8 ms·

I usually avoid commenting on political stuff, but my advice is to please find a better source for information than Scott Adams. He's a smart guy, but he is a s

by rm999 6y ago

I usually avoid commenting on political stuff, but my advice is to please find a better source for information than Scott Adams. He's a smart guy, but he is a strong proponent of "persuasion", i.e. changing people's minds is more valuable to him than presenting the facts accurately. This video is a classic example of his persuasion style, which is to make sloppy claims with flimsy evidence simply to make his opponents spend more time thinking about those claims. I know on HN we can do better than that. In his own words: https://www.businessinsider.com/dilbert-creator-scott-adams-explains-trumps-persuasion-style-2017-10 https://www.businessinsider.com/dilbert-creator-scott-adams-...

NDizzle 6y ago
Are you saying that I should track down and link each video of each of those individual situations that happened? And put it in a post on HN to be downvoted exactly as much as the Scott Adams video? Pardon me for getting the exact same results for like 1/80th the amount of work. Go ahead and dismiss all of those videos because they are in a supercut featuring Scott Adams. You do you.
- andrewprock 6y ago
  I think he's saying that people here won't be "persuaded" by Scott Adams sourced information, as he is well known as a self-described purveyor of exaggerated and misleading information.
  - weaksauce 6y ago
    It's like linking to project veritas. If I wanted to see some highly out of context and edited video to fit a narrative there are plenty of those around and none of them are all that compelling
- pfdietz 6y ago
  Yes, you absolutely should.
- HelloMcFly 6y ago
  It's either that or find more credible evidence. Scott Adams isn't credible, period. While that doesn't make him de facto wrong on any argument, it means you cannot expect the recipients of your message to put the work in (that you've chosen not to) to validate whether this time he's operating in good faith.
  - unanswered 6y ago
    You're not responding to the argument at all. Scott Adams' credibility is irrelevant. The video was shown for the segments of it depicting actual events as they happened, not for the segments featuring Adams.
    - tw04 6y ago
      It's absolutely relevant. Adams is taking snippets of videos completely out of context to try to tell a story. He's known to do this. And just watching the start of the video that's exactly what he's doing here. Why would anyone waste their time tracking down the original videos when they already know, out of the gate, that he's taken things out of context? That's a waste of everyone's time, and EXACTLY why he's doing what he's doing. He knows most people won't bother to fact check his lies. The correct course of action is to tell everyone what he does, and until he proves he's changed his stripes and starts acting in good faith, to ignore him.
    - HelloMcFly 6y ago
      Your original comment is flagged and I can't see it so did not watch the video. I believe my comment is relevant to the one I replied to: I do not trust Scott Adams to present his content with any integrity at all, and so sending me a video he clipped together to make a point is not what I'd consider "good evidence". He does not act in good faith, he works backwards from a conclusion. If Steven Miller made a similar video about immigration I wouldn't trust it either without an in-depth review of the sources he relied on. I do not mean for this to be some ad hominen policy, I am not saying Adams and Miller are by default wrong because of who they are, but they don't deserve anyone's trust. If I have missed some nuance because I couldn't watch the Adams video for myself then you have my apologies for this misunderstanding.

by rm999 6y ago

NDizzle 6y ago

Are you saying that I should track down and link each video of each of those individual situations that happened? And put it in a post on HN to be downvoted exactly as much as the Scott Adams video? Pardon me for getting the exact same results for like 1/80th the amount of work. Go ahead and dismiss all of those videos because they are in a supercut featuring Scott Adams. You do you.

andrewprock 6y ago
I think he's saying that people here won't be "persuaded" by Scott Adams sourced information, as he is well known as a self-described purveyor of exaggerated and misleading information.
- weaksauce 6y ago
  It's like linking to project veritas. If I wanted to see some highly out of context and edited video to fit a narrative there are plenty of those around and none of them are all that compelling
pfdietz 6y ago
Yes, you absolutely should.
HelloMcFly 6y ago
It's either that or find more credible evidence. Scott Adams isn't credible, period. While that doesn't make him de facto wrong on any argument, it means you cannot expect the recipients of your message to put the work in (that you've chosen not to) to validate whether this time he's operating in good faith.
- unanswered 6y ago
  You're not responding to the argument at all. Scott Adams' credibility is irrelevant. The video was shown for the segments of it depicting actual events as they happened, not for the segments featuring Adams.
  - tw04 6y ago
    It's absolutely relevant. Adams is taking snippets of videos completely out of context to try to tell a story. He's known to do this. And just watching the start of the video that's exactly what he's doing here. Why would anyone waste their time tracking down the original videos when they already know, out of the gate, that he's taken things out of context? That's a waste of everyone's time, and EXACTLY why he's doing what he's doing. He knows most people won't bother to fact check his lies. The correct course of action is to tell everyone what he does, and until he proves he's changed his stripes and starts acting in good faith, to ignore him.
  - HelloMcFly 6y ago
    Your original comment is flagged and I can't see it so did not watch the video. I believe my comment is relevant to the one I replied to: I do not trust Scott Adams to present his content with any integrity at all, and so sending me a video he clipped together to make a point is not what I'd consider "good evidence". He does not act in good faith, he works backwards from a conclusion. If Steven Miller made a similar video about immigration I wouldn't trust it either without an in-depth review of the sources he relied on. I do not mean for this to be some ad hominen policy, I am not saying Adams and Miller are by default wrong because of who they are, but they don't deserve anyone's trust. If I have missed some nuance because I couldn't watch the Adams video for myself then you have my apologies for this misunderstanding.