Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
“Dilbert” Creator Convicted of Thoughtcrime
This is hilarious, but also sad: Scott Adams, the creator of the comic strip “Dilbert” and a man who has been convicted of thoughtcrime by the good folks at Gawker Media on more than one occasion, transgressed again this week.
Adams wrote a blog post entitled “Global Gender War” that decried the condition and treatment of women in areas dominated by radical Islam. He contrasted that treatment with conditions in Western nations, going on to say that the current, increasingly and alarmingly global battle in which we find ourselves is a clash between cultures that treat women well and cultures that treat them horribly. Adams also chalked up the fervor that fuels suicide bombers, et al., to an impulse of desperation by young men who have no access to anything sexual.
Gawker, of course, cannot allow that to stand.
Writer Ashley Feinberg extracts a few quotes from Adams’ post to make it seem like he’s justifying — perhaps even defending — the behavior of ISIS jihadists.
The funny part is that, although they should agree with Adams’ position, Gawker’s campus-fomented strain of progressivism trumps logic, preventing them from siding with a white (read: racist) man (read: misogynist), even when he is bemoaning the poor treatment of women. From his article:
I wonder if the discussion of so-called radical Islam is disguising the fact that male-dominated societies are at war with female-dominated countries. Correct me if I’m wrong, but Islam doesn’t look so dangerous in countries where women can vote.
Here, Adams is actually taking issue with those who attribute violence and terror to something inherent in Islam — a point that Gawker should like — while also saying that the solution to this problem is embracing measures that increase basic gender equality, such as giving women the right to vote.
Tsk, tsk, says Gawker.
Despite theoretical alignment with Adams’ fairly non-controversial premise, Gawker’s progressive, white-guilt-fueled impulse leads them to rip Adams for … I don’t know what, exactly. It’s unclear. They certainly didn’t like him saying “so-called radical Islam,” which they interpreted as Adams arguing that all Islam is radical.
They also somehow interpreted him to be “blaming women” for terrorism, when he’s clearly doing the exact opposite — he’s blaming oppressive men for it.
But, hey, it’s tough to know which way is up when mental gymnastics are your stock-in-trade.
Whatever we want to call this, it certainly isn’t journalism.
Published in General
What Gawker fails to understand is that Scott Adams has grandmaster level troll-elo and has manufactured this outrage in a lab to generate blog traffic and boost his brand.
So I expect Adams to boost his blog traffic by a considerable margin by provoking an utterly predictable response from the offendatrons. And sell more books.
Well played, Mr. Adams.
I question the wisdom of calling out Mr. Adams at all. He is a very clever man with a wide audience and a gift for satire and lampooning people as cartoons. The folks at Gawker are setting themselves up for an animated skewering of sorts, I suspect.
(Edited for an underlining format goof.)
Fingers crossed!
They vote in Indonesia, and that looks kind of dangerous, no?
Unfortunately, I’ve read both the blog post and the article and I don’t have a damn clue what either are saying; neither are very on point.
From what I gathered:
Scott Adams: we live in a matriarchy and IS doesn’t. muslim boys need to get laid;
Gawker: patriarchy! ethnocentrism!
My first mistake was reading Gawker. Just another day on the interwebs….
Scott’s response.
Scott Adams used to have this funny stalker named Christina Lane who thought she was the rightful heir to the British throne and that Adams was actually Bill Gates in disguise, trying to deny Ms. Lane her birthright.
They can also vote in Turkey which is now loosing it’s democracy to an Islamic dictators that understands that free markets work.
Here’s an article about her, though there’s no mention of the Queen of England.
Gawker has never been journalism, never even close to journalism. Gawker is a screeching harpy SJW hivemind.
Mark Steyn made the point several years ago that if the Islamists ever do take over, it’s not going to be that big a deal for the men – grow your beard out, get a couple extra wives and keep your head down.
Women, on the other hand, are in for clitorectomies, burkhas, and male escorts before they’re allowed to drive.
How any woman, even the most weak-kneed anti-feminist at Liberty University, is not manning the ramparts loudly denouncing Islamism at every opportunity is beyond me.
Gawker is desperately trolling for clicks. They have been hurting financially lately and nobody much cares.
Between losing horribly to GamerGate’s undermining of their ad revenue and to Hulkamania in court it’s just a matter of time before they turn out the lights.
It does sound like that is what he is saying, but then wouldn’t we have more Mormon suicide bombers?
The [CoC] currently passing for “journalism” needs to die.
Which is more complicated: Syrian Conflict or Social Justice Wars?
Really. I’m trying to follow the factions and alliances in both, and neither yields any clear lines.
Really? You went there?
Self-determination is irrelevant! Resistance is futile! You will all become one with the Gawk…I mean Borg!
Mormons stopped being polygamous over a century ago – they have been monogamous for most of their existence. (111/185 years)
Correct me if I’m wrong, but Mormon theology encourages both marriage and large families. I don’t think most Mormon men are being left frustrated.
Dude! Times 10! I have never understood this.
Scott Adams recently gave a fascinating interview on the Tim Ferriss podcast, where he came off as a wise, savvy, and very intelligent man. He has a very interesting theory about Donald (which can be found everywhere on the web) which he discussed at length. He also mentioned a small book he wrote called “God’s Debris” which I hadn’t heard of but which sounded interesting, especially from this man. I downloaded it from Audible (cost: $2.95). A very thought-provoking thought experiment that plays for just under three hours. I think I have listened to it about 10 times.
Adams’ point is that it’s really bad to deny young men legitimate access to women. It ends up being bad for the men and really bad for the women. This is not an original insight, to say the least. It’s one of the arguments against allowing polygamy. It’s easy to see those consequences in most Muslim societies.
It is not possible to find any sense in the Gawker article. The author is a moron, full stop.
I’m convinced that they think that once the Islamists help break western civilization, they will just magically go away because the existence of western civilization is what is bugging them.
If feminists acknowledge how bad Islamists are, they will also have to acknowledge how good Western men are. Feminists are heavily invested in the idea that they “fought” for their rights and somehow defeated the evil Western men who were trying to keep them down. Their entire philosophy is delusional from start to finish. If anything good comes from Islamism, it might be the way it highlights feminist hypocrisy. It is-or should be-very difficult for feminists to retain credibility while they completely ignore the plight of women in Islamist countries.
What? Lots of religions forbid sex outside of marriage, and encourage modesty for women (granted not to the burka extreme). Yet we do not see single men from other faiths turning to suicide bombings. So if “an impulse of desperation by young men who have no access to anything sexual” was the real cause of suicide bombings, then why are Muslims so much more likely to engage in this violent behavior?
What is up with that?!??
Adams has an interesting mind; whenever I read his stuff, I get the picture of a Spock-faced spider laying down filaments and then crouching in the center of the web, waiting.
2. The left seems blind to the fact that it celebrates atheists as avatars of our rational future, but reacts with red-faced indignation when Islam is critiqued. As if Islam is just a prism through which the wise see the true sins of mankind. Sorry, personkind.
Sorry, Western civilization.
Steyn can shove it. If Islamists take over, men and boys will continue to be the invisible victims no one cares about. Boys are routinely raped in Afghanistan and the right gets outraged for a couple minutes because they think they can pin it on Obama, but we’ve moved on because women can’t drive in Saudi Arabia! Boko Haram trapped a bunch of boys inside a school and burned them alive, but the world didn’t care until they kidnapped girls. The Taliban chops off the heads of boys and their male teachers, but the real crime is girls weren’t at the school. Boys are made into child soldiers and suicide bombers.
Female genital mutilation, of which cliterectomy is but one form, is far from a universal practice in Islamic countries. The mutilation of male genitals is common, but we don’t need Muslims to import that.
This is America. Men don’t matter any more, only women.
Cat III
I have never understood the insistence of some people to equate male circumcision and female genital mutilation. There is almost nothing to compare. Please stop.
Actually clitorectomies are a North African tradition. It became incorporated into Egyptian Islam but it has not spread beyond Africa.