ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Wednesday, December 09, 2015

A dialogue with Scott Adams

To put it into context, I was quoting this piece by Adams to which I had already linked:
Vox Day ‏@voxday
"I would accept up to 1,000 dead Americans, over a ten-year period, to allow Muslim non-citizens to enter this country." @ScottAdamsSays

Scott Adams ‏@ScottAdamsSays
What's your number?

Vox Day ‏@voxday
Mine is zero. False dilemma. Plenary power doctrine permits Muslim immigration ban. 124 years of precedent.

Scott Adams ‏@ScottAdamsSays
The legal question can be separated.

Vox Day ‏@voxday
It can be, but it shouldn't be. That IS the context, after all. Look, it's a good question. Just bad answer.

emilio rodriguez ‏@emiliorrubio
Mine is also 0. Seeing as we gain NOTHING from muslim immigration. It's no benefit for a cost.

Scott Adams ‏@ScottAdamsSays
Nothing except respect for people of different religions (freedom). Do you value that at zero?

Vox Day ‏@voxday
Yes, because I know military history. Muslim immigration into Dar al-Harb means war. Always.

Scott Adams ‏@ScottAdamsSays
It's a risk assessment about saving more than lives than you kill (in the long run).

Vox Day ‏@voxday
You need to reassess. Because the correct answer is definitely and absolutely zero.

Scott Adams ‏@ScottAdamsSays
Religious intolerance has bad history. Are you sure it always ends well?

Vox Day ‏@voxday
Not always, but sometimes. If there was no intolerance at Vienna, at Lepanto, and Tours, no Enlightenment.

Scott Adams ‏@ScottAdamsSays
Would you expel legal Muslim residents in the country under the same principle of safety over principle?

Vox Day ‏@voxday
Yes. And I predict that every single Western country will within three decades. Reconquesta 2.0.

Vox Day ‏@voxday
False dilemma, though. Your principle doesn't exist legally, and it's your principle, not mine.

Scott Adams ‏@ScottAdamsSays
Opinion noted. See my book, The Religion War (sequel to God's Debris). Speaks to that scenario, in fiction.
Now, if you wish to analyze this, what you'll see is Adams engaging in pseudo-dialectic, while I am utilizing dialectic in a rhetorical manner. With its 140-character limit, Twitter is a very poor medium for complex communication, but it does have the benefit of stripping away the ability to engage easily in word games. The simplicity of the medium makes communication cruder, but more direct.

Adams is not an SJW, but here he argues in a similar manner, simply moving the goalposts each time his point is successfully dealt with. However, Adams is an intellectual in the true sense; he likes to play with ideas so one should never assume that what he is saying is necessarily what he genuinely believes.

Adams knows the choice he puts forth is a false dilemma; it is based on a false foundation of the United States being a polity that enforces complete religious freedom. This is nonsense, as the transmutation of "Congress shall make no law" into "a moment of silence in public schools is outlawed" suffices to demonstrate. And Muslims are already banned from immigrating as "people who practice polygamy" as per the 1891 statute.

That's why Scott wants to leave the legal aspects out, because they also render his dilemma moot. He tries risk assessment, but that's even worse ground for him both rhetorically and dialectically due to the 1,300-year history of Muslim violence. So he tries to go to the abstract, but as numerous people on Twitter pointed out, "respect" is not synonymous with "granting permanent residence rights and citizenship".

In the end, he's forced to argue from incredulity concerning an proposition that no one has even made yet, but even there, he's on shaky ground because most Americans would happily repatriate every Muslim in America tomorrow. While he does do a good job maintaining frame, the problem with doing so as your argument keeps shifting is that you eventually wind up looking like one of those whom Aristotle described as being unable to learn from information.

Labels: ,

141 Comments:

Anonymous TroperA December 09, 2015 4:53 AM  

Scott Adams: Equality Uber Alles (a.k.a. "I feel comfortable sacrificing Christians on the altar of Multiculturalism.")

Anonymous Takin' a Look December 09, 2015 5:01 AM  

I personally think the Ashkenaz-Sunni alliance will fail, HARD. What remains of Islam will be a Sufi-Shi'ite hybrid. What remains of the Red Sea Pedestrians will be a Karaite fundamentalism.

Blogger rho December 09, 2015 5:07 AM  

Fucking Dilbert maintained frame.

Blogger JACIII December 09, 2015 5:12 AM  

The pertinent question is: is Mr Adams will in to be one of the sacrifices?
As has been pointed out time and again it is not charity to give away other people's money nor is it brave to send others to war.

Anonymous Sensei December 09, 2015 5:14 AM  

Adams' rhetoric is appropriately timed, it's the next step from where a lot of Americans are right now. Answers of "zero" and "Remember Lepanto" seem more suited to Europe's current mood. It will take a couple more high-profile or one big attack to get the US to that point. But I suspect that's only a matter of time..

Blogger rho December 09, 2015 5:21 AM  

I can't wait to reload this thread.

Blogger Samuel Nock December 09, 2015 5:24 AM  

What do we gain? Adams: "Nothing except respect for people of different religions"

Who says letting someone into your own house is the only way to show someone respect?

Blogger Sherwood family December 09, 2015 5:24 AM  

Ironic that this was the discussion since I was just reading the Adams article on his site. If you haven't seen his series on Trump as a Master Persuader it is worth a look. Quite interesting. Not sure I buy all of it but definitely interesting. I agree with Sensei. We are not there yet. Far closer than I ever thought we would be in such a short time. The reaction to San Bernardino has been astounding. Compared with Ft. Hood and some of the others this seems totally different. I attribute that in no small part to Trump and also to efforts by GamerGate and Vox to give people a set of rhetorical tools and examples to use when fighting back. Very interesting times.

Anonymous Ain December 09, 2015 5:26 AM  

What it comes down to, he's willing to have people he doesn't know die to give him feel goods. He doesn't sound intellectual, he sounds shallow and short sighted.

Blogger Samuel Nock December 09, 2015 5:27 AM  

And anyway, he is not "gaining" respect: he is "showing" respect.

The looks on the faces of the "widows and orphans", I certainly don't see them showing respect.

Pace Adams, by letting them in, we are _losing_ their respect by showing weakness.

So by Adam's own standard, we are getting less than zero.

Anonymous Spirit of 76 December 09, 2015 5:29 AM  

I respect their limitless capacity for violence and their loyalty to their bloodthirsty good. Keep them out.

Anonymous zxcv December 09, 2015 5:46 AM  

"Nothing except respect for people of different religions"

And he says that's freedom, but it isn't. It is value-seeking, beta(gamma) tell.

Blogger rho December 09, 2015 5:47 AM  

So far, so good.

Blogger Samuel Nock December 09, 2015 5:48 AM  

Is Adams really making a "That's not who we are" argument?

/disappointed face palm

Blogger Shimshon December 09, 2015 5:49 AM  

It's an incredibly cowardly position.

Blogger Samuel Nock December 09, 2015 5:51 AM  

Adams always ends his Master Wizard posts by saying: "Remember, I'm not smart enough to judge who should be our next president."

I'm starting to agree with him.

Blogger rho December 09, 2015 5:55 AM  

Adams always ends his Master Wizard posts by saying: "Remember, I'm not smart enough to judge who should be our next president."

Stop; collaborate and listen.

Blogger Samuel Nock December 09, 2015 5:55 AM  

So much easier to have never opened the door than to shut it.

No one calls Korea or Japan "Nazi" for not accepting Muslim (or other immigrants).

It's only the open and liberal (in a good way) societies that need to defend against these charges. That's the story of our times: the more open and tolerant you are, the more you are accused of nastiness and intolerance.

OpenID paworldandtimes December 09, 2015 5:59 AM  

"respect for people of different religions"

Good fences make good neighbors.

PA

Blogger rho December 09, 2015 6:04 AM  

Can't wait for the UTC +dawn crew to arrive.

Blogger Lovekraft December 09, 2015 6:05 AM  

Just going to make a wild guess, but this guy doesn't live anywhere near a muslim breeding enclave or 'diverse' neighbourhood.

Blogger rho December 09, 2015 6:05 AM  

Can't wait for the UTC +dawn crew to arrive.

Blogger rho December 09, 2015 6:08 AM  

I retract my subsequent derision, because VD changed the initial post after I commented.

My initial derision still applies: Dilbert maintained frame.

Blogger Russ December 09, 2015 6:15 AM  

At least he doesn't immediately spin up into full goony-bird mode when he meets with a different opinion

It's hard for many people to give up the nice, polite, moderate, reasonable, teacher-and-parent approved opinions of peace. Choosing peace always seems right because you get to be the good boy. If things go sideways, you get to be the victim. There's a lot of innocent blood that will sadly be spilled before Mr. Adams and his like are ready to cry "Santiago!"

Blogger rho December 09, 2015 6:18 AM  

My mistake: there's still plenty of hilarity to be mined here. Carry on.

Blogger Cinco December 09, 2015 6:27 AM  

I am waiting for Trump to say something along the lines of, "why don't we take a play out of the Isreali handbook and drop bombs on the homes of the parents of the terrorists.

If he enjoys the media chewing on their own tongues as much as I do, it is coming.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan December 09, 2015 6:28 AM  

A very good example, very commendable performance. Twitter might become a right wing gladius after all.

One thing I might add I think this adds to the argument that Political Correctness is a religion.

Blogger Desiderius December 09, 2015 6:34 AM  

"Is Adams really making a 'That's not who we are' argument?"

The ultimate sin for a member of his tribe is absolutism*. He has no answer for anyone willing to go there except that's not who they are.

* - that's why the answer with "always" or "never" in it is always (ironically) wrong on standardized tests.

Anonymous tz December 09, 2015 6:34 AM  

Let Scott Adams, his relatives and friends be the first of the 1000 he is willing to sacrifice.
I'm tired of chicken-hawking.
Such calls assume the dead will be "someone you don't know" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Button,_Button_(The_Twilight_Zone)

Blogger Desiderius December 09, 2015 6:35 AM  

"Twitter might become a right wing gladius after all."

That is true, but insufficient.

The tradition Vox honors here is broader than a wing.

Blogger Desiderius December 09, 2015 6:37 AM  

"Such calls assume the dead will be 'someone you don't know'"

No, he doesn't assume it, he states (correctly) that that is highly likely to be the case. Still beside the point ultimately.

Anonymous tz December 09, 2015 6:43 AM  

I'm willing to accept 10,000 deaths to have full open and concealed carry and no gun free zones.
I'm willing to accept more than that to get rid of DUI checkpoints and speed limits.
Isn't the game fun?

Anonymous tz December 09, 2015 6:50 AM  

Highly unlikely is the same thing. If the Muslims all moved into his city? Oh, he wants them in Boise or Irving.
If he believes in freedom, he would take the risk himself - but that would be 1000 deaths in only 3300 of his circle, not 330 million. And even the original, he would be sure it was less than 1 in 330 thousand.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan December 09, 2015 6:51 AM  

The "who we are" line just cracks me up. In short, no one who spits in my face speaks for me, from Prez Jackass to this Adams character, talk about absolutism and appeals to authority all wrapped up in one.

Blogger Derek Kite December 09, 2015 7:04 AM  

Scott simplifies the issue and ignores the reality that is manifest already. It isnt a few people dying, that happens every day. It is the cascading actions that matter.

Ghettoization as sane people either leave or cause segregation. This is evident in Europe.

The establishment of political dysfunction. The current administration turns to Cair for direction and understanding, which is essentially the same crew as runs the hellholes where they came from. The Democrats figure they are importing voters in their delusion, but the stern and controlling elements of Islam end up being in positions of power and influence over a large vulnerable population.

The clash points between the legal and societal cultures will always yield one way. Will Scott vigorously prosecute against spouse abuse, genital mutilation, honor violence, the death sentance on leaving the faith? How about the simple right to criticise another's beliefs, the longstanding american pastime? Europe shows how these things go. We know what it looks like.

The necessary security state. The city wide lockdown of one of the centers of innovation for days due to two people willing to shoot illustrates the reality, as does France now. Expect an incompetent all powerful security apparatus to meddle in everything that you do. It is bad enough already, and there will be more innocent people killed by security operations than terrorists. I remember the brazilian electrician who was shot after the tube bombings. I takebthis personally. My work has me carrying around lots of odd looking tools at all hours. I get in everywhere freely because I'm known and trusted. I, or someone like me, and there are many who go about keeping the world working will end up bearing the brunt of all the security apparatus so that Scott can get some goid falafel.

Does Scott think that the hard knuckle tactics of the islamists short of bombs and shooting will remain exclusive to them? If some illiterate cleric can get the New York Times to suck his toe in fear of reprisal, why can't I? If that jewish guy in San Bernardino who that new york journalist figured deserved what he got because she didn't like what he believed, Why not take some guns and bombs and take her out? Or Scott?

We are already seeing the willingness to sacrifice the first, second and a few other constitutional liberties for this utopian goal of goid falafel, what else will Scott give up?

Blogger Derek Kite December 09, 2015 7:07 AM  

Scott, be courageous. Do a cartoon about mohammed.

Blogger Steveo #238 December 09, 2015 7:16 AM  

Would Scott Adams offer up his son or daughter as one of the 1000 to die - first? Does he love his principles so much? Does he love Muslims & diversity so much? Action!

OpenID basementhomebrewer December 09, 2015 7:19 AM  

@36 and that is where we come to the nut of the issue. SJWs are eager to show how brave they are through freedom of expression by denigrating Christ. When it comes to Mohammed all the sudden words like respect come into their vocabulary.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan December 09, 2015 7:19 AM  

Scott the white multiculturalist knows more about Jihad than the Caliph. He also appeals to magic dirt (the best kind of course) since when a fully vetted muslim enters magic dirt territory the Caliph and his minions of Mooslimania will not have any influence upon them.

Forget past example of the security state targeting Nazis, Nipponese and Communists in years past, in 1965 we performed a magic words ritual to begin the purification process of transforming the USA from Holocaust conspirator to Magic Dirt Utopia.

Anonymous 0007 December 09, 2015 7:20 AM  

I'm good with that - as long as he and his are numbers one through whatever on his mythical list. Otherwise he should sdastfu.
Typical lib - let's do this and you make whatever sacrifice is necessary while I(we) sit back and bask in the goodness of the idea.

Anonymous The Obvious December 09, 2015 7:20 AM  

How many Athenians would you sacrifice to the Minotaur in the Labyrinth?


Blogger Salt December 09, 2015 7:23 AM  

1000, Scott? Okay, pick them... no one else is to decide, only you.

Blogger Raziel Walker December 09, 2015 7:28 AM  

100.000 killings by muslims every decade seems reasonable as it is still less as the number of people that already get shot each year.
And also less as the number of muslims killed by US soldiers in the last decade.

Lets turn the USA into the christian version of Saudi Arabia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia#Religion_in_society.

Anonymous TroperA December 09, 2015 7:32 AM  

"Nothing except respect for people of different religions"

So presumably, if a Voodoo practitioner wants to enter the country with a cauldron full of baby parts we should let them in and show them due respect. After all, it is their religion and all religions deserve equal respect, even the dysgenic ones. I suppose if suttee was still a thing and the East Indians who entered our country still practiced it, we would just have to sit back and let them build diving boards over funeral pyres. After all, it's their culture and their religion and it's WAAAAAY better than ours because ours is a cishet patriarchal system that only benefits Republicans, who want to enslave everyone to serve a skydaddy worshipped by iron age sheepherders. And they force gay people to get AIDS by saying mean things to them and making them all depressed so they go and have unprotected sex with thousands of people. And we would have totally had ipads in the Iron Age if it weren't for those damned Christians!

Blogger Mr.MantraMan December 09, 2015 7:48 AM  

Has a jihadist made an appearance?

Anonymous George of the Jungle December 09, 2015 7:50 AM  

Game Theory ??? (with apologies to actual game cognoscenti...

What appears to be happening: The Religion of Secular Equality (Player 1) gazes approvingly as it goads the Religion of Peace (Player 2) to slice & dice its way through the Religion of Christ (Player 3).

Strategy A Player 1: co-opt Player 2 after Player 3 is eliminated. I suspect Player 1's ecclesiastical doctrine is just arrogant enough to believe this is a viable strategy.

Strategy B Player 1: Player 2 and Player 3 eliminate each other.

There is also a fourth player, the Religion of Yaweh, who makes up in quality what it lacks in quantity, and who may possibly have the following strategy...

Strategy C Player 4: manipulate player 1 to erroneously believe it is adopting Strategy A, when in reality it is enacting Strategy B; simultaneously manipulate Player 2 and Player 3 to be so fixated on each other that they effectively ignore Player 4.

Blogger Daniel December 09, 2015 7:52 AM  

This is the difference between being wrong and being an SJW. He is actually responding to the information and adjusting. Nothing he said indicates that he will reject a lightbulb moment when it comes. If I were to guess, he is in the process of synthesizing the flaw in his interesting argument.

Maybe not. Maybe he'll double down and reject math on his story problem. We'll see.

Blogger White Knight Leo #0368 December 09, 2015 7:59 AM  

He writes in the article that he thinks any American ought to be sick to their stomach on a visceral level at the thought of banning people on the basis of their religion, even if they think it must be done.

So he's willing to accept that it might be necessary. Which makes him more on our side than on the other side.

That said, Cruz seems to be positioning himself as a somewhat more moderate Trump. He just introduced a bill to actually empower state governments to block refugee settlement in their states.

Blogger ncartist December 09, 2015 8:07 AM  

Let's play along with Adams:
1. How many human beings will you allow to be dismembered and their body parts sold out of fear of being called a chauvinist, woman hater? Answer: over 1.5 million a year.
2. How many fellow whites will you allow to be murdered and raped by Negroes out of fear of being called a racist?
3. How many Americans will you let die under Obamacare....?

Or is this the reality you subconsciously understand to quote Lame Cherry: The elites are prepared for our uprising and these are the only worldly options:

Scenario 1: You are murdered by robotics because no one rose up.

Scenario 2: You are murdered by the police state for rising up.

Anonymous NorthernHamlet December 09, 2015 8:09 AM  

VD,

If...

1. Allowing them in decreases the chance of further mass recruitment of soldiers by, say 95%, and in the long term, the risk of attack here by some similar number.

even while...

2. Increasing the risk that any American is killed in an attack here by a tiny fraction of a percentage point...

You are wrong.

Blogger Phillip George December 09, 2015 8:13 AM  

Love builds jails and insane asylums. You put people in them hoping they get better. Providing qurans to prisoners in Guantanamo wasn't love.

Did Jesus rise from the dead or didn't He?

Keep people on a leash until they can confidently answer.

Nebuchadnezzar ate grass for seven years before his sanity returned. Meanwhile he was in protective isolation.

No one poster here would let Muhammad baby sit their children.

just extrapolate into running any and every nation, voila = everything make sense....... [the UTC + something, crew reporting for duty]

Blogger Student in Blue December 09, 2015 8:13 AM  

Adams has likely tacitly accepted the assumption that America has been successful because of the Melting Pot, and to reject something from the Melting Pot is like rejecting vegetables because they are unappetizing.

Realizing a tacit assumption is wrong can be extremely difficult, especially when they're the underpinnings for a lot of conceptions you have.

Blogger James Dixon December 09, 2015 8:19 AM  

To put things in perspective, Adams is arguing that he has no problem with roughly six San Bernadino shootings per year for the next 10 years.

So, where is the "if it saves one life" anti-gun crowd in this debate? Why are they not arguing for an immediate halt to Muslim immigration? Well, it was never about saving lives, was it?

I'd also like to point out that the people who claim that the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful are lying. The percentage of Muslims who believe in jihad is somewhere on the order of 20-30% (a quick Google search will verify the number), and that is the ones who are willing to admit it. When you count the ones who are willing to support jihad but not take an active role, you have a majority. When you count hose afraid to oppose it, then you have the vast majority of Muslims.

Anonymous George of the Jungle December 09, 2015 8:20 AM  

@43...

Gosh golly gee whiz... the argument of moral equivalence, replete with sweeping generalizations, cherry-picked statistical outliers and anecdotal narratives, all coated with a veneer of sanctimonious posturing. Why hasn't anyone ever thought of this marvelously effective approach before now ???

Now widdle wabbit, just go back to your burrow and don't pop your head out of its safe space, otherwise you'll be pissing in your fur again from uncontrollable fear of big bad ol' Christian white man.

Blogger James Dixon December 09, 2015 8:22 AM  

What makes you think if "if" proposal is even remotely plausible, Northern Hamlet?

There is no obvious indication that our immigration policies affect their recruitment in any way.

Blogger ncartist December 09, 2015 8:24 AM  

Fer crying out loud. Too many here are reacting as thoughtless children; and yet, they claim that they are high IQs qualified to judge weighty matters. Have any of you actually sat down and read Adams columns on Trump. Here is Adams' take on the current Trump position:

The way this works with the question of Muslim immigration is that Trump was presented with impossible choices and he actually picked one. And in so doing, what he did to the media, his opponents, and the public at large was to make you defend the imaginary option in which none of the peace-loving Muslims are barred from legally entering the country and all terrorists are kept out. That uncomfortable realization will sink in with voters over time. In simple terms, Trump infantilized the entire country and installed himself as dad.

And too many of you are whining like twelve and a half year olds whose voices are cracking and just discovering puberty.

Blogger James Dixon December 09, 2015 8:26 AM  

Hmm, not enough caffeine yet. That should be 7 shootings per year. There were only 14 killed in the San Bernardino shooting. 7x14=98. 6x14 = 84. I'll wake up eventually.

Anonymous George of the Jungle December 09, 2015 8:31 AM  

@50...

Them there are big 'ifs' podner... I'd sure tell love to see you back up them there assertions, yessirreee Bob...

otherwise, you ain't got the sense to tell 'tween the ass-end of a horse an' a consarn mule. I think that there makes you the jackass in this neck o' the woods.

Blogger Cail Corishev December 09, 2015 8:40 AM  

This is the difference between being wrong and being an SJW. He is actually responding to the information and adjusting.

Yes, the difference is interesting. He moves the goalposts, abandoning bad arguments when they're countered and shown to be faulty, but he's not dishonest about it the way a SJW would be. He just drops them.

I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt in assuming that he really believes "respect" for religions has value (though I wonder how much respect he thinks non-Christians should pay to Christianity), and that religious intolerance always has bad consequences. Most people do believe those things, since we've been taught them for the past 50 years or more.

Blogger Cataline Sergius December 09, 2015 8:41 AM  

I like Adams. His views on modern office life cut across all walks of contemporary life. When I was doing my time in Staff Hell in the Marine Corps we laughed as hard at Dilbert as any office drone working for IBM.

He is however still stuck in the quagmire of being an old school Libertarian and that means he is trapped by his pride in being superiorly Enlightened.

Somewhere inside I suspect he knows it's flawed.

As I've said before, "I know, I used to be one."

There is some strength in pride of course but it is the strength of a hollow reed.

Blogger Chris Mallory December 09, 2015 8:41 AM  

I will believe the "religious freedom" arguments when the people making them start issuing apologies to Warren Jeffs.

Blogger Chris Mallory December 09, 2015 8:41 AM  

I will believe the "religious freedom" arguments when the people making them start issuing apologies to Warren Jeffs.

Blogger CM December 09, 2015 8:48 AM  

Allowing them in decreases the chance of further mass recruitment of soldiers by, say 95%, and in the long term, the risk of attack here by some similar number.

Is that REALLY how it works? I understand it to be ISIS/Terrorists just blames whatever pops up that fits as a justification and continues business as always.

I seriously doubt anything our country does outside actually behaving like any sane country under threat of war would has any effect on ISIS' plans and nowhere near that impact on recruitment.

The goal of terrorists is to affect policy change? And our dear little rabbit-like leaders are out banning mohammad drawings and "hate speech" towards Islam and declare doing otherwise and going to war is losing? That isn't policy change? I would say we have already given them EXACTLY what they want.

Blogger Aeoli Pera December 09, 2015 8:48 AM  

I just read about 55 comments by people who missed this line:

However, Adams is an intellectual in the true sense; he likes to play with ideas so one should never assume that what he is saying is necessarily what he genuinely believes.

For shame. We're talking about the trained hypnotist who created Dilbert here. Read his blog for five minutes and you'll realize Vox has the right of it.

Blogger Aeoli Pera December 09, 2015 8:50 AM  

As for me, I'm toying with the idea of answering "negative two thousand nine hundred and seventy-seven".

Blogger VD December 09, 2015 9:07 AM  

Allowing them in decreases the chance of further mass recruitment of soldiers by, say 95%, and in the long term, the risk of attack here by some similar number.

Merkel let one million of them in in 2015. We let in 280,000. Their recruitment more than DOUBLED.

I am still correct.

Blogger ncartist December 09, 2015 9:10 AM  

@ 64. Aeoli Pera
We're talking about the trained hypnotist who created Dilbert here.

In addition, Adams is a polymath; he is a student one step removed from he creator of NLP: Adams understands it and the art of persuasion; he writes about what it takes to be successful.

Adams is discussing Trump because he recognizes Trump as a student of NLP, as a master persuader.

Blogger Jakeithus December 09, 2015 9:13 AM  

Ncartist is right, I think many people here are missing the point of what Adams is attempting to accomplish with his line of argumentation. I don't think he's really looking to debate those who wish to see all Muslim immigration stopped, but with those who think we can be perfectly safe while continuing to allow unlimited immigration. It's why his primary purpose is trying to get people to choose a number.

Choose something high and deal with the fact that you're letting thousands of your fellow citizens be killed to maintain some nebulous "value" we might not actually hold. Choose something low and it's very likely that number is reached, and then you have to grapple with actually following through on keeping out Muslims over safety concerns. Either way, it switches the conversation from pointing and shrieking fascist to an actual debate over immigration and safety concerns. If the conversation is about the actual number of successful casualties,the SJWS have already lost even if you don't agree with the commonly accepted number.

I'm short, stop being moderates and sniping at an ally.

Blogger Were-Puppy December 09, 2015 9:22 AM  

@9 Ain

What it comes down to, he's willing to have people he doesn't know die to give him feel goods. He doesn't sound intellectual, he sounds shallow and short sighted.
---

He strikes me as someone who likes to ask questions he doesn't necessarily believe in. Then again, he might be scoping out a rabbit hole.

Blogger Student in Blue December 09, 2015 9:26 AM  

@Aeoli Pera
I just read about 55 comments by people who missed this line:

Not sure if I was one of those inferred, but guessing (and it is guessing) off of the questions he's pondering, even if it's not his own position, leads me to believe he's still a believer of the Melting Pot.

The Melting Pot is the presupposition of his argument.

Blogger Were-Puppy December 09, 2015 9:26 AM  

@26 Cinco

I am waiting for Trump to say something along the lines of, "why don't we take a play out of the Isreali handbook and drop bombs on the homes of the parents of the terrorists.
---

I'm waiting on The Burns to agree with Trump on blocking muslims, because it will leave more room for extra Mexicans.

Anonymous NorthernHamlet December 09, 2015 9:29 AM  

VD

I am still correct

Just imagine how many attacks the would be if we hadn't let that many in?

In all seriousness though, like with Krugman's "we needed MOAR" cry, how does one deal with counter-factual arguments in debate?

Blogger Were-Puppy December 09, 2015 9:39 AM  

@34 Mr.MantraMan

The "who we are" line just cracks me up.

---
Me too, when it's a way of patting yourself on the back while throwing others under the bus :P

Sam vs Dean
Good Intentions vs Results
Who we are vs. That's What I Do

Blogger AureliusMoner December 09, 2015 9:43 AM  

Also should have pointed out that it's not a matter of "a risk assessment about saving more lives than you kill (in the long run)." The virtue of piety tells us that we look out for our own people, before aliens. Charity towards others is fine, if you don't harm the people, whom you have a primary duty to protect and edify. We are not under any obligation to kill even one American in exchange for saving a million Muslim lives. That's not how it works.

Even if foreigners' lives are worth the same as our own by some reckoning (and that's a big if in many cases), by the reckoning of our positive moral duties, they are worth far less. Any attempt to create an equivalency, in terms of our moral obligations, is based upon a falsehood. This is the USA; each good citizen is entitled to our cooperation in securing his (actual) rights and safety, by a right which outweighs the requests of all foreigners put together.

Blogger Were-Puppy December 09, 2015 9:44 AM  

@44 TroperA

So presumably, if a Voodoo practitioner wants to enter the country with a cauldron full of baby parts we should let them in and show them due
---

Are they returning them for a refund?

Anonymous a_peraspera December 09, 2015 9:55 AM  

Adams talks about "risk assessment," but there's no risk here. Risk implies that the dangerous consequences of your choice may or may not occur. For example skydiving is a risk because your chute might fail, but in general you expect to make it safely to the ground.

Letting moslems into the USA doesn't involve "risk assessment," it's a certainty of slaughter. If you put a fox into a henhouse and walk away for a week, the hen's weren't "at risk," the outcome was guaranteed.

Blogger VD December 09, 2015 9:57 AM  

I'm short, stop being moderates and sniping at an ally.

He's not an ally. We don't know what he is. And if he is an ally, then he would WANT us to attack that and draw attention to the debate. Read his last tweet posted here.

Anonymous DNW December 09, 2015 9:59 AM  

""I would accept up to 1,000 dead Americans, over a ten-year period, to allow Muslim non-citizens to enter this country." @ScottAdamsSays"

Did he really say that? If so, it is one of the most remarkably contemptible things I have read a man assert.

That and his implication that somehow my enjoyment of political and social freedom is contingent upon categorical respect for - and making room in my life and polity for - other people's "religions" no matter what they are.

How many American's lives shall we sacrifice for Santeria, or Satanism?

He's willing to see a thousand (ostensibly fellow) Americans die so that his tender sensibilities regarding the religion of Jihad and Submission may be satisfied. How close to home is the son of a bitch willing to start with the sacrifice?

Blogger Tom K. December 09, 2015 10:02 AM  

He is an atheist, after all.

Blogger Culture War Draftee December 09, 2015 10:05 AM  

Adams seems not to have a grip on risk calculation. Risk is based as much on what you MUST deal with as what you CHOOSE to deal with. You deal with MUSTS because you have no other choice, because it's the law, the Constitution, it's deeply woven into the fabric of economic life.

Sure, cars take a much bigger toll than people with ebola or Moslem terrorists. But we really MUST have cars. Ban all cars and just see what kind of chaos and death ensues (can't get food or medicine transported, can't get to essential services, etc). So we accept the risk and mitigate; we have safety features, we have traffic rules, we enforce inspections and other compliance.

We are not required to admit people with ebola or people from Muslim countries in the US. It's not a Constitutional right, Congress can make and amend laws on immigration in cooperation with the president (I seem to recall some guy running for that office...). It's an appropriate sphere for the candidate for the highest office in the land to have an opinion on. Ban people with ebola, ban visas for Pakistanis, what happens to the USA? Anyone, anyone? Those are CHOICES, we can take a risk avoidance strategy.

Oddly enough, the guy I learned risk management from was a big Dilbert fan.

Blogger The Other Robot December 09, 2015 10:06 AM  

Salon has gone full-on Anti Trump.

Anonymous DNW December 09, 2015 10:11 AM  

"Letting moslems into the USA doesn't involve "risk assessment," it's a certainty of slaughter. If you put a fox into a henhouse and walk away for a week, the hen's weren't "at risk," the outcome was guaranteed."

With a few minor provisos, a perfectly reasonable statement.

Blogger Tom K. December 09, 2015 10:12 AM  

He is an atheist, after all.

Blogger Aeoli Pera December 09, 2015 10:12 AM  

Adams talks about "risk assessment," but there's no risk here.

You're failing to understand the game he's playing. The point is not the content of the words themselves, but rather the effect on people they produce. Change of frame.

He's not an ally. We don't know what he is. And if he is an ally, then he would WANT us to attack that and draw attention to the debate. Read his last tweet posted here.

I think he can be roughly described as an extremely passive aggressive ally. So I think he will tend to be on the side of good sense in the long haul, but I wouldn't expect any strong declarations of allegiance. Think Jerry Seinfeld.

Not sure if I was one of those inferred, but guessing (and it is guessing) off of the questions he's pondering, even if it's not his own position, leads me to believe he's still a believer of the Melting Pot.

The Melting Pot is the presupposition of his argument.


See ncartist's response, as well as my brief response above ("change of frame").

Blogger Randy M December 09, 2015 10:13 AM  

The best follow-up question to Adams is, "Okay, and after 1000 more, what will you allow? Outlawing Islam as Mormonism was? Restricting immigration from Muslims and those likely to be?" If not, what's the real number? If so, we're merely haggling over the price.
Of course it's also illuminating to point out as vox did, exactly how little we gain from this.
The award for most respectful nation gains is little. Absolute freedom of religion we don't have, so again we are quibbling over where to draw the line. Rhetorically I'd point out Adams and others want to draw it 1000 mutilated corpses further than us, and I don't think that makes him the rational one.

Blogger Jakeithus December 09, 2015 10:27 AM  

"He's not an ally. We don't know what he is"

You're right. My initial thought was to write potential ally, and I should have gone with that.

It's true he probably doesn't care about being attacked on his specific number of acceptable casualties. Any number is fine as long as it changes the debate. I was more disappointed that so many of the Ilk were focusing too much on 1000 casualties rather than what even debating numbers would mean for the narrative.

Blogger Cail Corishev December 09, 2015 10:30 AM  

If...

1. Allowing them in decreases the chance of further mass recruitment of soldiers by, say 95%, and in the long term, the risk of attack here by some similar number.


I know you said "if," but....what? Can anyone parse this out for me? What's the theory by which handing them victories makes it harder for them to recruit?

Blogger WATYF #0222 December 09, 2015 10:31 AM  

Adams is a poor thinker and is usually ignorant of the topics upon which he opines (oddly enough, he often admits this at the outset).

As a result, most of his arguments suck.

WATYF

Anonymous BigGaySteve December 09, 2015 10:42 AM  

The only possible benefit moslems ever had in history was they didn't destroy some of the Greek works they acquired, possibly because they didn't understand them. I am willing to sacrifice 1000 US moslems for each new moslem that crosses the border.

Scott, be courageous. Do a cartoon about mohammed.

Scott be courageous. Do a cartoon of an armed gay man burning a picture of moohamad smeared in bacon grease.

A very good example, very commendable performance. Twitter might become a right wing gladius after all

Twitter both bans and shadow bans bad think, just like facebook. They keep right ideas from taking off.

Blogger Gaiseric December 09, 2015 10:47 AM  

Adams is a poor thinker and is usually ignorant of the topics upon which he opines (oddly enough, he often admits this at the outset).

As a result, most of his arguments suck.


He's not really making an argument here, though—at least in the post that was linked. Indirectly he draws the false binary between banning Saracen immigration and religious freedom as understood by the Constitution, which is ridiculous, of course. And in saying that he's willing to sacrifice up to 1,000 Americans for the privilege of letting more Paynim, he'd better be a bit more careful about comparing anyone to Hitler. Trump isn't calling for anyone to be killed.

Blogger JaimeInTexas December 09, 2015 10:47 AM  

My bet is that Adams does not live in Detroit.

Blogger slarrow December 09, 2015 10:59 AM  

To echo Aeoli Pera, the important thing about Adams' move here is the frame. It is a trap for those who proclaim diversity and tolerance as the highest virtues (for their specialized versions of "diversity" and "tolerance"). It is not a trap for those who answer "zero" as Vox does.

My opinion is that while Adams is not an ally, he is a Prankster, and he's willing to pull pranks on the enemy. (Reminds me a bit of the South Park guys.) He talks a lot about cognitive dissonance and deliberately tries to induce it in his audience. I just enjoy watching him pull it on the other side and guard against when he tries to pull it on me. It's entertaining, either way.

Blogger WATYF #0222 December 09, 2015 11:00 AM  

He's not really making an argument here, though—at least in the post that was linked.

He made several arguments in that post, many of which were flawed. But I was referring to his arguments in general. I've been reading his blog for almost as long as I've been reading this one (several years), and he's just plain bad a looking at facts and drawing the logical conclusion.

WATYF

Anonymous BGS December 09, 2015 11:04 AM  

The elites are prepared for our uprising and these are the only worldly options:

Their bunkers need air.

The percentage of Muslims who believe in jihad is somewhere on the order of 20-30%

Didn't you hear jihad means the struggle with their inner jew?

Allowing them in decreases the chance of further mass recruitment of soldiers by, say 95%, and in the long term, the risk of attack here

If DNA has any affect on IQ, whatever the 1st generation sees as good because they know a society full of them couldn't achieve, the next generation will buy into the equality lie thinking they should be as smart as east Asians and whites, and be angry.

Blogger Maple Curtain December 09, 2015 11:05 AM  

"Nothing except respect for people of different religions (freedom)"

People all around the world are dying because the "religion" that is Mohammadeanism does not respect them or their beliefs and wants them dead.

Adams is revealing himself as a multiculti and a nihilist when he wants you/us to accept (respect) the equal validity of all belief systems, even the one that announces it will kill you if you don't convert (sorry, "revert").

The phrase virtue-signalling is apposite here.

Blogger Maple Curtain December 09, 2015 11:14 AM  

@42: You think he has a conscience? He'd have no problem picking 1,000 of "not-my-sort-of-people" to sacrifice. There's lots of those sorts in fly-over country.

Blogger Student in Blue December 09, 2015 11:24 AM  

@Aeoli Pera
See ncartist's response, as well as my brief response above ("change of frame").

I know. I knew that months ago when he predicted Trump candidacy (or was it presidency?). He's putting a number so that people are just haggling over the numbers, tacitly accepting the premise he set.

I'm saying *in spite of* those things I believe he's still under a Melting Pot assumption. He's starting to lead himself away from it but it will still be quite difficult because it necessitates an almost complete worldview shift.

OpenID eidolon1109 December 09, 2015 11:29 AM  

The thing I note about Adams is a problem I used to suffer from. He believes that he is hyper-rational, that he is motivated in his thought only by logic. His coldness and calculation he sees as him being more logical than other people ("moist robots" and all that).

In reality, as I discovered, this way of thinking is foolish. A person may be more rational/logical than average, but all humans have large blind spots, not to mention large areas of ignorance. Thinking you're more logical than others makes you even less likely to consider the possibility that you're wrong or that you're missing elements of the issue. Of course you see this all the time with atheists in particular.

I discovered that, while my wife is not very logical, she sometimes points out things to me that my logic missed, especially things about myself. She doesn't get to the conclusion in a logical way, but the conclusion is sometimes valid regardless. Once I started to realize how many blind spots my super-duper-logical thought processes had, I dropped the Mr. Spock pose and realized that nobody is perfectly rational and it's only rational to recognize that.

Blogger Maple Curtain December 09, 2015 11:32 AM  

@92: Prankster?

These are serious times and aging Boomer teenagers, er "pranksters" are not really all that entertaining.

Anonymous Whitey McWhite December 09, 2015 11:34 AM  

We know that Muslims like to target our white girls specifically by race, and groom, corrupt, victimize, terrorize and rape them. As Rotherham shows, this can be a large-scale and very persistent issue.

What is a suitable number of young girls whose lives should be ruined for the brutish satisfaction of child-raping fiends, to show respect for the religion that tells them it's all right to do this?

Would you accept up to 1,000 raped white American girls, over a ten-year period, to allow Muslim non-citizens to enter your country?

Anonymous Philalethes December 09, 2015 11:34 AM  

My bet is that Adams does not live in Detroit.

According to Wikipedia, Adams lives in Pleasanton, Calif. A very pleasant Bay Area suburb ("In 2005 and 2007, Pleasanton was ranked the wealthiest middle-sized city in the United States by the Census Bureau."), pop. 70K, 60% White, 23% Asian, 10% Hispanic, 1.6% African.

No, not Detroit. And not a very likely target for Jihad, though one might wonder how Adams would feel if his town got hit like San Bernardino.

Blogger Maple Curtain December 09, 2015 11:38 AM  

@101: He lives in Pleasant-town?

Of course he does.

You're making that up, aren't you? :)

Really, he lives in Dearborn, Michigan - he's just more enlightened than the rest of us!

Blogger Jakeithus December 09, 2015 11:44 AM  

"No, not Detroit. And not a very likely target for Jihad, though one might wonder how Adams would feel if his town got hit like San Bernardino."

He very likely might lower his number of acceptable casualties. However the important part is not the number, it's the fact that we can now even have the debate at all. SJWS would prefer to remove talks of acceptable risks and possible limits completely, and allowing them at all plays to our side.

Anonymous NorthernHamlet December 09, 2015 11:48 AM  

Cail,

"What's the theory by which handing them victories makes it harder for them to recruit?"

That's Edgar you'll hear a bit in the left side. Recruitment is more difficult because ISIS I'd unable to demonize us.

From what I know from research on the psychology of attacker cells, I don't recall if immigration specifically has been studied.

Anonymous bw December 09, 2015 11:55 AM  

1,000 dead for Muslim immigration. Perfect cuck. Let us hope and pray his most beloved will be the first ones slaughtered so he can experience his (disingenuous) "freedom" at its deepest, most spiritual level.
Freedom is Death! the anti-white Cuck cried.


Blogger kurt9 December 09, 2015 12:03 PM  

First off, I give Scott Adams credit for his honest cost-benefit assessment on the issue of Muslim immigration into the U.S. At least he is framing the issue as one of cost-benefit which no politician is doing.

I asked him on his blog if he would be in favor of the U.S. government of establishing a special fund to compensate the victims and the families of victims of Islamic violence in this country. His response to this will be interesting.

Second off, I consider the appropriate number of American deaths as acceptable cost to be zero as well.

Blogger John Wright December 09, 2015 12:23 PM  

What is truly astonishing is the inability to see what the issue is.

As a hypothetic, consider this:

Mr. A says "I am willing to let Mr. B enter my home and kill a certain number of my family, x."

Mr B says, publicly, unambiguously, and repeatedly, "I am going to kill Mr. A and his whole family. ALLAHU ACKBAR!! I will sever his head while he watches me raping his wife! I will rape his children in front of his eyes and chop off the gonads, hands and feet of his children with a meat cleaver, pull out his teeth with pliers, and force the raw gobbets of his children's flesh into his toothless mouth!"

Mr A, "I would say I am willing to accept the death of, hmmm, two children in order to receive the benefit of having Mr. B move into my living room. Maybe three."

Mr. B, "DEATH! DEATH! DEATH! DEATH TO THE GREAT SATAN!"

Got the hypo in mind?

Here is the question: who is likely to win? A or B?

Who seems to have a more obvious and obtainable goal?

Who seems to have a clearer grasp of the situation?

Blogger Scott Adams December 09, 2015 12:31 PM  

My summary of that exchange is that I asked you to defend your position and you succeeded. That is rare.

I'm not suggesting the U.S. should allow Muslims to immigrate at this point in history. I'm just trying to find a market price at which folks would agree the risk is worth the benefit, as they see it. You see no benefit in religious tolerance (in this specific context) and I judge that to be a credible and consistent point of view.

Rare.

To be clear, I see no way we could keep the risk to 100 terror deaths per year with continued Muslim immigration. So my price can't be met.

We end up at the same place. I priced it differently but neither of us wanted the deal.

Blogger RobertT December 09, 2015 12:32 PM  

This post is one of the reasons this is the best blog on the planet. I truly admire VD for the stands he takes. I don't always agree, normally I do, but in my mind there is little difference between VD and Trump.

Blogger B.J. December 09, 2015 1:30 PM  

Scott argued the concept of religious freedom requires us to accept muslims; I contend that that very principle is what requires us to reject them. To Muslims, religious freedom means converting, enslaving, or killing all non-muslims. They've said as much, time and time again, with their constant attempts to legislate their creed into law anywhere they haven't taken over by force. In order to protect the religious freedom of Americans, Muslims must be kept out.

Blogger Cail Corishev December 09, 2015 1:37 PM  

Recruitment is more difficult because ISIS I'd unable to demonize us.

I hoped the reasoning wasn't that dumb.

Blogger James Dixon December 09, 2015 1:42 PM  

> Scott Adams

Welcome.

> To be clear, I see no way we could keep the risk to 100 terror deaths per year with continued Muslim immigration. So my price can't be met.

I pleased to see you realize that. I wasn't sure you did from your comments.

Anonymous NorthernHamlet December 09, 2015 2:13 PM  

Cail,

I hoped the reasoning wasn't that dumb.

How so? From what I've read, it seems one of the primary motivators.

Blogger Joshua Sinistar December 09, 2015 2:19 PM  

Religious tolerance for aliens who have no business being here and don't want us in their country is monkey poo not logic. No one has ever demonstrated any positive results of "Divershitty" to actual citizens or even residents. Even tourists taking a week long vacation carefully avoid areas even described as vibrant as diverse. Only the perverse reversal of the meanings of words would describe blighted ghettos where damn dirty apes make angels fear to tread there as vibrant. All you have to do is see the abandoned buildings like the empty malls and deserted libraries to how Post Apocalyptic and Lifeless these "vibrant" areas actually are.
Let me tell you the tree and ONLY THREE actual benefits of Divershitty.
1) It allows the Military Industrial Complex the excuse to make Billions in Federal Contracts providing weapons for the Forever War with Eastasia that we all "need" to stop the violence.
2) It provides an endless stream of soldiers to fight to defend Israel's borders and prevents them from defending ours. I'm sure Satan's spawn consider that a twofer, but I'll count it as one anyway.
3) It allows Totalitarian Shitheads with no job skills whatsoever like Granny Hillbilly and Senor Stupido Boosh to have high paying jobs and give them reasons to enrich themselves by betraying us and keeping us from giving them the JFK early retirement plan by taking away our rights like owning guns and watching us cause we know what they're up to and these chickens are scared.

There it is. Straight out. You can try to argue, but name-calling ain't an argument.

Blogger Miguel D'Anconia December 09, 2015 2:25 PM  

@Scott Nock
I agree with you. I prefer to keep them in their own house, don't initiate aggression against them and to completely pull out of the middle east militarily and foreign aid wise. F' em.

Blogger Floyd Looney December 09, 2015 2:35 PM  

If anyone finds all the marbles that Scott Adams lost, please return them. He desperately needs them.

Blogger Were-Puppy December 09, 2015 2:55 PM  

@94 BGS

Their bunkers need air.
---

May I suggest we use all the collected burqas to clog those vents?

Blogger newanubis December 09, 2015 3:05 PM  

Vox is better looking.

Blogger newanubis December 09, 2015 3:06 PM  

Vox is better looking.

Blogger RobertT December 09, 2015 3:11 PM  

Assumptions kill. Some people just aren't as smart as you may think. I've been down that road dozens of times.

Blogger Cail Corishev December 09, 2015 3:35 PM  

From what I've read, it seems one of the primary motivators.

If one of their primary motivators for killing Americans is that we haven't been letting enough of them immigrate -- leaving aside the fact that we've been importing them at a ridiculous rate already -- what's their motivation in Europe, where they've been welcomed with open arms for years?

Also, "primary" means there are other motivations. So, we take away their supposed primary motivation by opening the doors to them, even though millions want in. Now, what about the murders that are motivated by other things? Like, oh, their murderous cult that prompts them to murder Christians right there in their own countries, or wherever else they find them, and have done so for centuries. Not to mention how often they murder their own for reasons we find abhorrent and don't want to live near.

Seriously, this is dumb. I still think I must misunderstand the theory.

Anonymous Yid Kid December 09, 2015 4:12 PM  

Interesting exchange. Here's my take: the debate wasn't about dialectic, pseudo-dialectic (though they're there), or the ostensible issue. The debate was wholly about Frame.

And neither side budged.

The Dark Lord was a lot more candid than one normally expects in this sort of shadow-boxing. Basically, Adams started shadow-boxing, and Vox went right for an MMA takedown. But it didn't quite land. Adams kept prompting Vox to lay out his position. Vox kept stating it forthrightly as Adams slipped out of each hold with a new question. At the end, Adams keeps frame by saying 'you'll find my counter-argument in my book.'

Neither side can claim a loss, both sides can claim a win. I call it a happy draw (vs. angry draw).

BTW, Danby & SciVo, Martel and I are throwing chapter titles for a book back and forth. Title proposals include "The Red Pill Pusher" (1st chapter: Trainspotting) and "War to the Knife: An Internet Wars Survival Guide" (1st Chapter: The Train Is Fine). The Line Infantry to Light Infantry conversion training program published in the 4GW Handbook has been helpful to us.

I need to figure out how to get interested people onto an Alpha 0.01 sharing list for comments etc., without compromising anyone's public anonymity...

Anonymous NorthernHamlet December 09, 2015 4:46 PM  

Cail,

Seriously, this is dumb. I still think I must misunderstand the theory.

I'm not really doing it justice, at least not the legitimate parts of it. It's been a few too many years since I've looked at the research on self-radicalization (check out Scott Atran if you're interested), and like I said, I've never seen anything about the effect of immigration on these motivations, so it would merely be a theory and not one I subscribe to.

I'm more inclined to view all this as an attempt to weaken nationalism by pro-global forces, but since I also think we are actively destabilizing for our strategic benefit, I'm unsure what to think at the end of the day.

Anonymous BGS December 09, 2015 4:48 PM  

newanubis December 09, 2015 3:05 PM Vox is better looking.

This is awkward, little gay Steve, that I used to live with, went by AnubisXV in WOW.

Blogger Desiderius December 09, 2015 4:57 PM  

Aeoli,

"I think he can be roughly described as an extremely passive aggressive ally. So I think he will tend to be on the side of good sense in the long haul, but I wouldn't expect any strong declarations of allegiance. Think Jerry Seinfeld."

He's a classic trimmer in the tradition of Halifax and Talleyrand.

Blogger SciVo December 09, 2015 5:51 PM  

rho @23: My initial derision still applies: Dilbert maintained frame.

Dilbert is a character, Scott Adams is a writer, and the latter has studied hypnotism -- which is the zenith of rhetoric. Since memetics is one of my favorite hobbies, he's become one of my regular reads; and his perspective usually enriches mine, even when I disagree.

Blogger Joshua Sinistar December 09, 2015 6:02 PM  

I refuse to even recognize their religious freedom argument. Even back when I was in High School back in the day, you could be suspended for having a Holy Bible. This is not religious freedom at all. You see these retards suing people just for praying openly. Religious freedom will be a suitable discussion after all these retards are gone one way or another. In that deliberation everything especially force is on the table. The idea of giving aliens any rights is unreasonable, giving them rights I don't enjoy is AN ACT OF TOTAL WAR.

Anonymous Headcannon December 09, 2015 6:19 PM  

I'm imagining Hilldawg going on stage and laying out her plan to sacrifice hundreds of virgins to the volcano gods in order to keep the island safe.

Remember when that was considered crazy? Well, here we are.

Blogger SciVo December 09, 2015 8:25 PM  

Yid Kid @122:

You mentioned that there are already internet argument guides, but what about a propaganda guide? Would that be novel? Screw convincing your interlocutor, just get your ideas across to as many bystanders as possible.

You should absolutely take "The Train Is Fine" as a title, since it's such a catchy meme. Then chapters could be "A Man Is Dead," "Red Pill District," "War to the Knife" and "Knife to the Hilt," for example. Just makin' stuff up.

Blogger VD December 09, 2015 8:38 PM  

Here's my take: the debate wasn't about dialectic, pseudo-dialectic (though they're there), or the ostensible issue. The debate was wholly about Frame.

I don't think so. Scott had his customary esoteric purposes, which are somewhat orthogonal to the competitive aspect of debate, whereas I made my point and defended it, which was all I sought to do. I've read enough of his cartoon, books, and blog to understand that what he writes can seldom be fully grasped on the superficial level.

I had no intention of attacking or discrediting him, and as I noted, he was moving the goalposts for his own purposes - to elicit further information - rather than to hide the fact that he was losing like SJWs do. He wasn't even playing the game, he was analyzing it.

Blogger Were-Puppy December 09, 2015 8:53 PM  

@127 Joshua Sinistar

I refuse to even recognize their religious freedom argument. Even back when I was in High School back in the day, you could be suspended for having a Holy Bible. This is not religious freedom at all. You see these retards suing people just for praying openly. Religious freedom will be a suitable discussion after all these retards are gone one way or another. In that deliberation everything especially force is on the table. The idea of giving aliens any rights is unreasonable, giving them rights I don't enjoy is AN ACT OF TOTAL WAR.
---

Doesn't it chap your hide that all and sundry are attacking Trump for the benefit of foreign non-citizen muslims, and to hell with American citizens? It's so freak close to what you've said : AN ACT OF TOTAL WAR.

Blogger Harry Spitz December 09, 2015 9:38 PM  

I would ask Mr. Adams what these 'refugees' are bringing to American that the Republic and/or its Citizens need or want?

Blogger Desiderius December 09, 2015 9:39 PM  

"which are somewhat orthogonal to the competitive aspect of debate"

The pursuit of truth is properly co-linear with adversarial debate.

OpenID pancakeloach December 09, 2015 11:19 PM  

@132
Quite a number of American citizens really, really want the goodfeelz that result from their "adopting" refugees like strays from a UN pound. There's one on my FB feed who gets paid to help bring them in, so between the virtue signaling and the pecuniary self-interest there is literally no way she will ever respect a "no more refugees" proposal, no matter what.

Blogger SciVo December 10, 2015 1:11 AM  

Why are so many rhetoricians, persuaders and memeticists apparently in such non-discord? I'm usually on the winning side, but I'm not so vain as to think that I'm always right.

Hypothesis: it's a skill that anyone can learn, so while the pros will be hired to support the status quo, the enthusiastic amateurs will always gravitate to whatever side seems to be more like them -- and Trump is not only a better populist than Sanders, but also a better persuader. Sanders let punks push him aside on his own stage!

Even people that don't necessarily support Trump are at least interested in him and the way that he shifts national dialogues. I'd love to have that skill, and also he succeeds at influencing me. Knowing the techniques doesn't make me immune.

Blogger SciVo December 10, 2015 1:33 AM  

Desiderius @133: The pursuit of truth is properly co-linear with adversarial debate.

You are talking to people who can have multiple levels of objectives, and can also recognize at least some of each others' objectives. One level can be looking good, while another is winning on points, another is demonstrating a technique, another is gauging a fellow's character and ability, and etcetera where only one of which is to actually try to defend a proposition and see if it's more defensible than its opposite.

Blogger Cail Corishev December 10, 2015 7:41 AM  

I would ask Mr. Adams what these 'refugees' are bringing to American that the Republic and/or its Citizens need or want?

To the believer in diversity, they don't have to bring anything. Their mere existence will make the country better -- will make you better. Read any college brochure: send your son (or more likely daughter) to their college, so she can mingle with people of all races and cultures and become a better person. Not because of anything they do for her -- to suggest they should do anything for her would be rude. They're not slaves! No, merely being in contact with them will improve her.

That's why they also believe that the worst society, the one most likely to do evil, is the one that's a single race/ethnicity, single religion, single language, etc. When you start talking about sensible immigration and border policy, they imagine Camazotz.

Blogger Mindstorm December 10, 2015 11:00 AM  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHbYk2l9w-E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIeDOogAK7M
Is there any version more up-to-date than these two models somewhere?

Blogger Mindstorm December 10, 2015 11:12 AM  

@41 Not Cretans?

OpenID lostsailor32 December 10, 2015 11:26 AM  

@8 Sherwood family: "The reaction to San Bernardino has been astounding. Compared with Ft. Hood and some of the others this seems totally different."

There was a woman shooter involved this time. Can't paint it as some disgruntled, lone-wolf male and that goes against the SJW narrative, so they're powerless to spin this. It's also why the gun ban narrative is being pushed so hard: it's all they got.

Anonymous jOHN MOSBY December 10, 2015 11:40 PM  

"There was a woman shooter involved this time. Can't paint it as some disgruntled, lone-wolf male and that goes against the SJW narrative, so they're powerless to spin this. It's also why the gun ban narrative is being pushed so hard: it's all they got."
AND THEY GOT NUTHIN' .

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts