Scott Adams Thread (Garfield Cartoonist)

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Proves it's a Simulation, since I don't remember it that way.

That's a weird crop and overlay on the cartoon.

So -- you think the trolls are from Styxhexenhammer or Salty Cracker?

As he asked on a nearly daily basis when Covid was still "novel" to those accusing him of vaccine promotion, provide where he said that, in context. Nobody ever has.

It's one of those things where when people make accusations constantly enough, we just incorporate that into our imagination of reality. Like if many people said what a bad driver I was, and how I was constantly getting into wrecks, everyone would just assume that as fact without feeling the need to consult a driving record or detailing an example.

I don't like how quickly Scott blocks and bans people, but I get why he does it, because dummies like that failed cartoonist misportray him.

What is often unclear is whether someone is intentionally misportraying because they are an adversary, or if they are victims of others who intentionally misportray.

That's where I get more inquisitive. If someone believes something incorrect about me, I start a dialog like "how did you come to believe this factually incorrect thing"?

What really befuddles me is how someone can insist that someone else believes a thing, when the person denies it. If someone accuses me of believing the world is flat, and I say I don't believe that, then why insist I do? Your most current evidence is that I say I don't believe the world is flat, and the fact that if I did, I would just say it is. What is my incentive to secretly believe the world is flat but deny it? You just have to believe someone at face value when there's a lack of contradictory evidence.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I'm 100% on Scott's side on this because I project myself into his shoes and would probably not be as kind.

I encourage people to disagree with me or make jokes at my expense, but the one thing I will not tolerate is for someone to claim I said something I did not, especially when it's the exact opposite of what I've been saying.

Besides all that, even if Scott had promoted vaccines (which he never did), it's not a funny cartoon. What value does an unfunny and factually inaccurate cartoon hold? I suppose the illustration is pretty decent.



I don't know about Clotbert as I've not heard that before, but I was listening when "Clot Adams" was first used, and Scott laughed pretty hard and said that was great.

Looks pretty pro jab to me.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Proves it's a Simulation, since I don't remember it that way.

That's a weird crop and overlay on the cartoon.

So -- you think the trolls are from Styxhexenhammer or Salty Cracker?

Yeah its a salty cracker screen grab. I'm sure I could have found a clean slide but I'm going for quick and dirty more than clean and nice.

[freebeard]

'only the people who interpreted it incorrectly made good predictions.'

Yeah right.

Anyone who understood epidemiology, and Nurmberg 1947, wouldn't have been incorrect but would likely have declined respectfully the open clinical trial.

And I respect 45 for being an accelerationist, and pushing the whole thing until the wheels came off.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Looks pretty pro jab to me.

Admittedly, I've never read a SA Tweet before, so I'm only going on his daily podcast. The context of "I'm vaccinated, so it's just Wednesday" in his podcast was back when the vaccine was 90% effective at preventing infection, and more effective at preventing severe and deadly symptoms. It's also back when he traveled to a location that required vaccination. Every episode he mentioned it was just his feeling, and that as a cartoonist, he isn't making a medical recommendation.

But, that's precisely what he said; that if you have certainty about a thing that's new, then you're just guessing.

"The lowest-awareness take on vaccinations is that the people who feared the jab were the brave ones.

The high awareness take is that everyone was acting on fear and everyone was guessing what path was safest.

No one out-thought anyone. It was just fear and guessing."

Nobody is brave because they feared Covid and got the vaccine, and nobody is brave because they feared the vaccine and rejected it. You cannot attribute bravery to fearful action. Bravery is acknowledging personal risk and deciding to proceed anyhow on behalf of others.

So for those that got vaccinated because they feared the disease, he would say "oh, I get that". For those who rejected the vaccine because they feared it, he said "oh, I get that".

Most fundamentally, Scott rejects binary thinking in most situations. Masks "work" vs "don't work". If they prevent 1/4 of infectious people from spreading, did they work? If they fail 3/4 of the time do they not work?

He's always talking about friction, the things that slow the advancement of something undesirable. He uses the border wall as an example. Do border walls "work"? If 1 person gets past a wall, can we declare the wall was useless? Why do we lock our doors given the fact that locks "don't work"? Friction.

That summarizes every take Scott has. Dismissing the concern someone else has is the low road. Accepting that someone has arrived at a conclusion honestly is the high road.

[oil pan 4]

The vaccine was never 90% effective. People still got bat sniffles. They were just in denial they had it. German and sweed studies proved you were more likely to get a severe case of covid a week or 2 after the jab.
I don't know if these were already high risk people who thought they were immune and went out and did stupid stuff compared to young and at least relatively healthy jab free people who just kept doing what they normally do.

When sith lord bill Gates said " we won't know what the side effects are for 2 or 3 years". I was like, "I can wait 2 or 3 years".
Glad I did.

[redpoint5]

I never intended to get vaccinated, except I wanted to attend a ceremony that required it. I realized the pointlessness of getting vaccinated considering I had already recovered from Oct, 2020 Covid. Also, I sought out the J&J since it wasn't experimental in the sense it used conventional vaccine technology.

The most insanely corrupt and/or ignorant thing politicians trying to force the vaccine did was to not consider natural immunity to be at least as good as vaccination. Every politician that didn't consider natural immunity to be as effective should lose their job. Every policy maker that created policy that did not consider natural immunity to be at least as effective should lose their policy making job. This is a most fundamental reasoning error indicating someone has severely handicapped reasoning ability, or profound corruption; both of which are disqualifying attributes of a decision maker.

[freebeard]

The Fat Freddy's Cat cartoonist has decided to embrace and extend the 'clotbert' tag by turning it back on his audience. Clotberts are now officially 'the other'.

So, Ben Garrison or Stonetoss the better cartoonist?

https://i0.wp.com/stonetoss.com/wp-c...fit=1500%2C500

edit:
So, I posted too soon. He just endorsed Trump for 2024, 'based solely on his promise to treat the cartels like ISIS'.

My only disagreement would be for Speaker of the House, not 2024. New Speaker should ascend immediately to Vice President.

That would be the most entertaining Simulation.

[Piotrsko]

The only reason speaker ascends is there's no pres or VP in which case it's direct to pres. If the VP is removed, somebody nominates a new one, but I forget who.

Been having an issue lately with Kamela standing behind Biden at official events. Awful lot of possibly misplaced trust in your security.

I also don't hear of democrats or independents getting arrested for overthrow conspiracies

[freebeard]

I do recall the burning limousines in 2016, but no arrests.

The Veep was standing right there when the Former Vice-President announced he will do the job he'd delegated to her. I think he was responding to that campaign promise to defeat the cartels.