Adams ‏@ScottAdamsSays 1h1 hour ago
#Univision disgraces its employees and shareholders by buying #Gawker. Worst CEO decision of the past 100 years.

the guy really loves the number 100

can't believe it's been 5 years since this masterpiece of a blogpost

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/102881545031/pegs-and-holes

wow, that's something alright

how can someone this stupid have convinced themselves that they're a deep thinker?

I also asked the Swiss man what kind of problems they have in Switzerland. He laughed again. The answer is “none.” Literally.

Good economy.

Plenty of jobs.

No racial strife.

Low crime rate.

Highest standard of living.

No real pollution.

No litter.

No homeless that I could see.

He also told me that it is illegal to build a mosque in Switzerland because they don’t want to change their national character, which is 95% Christian he estimated.

[Correction: Switzerland only bans minarets, presumably for architectural reasons. Mosques are allowed.]

He said (and I did not fact-check) that the Swiss allow no immigration at all unless the person has special skills or marries a citizen.

And the gun ownership in Switzerland is 100% for adult males. That’s their militia. Yet crime is low.

[Correction: The government issues guns to males between the age of 18-34. Ammo is strictly controlled.]

Make of that what you will. It’s simplistic to think that a total ban on immigration plus a high level of male gun-ownership helps Switzerland have no real problems. But you can’t rule it out, either.

Trump is trying to make America a bit more like Switzerland. Clinton is trying to make America less like Switzerland. Spend a day in Switzerland and tell me who has the better plan. This country is amazing.

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/151599421561/quick-debate-reactions-from-switzerland

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2XTuc6i1Uo

Clinton’s body language was defensive. Trump is physically larger and prowled the stage. He won the optics.

well this would be the moment i finally passed into guilt at paying attention to this guy for lols, feel free to call it late

He seems exceptionally unintelligent but really he's just emblematic of his demographic - this is how [apparently, if the polls are to be trusted] most white men think. Trump was stalking her like a giant gorilla - he won on the optics of looking like he could murder her and feast on her bones which is #1 consideration for American voting public.

He can't even prowl well! He humped a chair and looked like Peter Boyle's idiot brother.

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/151288850856/presidential-temperament

I’ll wrap this up by summarizing the alleged risks of each candidate so you can see how they compare on the “scariness” dimension.

Alleged Clinton Risks

Dementia risk (because of age)
Low energy (maybe can’t perform the job)
Temperament (alleged to yell and throw things)
Might allow more terrorists into country via immigration
Influenced by lobbyists to start wars (Eisenhower warned of this)
Drinks alcohol (We don’t know how much or how often)
General brain health is questionable lately
Adversaries won’t know who she serves or how she will react.
Alleged Trump Risks

Dementia risk (because of age)
Trump is “literally Hitler” (This risk is cognitive dissonance, not real)
Con man (Sure, but we’ll be watching him closely)
Temperament (responds proportionately every time)
Race riots (Clinton’s side created this risk by framing Trump as a racist)
Inexperience (But Trump routinely succeeds where he has no experience)
If you think Trump is risky because of his “temperament” or because he is “literally Hitler” you are experiencing cognitive dissonance caused by Clinton’s persuasion game. I mean that literally. And remember that I’m a trained hypnotist. That doesn’t mean I’m always right, but it does mean I’m trained to spot cognitive dissonance and you probably aren’t.

I don’t think any of us is smart enough to evaluate the relative risk of either candidate. And that’s my point. If you think Trump is the dangerous one, that isn’t supported by his history, his patterns, or the facts. It is literally an illusion created by his opponents.

"None of us is smart enough - and that's my point - but Trump is the smart choice."

I need to take hypnotism training so I can become a better observer of American politics.

that's the dumbest fuckin thing i've read in quite a while

If you think Trump is risky because of his “temperament” or because he is “literally Hitler” you are experiencing cognitive dissonance caused by Clinton’s persuasion game. I mean that literally. And remember that I’m a trained hypnotist. That doesn’t mean I’m always right, but it does mean I’m trained to spot cognitive dissonance and you probably aren’t.

This... is not what cognitive dissonance means. Unless hypnotists use it differently to everyone else? Is that a thing? Hypnosis lingo? Or... wait, is he hypnotising me right now?

"And remember that I'm a trained hypnotist" is spectacular

if he's using hypnosis to trick us into believing he is stupid and/or insane, it's working

what if dogbert is the embodiment of a cocaine demon

good thing you didn't read his article about the Trump tape, it's a doozy:

8. If the LGBTQ community wants to be a bit more inclusive, I don’t see why “polyamorous alpha male serial kisser” can’t be on the list. If you want to label Trump’s sexual behavior “abnormal” you’re on shaky ground.

the worst part about power and relating to other people is that those with it, or are perceived to have it, can do things to those without it without fear of repercussion. there's no doubt that women shut up when a truly disgusting human groped, kissed, and commented on them as if they were property because they could lose what little they did have

on the other hand, a great thing is that creating Dilbert confers very little power on a human being. even if money imparts some influence, it's somewhat balanced by the fact this guy's claim to fame is Dilbert

and being a trained hypnotist

My favourite thing about his writing is the equivatory little disclaimers he puts everywhere:

"I don’t think any of us is smart enough to evaluate the relative risk of either candidate..."
"That doesn’t mean I’m always right, but..."
"It’s simplistic to think that a total ban on immigration plus a high level of male gun-ownership helps Switzerland have no real problems. But..."
"foes that make me directly responsible for the coming economic collapse in Europe? Well, probably yes, and probably no..>"

And his use of the word literally.

"That creates millions of young male zombies willing to die for a chance to get laid in heaven. Literally."
"I mean that literally. And remember that I’m a trained hypnotist. "
"In my view – and I mean this literally, not satirically – marriage is the biggest contributor to mental health problems"

In any case it's completely untrue that Switzerland has a "total ban on immigration", there are large communities of people in Switzerland from e.g. Portugal and the various successor nations of the Former Yugoslavia.

remember that i'm a trained hypnotist

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/m1hmgZFY9w8/maxresdefault.jpg

good research work, Chuck

A work lunchtime well spent, ugh.

My favourite thing about his writing is the equivatory little disclaimers he puts everywhere:

yeah I absolutely hate this about him, he effectively says "you're an idiot if you believe me" and "you're an idiot if you disagree with this" at the same time

lately ppl have been asking him on Twitter if his "98% chance Trump wins" still stands and he replies "sure, but you have to figure out if that was a prediction I was serious about" and it's just like...fuck off, old man

explains why he's divorced

"What do you want for dinner?"
"I'd love pizza!"
*half an hour later*
"This pizza is horrible!"
"You said you wanted pizza!"
"Yeah, but is that what I meant, or what I wanted you to think?"

Somewhere Dave Sim seethes -- "Why am I broke and he's a millionaire? We're saying the same things!"

hey man Dave is kind of crazy but he's a much better writer of rants

also sim's work is significantly better looker and more interesting than anything adams has ever done

idk if there's something about being a cartoonist/writer that lends to really evaluating interpersonal relationships post-breakup or divorce but it's definitely a common theme. maybe lots of people have these thoughts and just lack the creative outlet

now I'm imagining Dilbert strips with Gerhard backgrounds and giggling

http://i.imgur.com/GvzKNdb.png

you're just looking for my praise now!

idk if there's something about being a cartoonist/writer that lends to really evaluating interpersonal relationships post-breakup or divorce but it's definitely a common theme. maybe lots of people have these thoughts and just lack the creative outlet

I suspect for people who have become accustomed to a creative schedule that demands fairly constant output, it's really difficult to separate any personal obsessions from sucking the work into their orbit, and maybe at a certain point that self awareness that serves as a barrier starts to crack, and then whoop bop a loo bop the snake eats itself.

And of course for a lot of creative people a failed relationship or other really upsetting events can be fuel for genuinely valuable insights and expression that don't come across like a dog preaching that his own butthole contains the secrets of existence, but if your thing is pencil drawings of stubby dudes being sarcastic about society, the odds maybe aren't great

Didn't he have some weird stroke or aphasia that made him unable to talk?
Any speculation that his jerk logorrhea is an untreated medical symptom?

I think he's always been this way; you can definitely see the signs in his early writing, which at least held it together by attempting to be funny most of the time.

To be honest I don't think he puts much thought into Dilbert anymore, and probably hasn't for what, 15 years? I think he admitted he crowdsources most of the jokes and does it solely for the money now; he cares way more about his books/blog/Twitter account. I think he's all in on Trump now because a Trump victory would make Adams look like some kind of sage, and he might feel he can parlay that into a nice book deal and a second career as a pundit or political advisor. I think he's convinced himself that he's way too smart to just go down in history as "the Dilbert guy" and is looking for a way out.

I guess he doesn't have the chops to go the Jim Davis route and open a Dilbert fine art gallery

Why doesn't he hypnotise himself to be a better artist?

cuz he's proud of being a terrible artist - he loves to boast that he's made millions and millions as a cartoonist despite sucking at it, therefore he must be some sort of singular genius

This thread made me think of Garfield last night - so I started reading it and found out that Jon is now dating Liz, and Liz now has ginormous, poorly-drawn lips.

https://thecomicninja.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/garfield-lost-my-shoes.gif