2016 June 05 Sunday
Scott Adams Fears Hillary Clinton Supporters

Scott Adams, author of the Dilbert comic strips about corporate office workers, has decided that endorsing Hillary Clinton for president is his safest bet because her supporters are more likely to assassinate him for being the opposition than are Trump supporters.

If you seriously think you are at that much risk then the thing to do would be to leave the country. Scott has made a lot of money from Dilbert and other pursuits. He could afford to buy permanent residency somewhere else.

The animosity the Left has for the Right keeps going up. I think the Left is angry that computer technology has enabled people to communicate around the gatekeepers who previously enabled the Left to control the bounds of discussion. The Left is getting more strident and more vehemently declaring their opponents Nazis, haters, racists, oppressors, patriarchical, and the rest of it. I'm wanting a political divorce that puts us and them on opposite sides of a border.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2016 June 05 10:39 PM 

Mendel said at June 6, 2016 1:52 AM:

Or on opposite sides of several borders. Peaceful political divorces can and have happened, and we should get started now in an effort to keep ours peaceful.

Brett Bellmore said at June 6, 2016 3:18 AM:

I don't know how far to trust him on that; It isn't the sort of thing you'd publicly say, if you actually believed it. Announcing your motive for the endorsement likely robs it of any protective effect. Of course, if he starts using Dilbert to start attacking Trump, maybe he's serious.

Anyway, I don't believe that borders can win you protection from the left. Their belief that they're entitled to compel others to live according to their own convictions respects no border. We'd no sooner go our separate ways, than they'd be plotting the invasion. Sorry, there's no substitute for defeating them.

At best, secession would merely give us both a chance to prepare for the war.

Thresher said at June 6, 2016 8:01 AM:

"I'm wanting a political divorce that puts us and them on opposite sides of a border."

James Bowery's Sortocracy is the best solution. I'm surprised his ideas have not gained more attention from the alternative right.

ASPIE said at June 6, 2016 5:41 PM:

This almost seems like a tacit endorsement of Trump to me. I seriously doubt he really fears for his safety, being rich and probably living in a nice homogeneously pale enclave (he's bay area, right?). What he's doing is pointing out--without really looking like he's pointing it out-- how outrageous it is that the more volatile elements on the left think it's justified to physically attack their political opponents. That the mainstream democrats and those in the media haven't uttered a single word to disown this bs is even more outrageous.

If he just out and said how ridiculous all this is, he'd be branded as another crazy conspiracy-theory-having white man quicker than you can say "Darwin."

Brett Bellmore said at June 7, 2016 3:21 AM:

"I'm surprised his ideas have not gained more attention from the alternative right."

Because it's too obvious that the left would never agree to anything like that. It's like suggesting that we could resolve WWII by an agreement by everybody to just stay within their own borders. That was only possible after the Axis had been beaten so thoroughly they couldn't entertain even the illusion that they could win.

The fundamental problem is that the left doesn't believe there are legitimate disagreements, let alone that they could actually be wrong about anything. They're right, everybody else is wrong, and error has no rights. The simple fact that you disagree with them demonstrates that you are evil, because disagreeing with them is a moral wrong.

If you restrict your disagreement to the inside of your head, and outwardly act as though you agree with them, they're prepared to tolerate that until mind reading machines are available. In the meanwhile, expressing disagreement with them proves you an evil person, and actually attempting to act on the basis of disagreeing with them is a proper basis for legal penalties.

Actually, California was just debating a law that would make it a felony to disagree with global warming. They've shelved it for now, but you may be sure it will be back.

That's the basic problem in this country: Modern liberalism is a totalitarian political philosophy, just like communism, and we've been treating it as a normal political viewpoint. It doesn't treat us that way. They aim to get power, and then make turning back impossible. See this, by a respected liberal law professor. He's basically advocating that, the moment Democrats have the power, they treat conservatism the way the Union treated the South during reconstruction. That we be forced to change our views and agree with them.

Seth W. said at June 8, 2016 3:00 PM:

It is no longer very clear what the "right" is anymore. Same goes for the "left", the "conservatives", the "progressive", the "neocons", the "liberals", the "socialists", the "moderate". Do they define a person accurately? I think not. I'm pretty sure there are people who are very liberal on some issues and very conservative on others, very social in some regards and very elitist in other, and still seem very otherwise to others.

It's impossible to define anybody, even ourselves, only with one of these name tags. The tag "George" can never tell you how two Georges are really like. Even worse is when we say things like "I'm surprised the left so and so..." or "I'm sure the necons will find this..." It means absolutely nothing due to the extreme overgeneralization, but we are sure to insult somebody who is tag-aware of himself and who will rightfully claim that you assume too much of him.

All this tags are divisive and are beginning not to let us think clearly about what anybody's orientation or full ideology really is. By that I mean that it is becoming pretty impossible to find a common ground or at least one thing we can all agree on. Pretty soon we won't even be able to communicate reasonably about any politics at all.

We gotta stop using these damn tags and simply start asking and start saying what we believe in when it comes to a particular political issue.

nobody said at June 9, 2016 12:56 PM:

It only takes a few crazies to start making death threats, even credible-sounding, scary death threats. That's not a phenomenon restricted to the left; there are crazy and evil people in every political movement, socioeconomic group, race, religion, etc. The great majority of those people aren't crazy enough to actually carry through with their threats, and are making the threats in a moment of outrage. But it only takes one nut with a gun to ruin your whole week, so that sort of thing can be pretty intimidating. And there are plenty of people who can be convinced by their ideology that making credible-sounding death threats, or even murdering an ideological enemy, is a good thing.

My guess is, Scott Adams has received a bunch of nasty messages from a few such people. You hear similar complaints from Hillary Clinton supporters about Bernie Bros, from people harrassed by SJW types after some real or imagined racist/sexist outrage, etc. Again, it only takes a few crazy obsessed people to cause some real problems.

Of course, the world would be a better place if the kind of people who make credible death threats at their ideological enemies were in prison or under some kind of restrictive legal and medical supervision somewhere, but the world is an imperfect place.

Brett Bellmore said at June 10, 2016 2:59 AM:

Well, no, it's not a phenomenon that's exclusive to the left. But any reasonably objective look at recent history, who actually makes assassination attempts on politicians, who riots when the other party holds rallies, who treats terrorists who escape conviction on a technicality as respected elder statesmen, reveals that it's more common and accepted on the left.

Seriously, it isn't Trump supporters attacking people at Hillary rallies, and that's not just because Hillary doesn't hold rallies. As you note, Clinton supporters are getting threats from her own side, not the right. Even though the Right is united on thinking her an outright criminal.

The right gets threats from the left, and the moderate left gets threats from the extreme left. It's not a symmetric situation.

Jim said at June 10, 2016 4:47 AM:

Brett - The idea of violent revolution, the use of force to overthrow the existing order, is very central to the left. To be sure there are many people on the left who favor peaceful change but nevertheless the use of violence is deeply embedded in leftish ideology.

another fred said at June 10, 2016 7:15 AM:

The central theme of the Left is making the world more "fair" and "just" through a variety of schemes, almost all of which are doomed to failure because they are founded on a denial of human nature and the inherent difficulty of life.

As the schemes fail they are faced with the choice of either changing their world view (facing reality) or blaming others for their failure. Very few face reality.

Stalin's escapade with collectivization of farms is the quintessential example, but the same story is told over and over in a thousand ways.

The Left hates conservatives because they blame them for thwarting their plans. Conservatives are then responsible for all the ills of the world.

Post a comment
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
Remember info?

Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright