Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
United States Idle Politics

Dilbert Creator Scott Adams Endorses Gary Johnson For President (dilbert.com) 523

Long-time Slashdot reader SonicSpike writes: Scott Adams, creator of the popular comic, Dilbert, has decided to endorse Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson for President. He writes at his blog: "Clinton supporters have been telling me for a few days that any visible support for Trump makes you a supporter of sex abuse. From a persuasion standpoint, that actually makes sense. If people see it that way, that's the reality you have to deal with. I choose to not be part of that reality so I moved my endorsement to Gary Johnson. I encourage all Clinton supporters to do the same, and for the same reason...

"To be fair, Gary Johnson is a pot head who didn't know what Allepo was. I call that relatable. A President Johnson administration might bring with it some operational risks, and policy risks, but at least he won't slime you by association and turn you into some sort of cheerleader for sex abuse in the way you would if you voted for the Clintons or Trump."

The essay concludes, "You might enjoy my book because you're not sure if I'm really endorsing Gary Johnson or just saying so to protect my brand."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Dilbert Creator Scott Adams Endorses Gary Johnson For President

Comments Filter:
  • Is this real life? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by the_skywise ( 189793 ) on Monday October 10, 2016 @11:21AM (#53047641)

    This is a new low for a slashdot post...

    • flip flops (Score:4, Informative)

      by Lead Butthead ( 321013 ) on Monday October 10, 2016 @11:26AM (#53047695) Journal

      The man has endorsed all three candidates at one point or another. I would not take this matter with any seriousness (which is probably what he hopes for anyways.)

      • I am not taking any of the four candidates I could name with any seriousness. (Which is probably what they hope for anyways.)

      • What's wrong with being malleable? All of the choices are terrible, if you're really determined to choose it's not easy to pick the lowest evil.

        I've followed his blog enough that I'm not sure if he's serious or just trolling 99% of the time, but this doesn't seem to support that one way the other.

        • What's wrong with being malleable?

          In this particular case, being malleable at this point shows one hasn't been paying attention. Any individual candidate's fluffiness or scruffiness is much less important than their backing party, and the party agendas are slow to change. Slow as in measured in decades.

      • Re:flip flops (Score:5, Interesting)

        by jellomizer ( 103300 ) on Monday October 10, 2016 @12:39PM (#53048439)

        As a professional comedian/cartoonist. There is a seriousness inside his joke.
        He may or may not be really endorsing any candidate. But using absurdness of endorsing to point out problems.
        Over the past generation or so. We have been equating a person's personal ethics and their stance as a human being based on their political and who they vote for.

        Studies show that a person's political stance is based on what they grew up with. So if you lived in a republican family with republican friends you will be republican or vice versa. Growing up in such an environment the opposing political party is seen as evil, stupid, or part of some grand conspiracy. So attacks on that candidate of your choosing are usually ignored or considered exaggerated for political reasons. While what they do well, is strongly weighed. Thus making your choice seem perfectly rational.

        Now if you are actually a person in the middle, and you observe all these families and lives you find that they are quite similar, have the same problems and often think of the same solution, until the party of their choice states it is different.

        While I personally will be voting for Clinton,it isn't because Trump voters are all racists. Nor do I expect the democratic party turn the US into a communist nation.

        • I'm a decline-to-state voter. I'm not a member of any organized or disorganized political party. And this stance is based upon growing up with very partisan friends, relations, neighbors, towns, universities. I do not care for watching competitive sports, I don't have any favorite sports teams, and that's the same feeling I have for politics - it's all a bit too sweaty and smelly for me to jump in and start waving pom poms around.

        • As a professional comedian/cartoonist. There is a seriousness inside his joke.
          He may or may not be really endorsing any candidate. But using absurdness of endorsing to point out problems.
          Over the past generation or so. We have been equating a person's personal ethics and their stance as a human being based on their political and who they vote for.

          Studies show that a person's political stance is based on what they grew up with. So if you lived in a republican family with republican friends you will be republican or vice versa. Growing up in such an environment the opposing political party is seen as evil, stupid, or part of some grand conspiracy. So attacks on that candidate of your choosing are usually ignored or considered exaggerated for political reasons. While what they do well, is strongly weighed. Thus making your choice seem perfectly rational.

          Now if you are actually a person in the middle, and you observe all these families and lives you find that they are quite similar, have the same problems and often think of the same solution, until the party of their choice states it is different.

          While I personally will be voting for Clinton,it isn't because Trump voters are all racists. Nor do I expect the democratic party turn the US into a communist nation.

          If I was American, I would vote Democrat. There is a safety rule in politics -- you need checks and balances. If you get a Republican senate, a republican house, and a republican president, what is there to stop them from enacting laws detrimental to the middle or lower class. Obviously, we have already seen laws that favour the super wealthy. What would stop a stupid law of there was a Republican majority as mentioned.

          With checks and balances, the president can veto bad legislation, and he can, if he i

      • by plover ( 150551 )

        I removed Dilbert from my bookmarks a few months ago when Scott began bringing up politics constantly. If I want to hear more opinions about either candidate's lies or incompetence, I'll bash my head into the wall until the feeling goes away.

        I was thinking I'd add it back after the election, but I haven't missed it enough to worry about it.

    • by Applehu Akbar ( 2968043 ) on Monday October 10, 2016 @03:21PM (#53049809)

      By now maybe Adams should outsource his political analysis to Elbonia.

  • by serviscope_minor ( 664417 ) on Monday October 10, 2016 @11:25AM (#53047691) Journal

    He doesn't seem to be able to make up his mind. First he did the world's fakest endorsement for Clinton:

    http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1... [dilbert.com]

    Then he switched over to trump:

    http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1... [dilbert.com]

    There are some brutally funny and plain brutal Dilbert comics out there, but he seems to have gone a but nuts in his old age. He seems to have forgotten that DNRC was all a big joke and has started to actually take it seriously.

    • by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Monday October 10, 2016 @11:32AM (#53047749)

      You aren't really able to understand what he's saying at all, are you?

      Hint: He hasn't actually once changed who he is supporting or who he is saying you should support. This time is no different.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 10, 2016 @11:41AM (#53047853)

        This exactly. He explained it in a Stephan Molyneux interview. He was getting threats for supporting Trump so he changed it and the threats stopped. He lives in the People's Republic of the Bay Area where it is dangerous to health and property to support Trump. His fans know who he supports but it threw the stupid people off the trail.

        • This exactly. He explained it in a Stephan Molyneux interview. He was getting threats for supporting Trump so he changed it and the threats stopped. He lives in the People's Republic of the Bay Area where it is dangerous to health and property to support Trump. His fans know who he supports but it threw the stupid people off the trail.

          You don't really buy this to you? Absolutely no one bought Adams' endorsements of anyone but Trump. Just look at absolute lack out outrage from the Trump supporters at his blog when he "switched" his endorsement.

          I have no idea of people actually threatened Adams, or if those threats stopped at some point, but it has nothing to do with his fake endorsements.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by geek ( 5680 )

      Maybe you should learn what satire is jackass

      • Adams too thick (Score:4, Interesting)

        by epine ( 68316 ) on Monday October 10, 2016 @12:10PM (#53048159)

        Maybe you should learn what satire is jackass

        Satire—once the cynicism becomes too thick—is nothing more than a devious way of getting the reader to work four times as hard as normal, to ultimately decode the underlying message "look at meeeeee!"

      • Maybe you should learn what satire is jackass

        I know what satire is. Saying stupid stuff and then claiming it's satire when you get called on it isn't actually satire.

    • He doesn't seem to be able to make up his mind.

      Why would one make up their mind during the silly season of the primaries where both major candidates lie to their extreme base to get the nomination?

      Why would one make up their mind prior to the debates where the candidates are not in scripted choreographed settings for the first time?

      You sound like someone who is loyal to political party, meaning you not Adams are part of the problem if that is the case. People who are loyal to a party are irrelevant, their party can ignore them since they already h

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by NatasRevol ( 731260 )

      He's been a bit nuts for a long time.

      And by 'a bit nuts', I mean the most arrogant person you've ever heard of.

    • he seems to have gone a but nuts in his old age. He seems to have forgotten that DNRC was all a big joke and has started to actually take it seriously.

      He seems not to have gone nuts. You seem to have misread a satirist.

  • Honestly... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by John Smith ( 4340437 ) on Monday October 10, 2016 @11:26AM (#53047697)
    The Libertarian party had a chance to go mainstream but they blew it big-time.
    • by geek ( 5680 )

      The Libertarian party had a chance to go mainstream but they blew it big-time.

      Agreed. Johnson is about as Libertarian as Clinton is Liberal. Johnson has been their champion for the better part of a decade and they've only seen their numbers get worse. The guy is a fucking train wreck worse than Trump or Clinton.

      • Agreed. Johnson is about as Libertarian as Clinton is Liberal. Johnson has been their champion for the better part of a decade and they've only seen their numbers get worse.

        Factually wrong on every point. Johnson ran for the Libertarian nomination in 2012 after he didn't make it in the 2012 GOP primaries. In 2012, he got just about 1%. This year, he's polling anywhere between 8-13%. Even if he were to finish on the low end of that range, it would be a huge improvement over where they were in 2012.

        • Not only that but the measly 1% he got in 2012 was the best ever voting turnout for the Libertarian Party. Kudos to the Party for not bowing to the crazy pants removers in the party and putting up someone who is extreme and nuts out there and sticking with Gary, who while imperfect, has a good track record on freedom and actual political experience to back it up.

      • It doesn't matter. He's not going to win. If you vote Libertarian now, you might have a COUPLE of libertarian candidates to chose from in the next cycle, and you might have a Libertarian on the debate stage to push the Republican candidate slightly further into the Libertarian positions.

        You are not voting for Johnson, you are voting for a third party. You should do it, because the current two are crap.

        In 12 years, either the Libertarian party will have replaced the Republican party, or (much more likely)

    • Re:Honestly... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by AthanasiusKircher ( 1333179 ) on Monday October 10, 2016 @12:14PM (#53048199)

      The Libertarian party had a chance to go mainstream but they blew it big-time.

      Indeed. I had high hopes a few months ago that we'd at least have the possibility of seeing a 3rd-party candidate on the debate stage. In a year when the two major parties have basically elected the most hated candidates in history, ANYONE else might have seemed like a "breath of fresh air." I sincerely doubted a 3rd-party candidate could actually win the election, but with all the squabbling and ill-will toward the major parties, it could have really started to shake stuff up in future years if a 3rd-party candidate managed to get maybe 15% or even 20+% of the vote.

      Alas, Johnson has had a few major gaffes, and most of the mainstream media will be relentless on stamping out any 3rd-party voice at any chance they can get (particularly in a year like this where everyone keeps saying "the stakes are so high"). And Johnson doesn't have the brand-recognition or the savvy to play up these gaffes in a way like Trump would -- Trump would just call everyone else idiots and say something outlandish so everyone forgot about the gaffe. So the media can feel okay in going back to just ignoring the 3rd parties.

      Frankly, the whole Aleppo thing was less disconcerting to me than the later interview where Johnson couldn't name ANY world leader he respected. I can understand someone just having a moment of confusion once around a place name on the other side of the planet. But you're asked repeatedly if you can identify ONE world leader you admire, and you can't think of anyone?? Even if you can't remember the person's name you'd really like to say, come up with something else. Or move the question to some other non-"leader" you'd admire. Or anything really. He just stammered and couldn't come up with anything... which means he either is decidely ignorant about world politics or is exceedingly bad at public debate (and unable to recover if he forgot one name). Either way, it was embarrassing.

      And thus, I'm no longer sure it would have been a good thing to have him on stage at the debates. If he were asked the wrong question, it would make 3rd parties even more fringe and unrealistic than they already seem to most people.

  • web CRANK [avclub.com] endorses political KOOK
  • by scunc ( 4201789 ) on Monday October 10, 2016 @11:35AM (#53047779)
    Since he's already endorsed Clinton, Trump, and Johnson, I look forward to Scott Adams' inevitable endorsement of Jill Stein. One of the most important things about being a "Master Persuader" is saying enough conflicting bullshit that you can point back to the time you got it right!
    -------
    Pay no attention to the man behind the comic strip ...
  • "Reality"? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sjbe ( 173966 ) on Monday October 10, 2016 @11:39AM (#53047825)

    Clinton supporters have been telling me for a few days that any visible support for Trump makes you a supporter of sex abuse. From a persuasion standpoint, that actually makes sense. If people see it that way, that's the reality you have to deal with. I choose to not be part of that reality...

    Trump has a LONG and well documented history of misogynistic and racist behavior. This is merely the latest in a long line of horrifying behavior by him with regard to women and minorities. The man has been blatantly campaigning by appealing to (mostly via lies) the most base tribal instincts of scared white males. I can understand if someone dislikes Hillary or if you like some third party candidate but to pretend that Trump's behavior is some kind of made up reality by the Clinton campaign is just idiotic.

    To be fair, Gary Johnson is a pot head who didn't know what Allepo was. I call that relatable.

    One person's relatable is another person's ignorant. I don't give a shit if the president is relatable. Honestly I haven't seen a good one that was. I care if they are competent and I care that their political views don't diverge too far from my own. They don't have to be nice but they can't be an asshole like Trump. If Gary Johnson doesn't have a clue about international affairs (which accounts for about 2/3 of the job of the president) then I don't really think he's cut out for the job.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      I care if they are competent

      Clearly you can't choose the candidate on the left. But you must have known this ...

      Trump has a LONG and well documented history of misogynistic and racist behavior.

      So clearly you can't choose the candidate on the right.

      ----
      Apologies to Princess Bride.

  • Who cares? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by QuietLagoon ( 813062 ) on Monday October 10, 2016 @11:43AM (#53047875)
    And why has /. gotten into the business of tracking who is endorsing whom?
  • Cynicism (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bluegutang ( 2814641 ) on Monday October 10, 2016 @11:43AM (#53047877)

    Scott Adams is a compulsive cynic, who seems incapable of having a sincere, non-sarcastic thought. This cynicism is what makes his comics so entertaining, but it makes him badly equipped to comment thoughtfully on the real world.

    • it makes him badly equipped to comment thoughtfully on the real world

      This is the same "real world" that presents us two completely deplorable choices for President.

  • by JoeyRox ( 2711699 ) on Monday October 10, 2016 @11:46AM (#53047923)
    Turns out it was a self caricature.
  • Don't forget (Score:4, Informative)

    by MouseTheLuckyDog ( 2752443 ) on Monday October 10, 2016 @11:47AM (#53047939)

    Adams endorsed Clinoton because he didn't want to get beat up by her supporters.

    It is interesting how many posters including the submittor and EditorDavid don't have a clue.

  • "An unfunny man's idea of what a funny person sounds like"

  • Scott Adams (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 10, 2016 @11:53AM (#53048013)

    Scott... the man who uses sock puppets to brag about how he has a "certified genius IQ".
    Scott... the man who argues that facts don't matter
    Scott... who lies whenever it suits his purposes.

    Scott is an embarrassing twat of a human being. He brags about being a mater persuader yet was passed over for promotions and more recently dumped by his wife.

    When he started getting called out for his hypocrisy on his blog, he shut down comments citing "racism". But the fact is that he was getting called out left and right for his stupidity and just couldn't take it so shut down dissent.

    He is a failure of a human being who happened to get lucky with a cartoon.

    • Scott... the man who uses sock puppets to brag about how he has a "certified genius IQ".

      It's irrelevant to the greater discussion but worth pointing out that all of his sock puppets get found out, on average, immediately after their very first post.

    • Eh, he's right about facts not mattering. People aren't rational. We make emotional decisions and then rationalize them.

      And as for his comments section that was a good move. I used to read it and there was good discussion there but then it started getting brigaded by stormfront. Straight-up Hitler-loving white power shit. Closing that down was a good idea.

    • What does that make you?
    • by gosand ( 234100 ) on Monday October 10, 2016 @01:17PM (#53048781)

      I really had no idea about any of this.
      And yet, it still doesn't change the fact that I care zero about what he thinks about the presidential race.
      I don't care if he supports a re-animated Hitler for president. He makes a cartoon that I used to read and find very enjoyable. That is pretty much the end of Scott Adams' influence on my life.

      The opinions of celebrities or well-known people carry no more weight to me than if it were an average person on the street. It is unfortunate that this has turned into people's opinions of the candidates instead of talking about their positions on issues. What really makes me sad is that whoever is elected, a large portion of the country will really hate them. I just don't understand it.

  • by Jack9 ( 11421 ) on Monday October 10, 2016 @12:43PM (#53048469)

    http://2016.presidential-candi... [presidenti...idates.org]

  • ..not good enough to be on the debate?
    10% is also 5 states
    In most of "free world", between 1% and 5% of votes will bring your party to the parliament.

  • by Beeftopia ( 1846720 ) on Monday October 10, 2016 @01:33PM (#53048941)

    Trump supporters are absolutely vilified online and in the main stream media ("deplorables"). Yet a sizable segment does support Trump. This might suggest the polls are not accurate because people don't want to be publicly state they support Trump, when in fact they actually do.

    The Brexit polling was an example. And this is just one factor. Another factor could be that with increased use of social media, people are getting their RDA of human interaction, and are less inclined to speak with anonymous callers on the telephone, thus skewing polls again.

  • Thought Experiment (Score:4, Insightful)

    by tsqr ( 808554 ) on Monday October 10, 2016 @01:52PM (#53049099)

    This came to mind while observing the explosion of outrage over Trump's "Grab 'em by the pussy" video.

    1. Take all the people who were outraged by Bill Clinton's sexual pecadillos and thought they made him unfit for office; make them equally outraged about Trump.

    2. Take all the people who took the position that Bill's behavior was a matter of "personal character" having no relation to his ability to perform as President; make them adopt the same attitude towards Trump.

    Now, re-draw the electoral map. What do you get?

    • by HBI ( 604924 )

      If it were as simple as that, a Trump landslide. Seriously - 400+ electorals.

      It isn't that simple, and there's only a month left.

    • This came to mind while observing the explosion of outrage over Trump's "Grab 'em by the pussy" video.

      1. Take all the people who were outraged by Bill Clinton's sexual pecadillos and thought they made him unfit for office; make them equally outraged about Trump.

      Bill Clinton isn't anymore and our understanding of consent has changed significantly since the 90s, if he did run again I expect that would be a much bigger issue.

      2. Take all the people who took the position that Bill's behavior was a matter of "personal character" having no relation to his ability to perform as President; make them adopt the same attitude towards Trump.

      Now, re-draw the electoral map. What do you get?

      There are really only two convincing misdeeds by Bill Clinton. First the affairs, which were bad but not that big a deal. Second was the alleged rape, but that was over 40 years ago and not proven.

      Trump's rape allegations are much more recent, and his sexual assault allegations much more numerous and recent.

      Moreover he's completely unrepentant ab

A man is not complete until he is married -- then he is finished.

Working...