I've been having my doubts about Scott Adams sincerity for a while
Today he's released his latest video https://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/status/1336687201866772481
In this video (which was streamed live was after the SCOTUS rejection of the Kelly vs PA case) he argues that "of course the SCOTUS has denied" because "they are obviously not going to risk the stability of the country", as a confirmation of what he's been telling for a long time now.
My belief is that he's perfectly aware of the (plausible) interpretation that SCOTUS only denied this case, as we all think, because the TEXAS case in broader and makes Kelly's case redundant.
But.... he didn't even mention that. Not a single word of alllusion.
Which makes me think that either
- he is stupid (not the case)
- or he is uninformed (not the case)
- or he is a deliberate doomer
The third option is now more likely than ever. He's sort-of adopting our ideas and values, to some extent, but when it comes to the real fight, he just demoralizes us into thinking it's over and lost.
That, would also be consistent with his bizarre stance of being pro-Trump while at the same time being agressively pro-LGBTQI+ (his own word), pretending not to see what's wrong with this weird combination. Also he dismisses any conversation about the Great Reset, all that sort of things.
He has some really good things to say, therefore in my mind he's still worth listening to, but I think we need to be questioning his motives seriously.
He's a doomer. He recognizes that it was a stolen election, but doesn't believe the power structure cares.
Who the fuck listens to an hour of a cartoonist rambling everyday? Get better heroes, people.
Never trusted or listened to him.
I'm a gay conservative and so is Scott Presler, Brandon Straka, Peter Thiel, Dave Rubin, and Richard Grenell... what's wrong with that? This is what MAGA is all about.
The rest of your post raises good points though. I like Scott but he shouldn't be dooming. Maybe he is playing some psychological games again, he has done that in the past.
For the record, the piece I'm referring to about Scott talking about LGBTQI+ is him talking about Ellen Page "becoming" a "man".
So he was talking flat out transgenderism, and was approving not only implicitly but very vocally.
I'm a bit sick of having to justify that "I have nothing against gays" every. single. time. I raise the LGBTQI+ issue. I believe that kind of distinction should be understood by us at this point, right?
so ... ?
Meaning, we exist. You picked out the most irrelevant part. Gays are not the problem, dooming is
so you really don't see the difference between political LGBTQI+ and "being gay"?
I of course do. The political LGBT+ lobby is a Marxist organization. Scott, however, never said he supports this movement - he only supports gay people in general.
right, I'm with you then.
so, to Scott's point, he did absolutely say with no ambiguity that he was actively supporting (I think he added "fanatically") transgenderism "because he likes it when people have a choice over what they want to be" or something in that order.
sounds pretty clear to me. source: one of his numerous videos, don't remember which, but that was towards the end as a closing remark.
to my point now, being gay is a normal thing for 5-10% of the population and even questioning that it could be a good or bad thing doesn't even make sense to me. It's just the way it is and there's no point being "pro" or "against" gay people, it would be like being "pro" or "against" people with red hair. Nonsensical. Now, that being said, I despise the "gay month" for instance, because that's equally nonsensical. It's BLM territory.
And lastly, transgenderism, I don't see how anyone reasonable can be in favour of that, especially given the agenda that is behind it (which you already mentioned, so I think we agree on this).
Yes, I agree with you on everything, especially the "red hair" metaphor, 100% the way I see it. Although I've heard that gays are only 3% of the population? It is hard to estimate...
I will just say that transgenderism can be a real mental problem (if we are talking about gender dysphoria). Still, transition is not the solution, they will still be suicidal after that.
he also dismissed the Georgia video
for the record, my understanding of what he said about it, long story short, is that yes it smells fishy, yes it's extremely highly sketchy, yes there's probably fire behind the smoke, but no it doesn't formally prove anything.
i agree.
what he didn't mention though is, why do the two ladies clearly appear to be counting the same ballots multiple times. that part is missing from his analysis. and I happen to think it's the most important part.
well i disagree in combination with the other information we have about (Observers biden Spikes etc) that it proves there was fuckery
proof is proof. what you're talking about is strong evidence, or commencement of proof.
is it extremely sketchy? yes
is it very likely to be fraud? yes
could it have another explanation that wouldn't be fraud? also yes
I followed everything he said about the Georgia video and I agree with 100% of what he said about it.
At the end of the day, he's a cartoonist and trying to set himself up as an influencer. I don't have anything against him, he just doesn't have anything to say that I need to hear - but he has every right to say it.