not sure why your getting lots of downvotes, i think your take on adams is pretty good. i was reading scott adams for a while as im sure lots of people were when trump was rising. i kept reading for a while and kept on seeing things that were just really stupid to me. he seems to think because he is a "master persuader" that he knows more about _everything_ than everyone else, but in one post he ventured in the realm of statistics and made some _incredibly ignorant_ arguments. then i saw old posts where he had just as confidently predicted herman cain. so part of what he is doing is just playing a long game, calling unlikely things so that when one of them eventually happens, he looks smart. i dont deny he has interesting insights, but he is wayyyyyy to high on himself and his special little lens. when he posted on twitter that he could convince anyone to vote for trump in 1 hour, i had to unfollow.

i think manipulators are seen as smart by some people because they can be effective, but i have two points that seem to be forgotten: most of the time you eventually catch on to manipulators, and so they stop being effective, and, _more importantly_ they are just assholes. so, i say that it doesnt take intelligence to manipulate and bully and lie, it just takes gall. or heartlessness. as an analogy, i bet some of the lawyers who came up with the idea for ambulance chasing, or bankers who repackaged shitty subprime loans probably that they were really smart, when maybe it was just that there arent that many people willing to go that low.

Yes, Adams has a history of predicting long shots because he takes the shotgun approach. People only remember the winners.

Adams is like Trump. His megalomania helps with his existing fanbase. I think your second paragraph applies to both of them.

totally agree

i up-voted your comment here because i really liked your distinction between "being smart and innovative" vs "having gall or heartlessness".

someone who used a new level of heartlessness, rudeness or cruelty to attain a difficult goal is often lionized later by the masses and considered "a genius" but, is, in reality, something else entirely.

Worth mentioning, for any who don't know: "Make America Great Again" was lifted wholesale from the Reagan campaign. I haven't verified it, but I read that he trademarked it soon after Romney lost in 2012.

> Also Adams fails to acknowledge that Trump overtly appeals to misogyny, racism, and xenophobia.

He alludes to it somewhat, in that any perception of actual -ism is in the critics mind, which for the most part is correct, but you are also correct in that Trump is successfully appealing to these base instincts in people.

> On a personal level, I feel depressed that a candidate will get more votes, not fewer, after making blatantly sexist comments.

This refers to Trump I assume, which comments would that be?

edit: fixed italics

First the Trump quote.

“The only thing she's got is the woman's card. If Hillary Clinton were a man, I don’t think she would get 5 percent of the vote,” Mr. Trump said.

Adams is a genius and a weasel. He literally wrote the book on weasels. He knows exactly what he is doing. In fact, he has written about how to push agendas indirectly. You can recognize the described techniques in his writing. Promoting Trump benefits Adams directly. But Trump has gotten to the point where denying his dogwhistling is impossible, so Adams describes it in a non threatening manner.

> “If Hillary Clinton were a man, I don’t think she would get 5 percent of the vote,” Mr. Trump said.

Interesting that you think that is sexist, as to me it seems like he is describing a sexist scenario, and I happen to agree with that interpretation.

I think you're pretty on point with Adams though.

"I happen to agree with that interpretation."

I think it will take some doing to defend your interpretation.

You are basically claiming men are massively discriminated against in politics, such that just for being a woman, Hillary's support goes from 5% of the vote to 40-something-percent (depending on how you interpret current polls).

Frankly, almost anyone at the top of the Democratic ticket would get much, much more than 5% of the vote due to the qualification of "not being Donald Trump", who is only the least favorable presidential candidate on record.

So it is a self-obviously stupid statement, as with pretty much everything else the Donald says, and I have no idea how you might defend it.

Frankly, I don't think its a statement meant to be defended at all, just a signal to misogynists that Donald wants their votes, but that's just my interpretation.

"The only thing she's got is the woman's card" is not sexist. Stay classy Hacker News!

I had a haunch when I replied to your first comment. Shame on me for responding.

In what way is that sexist?

Sexist would be to say that she's a bad candidate BECAUSE she's a woman. What he said is that she's using being a woman to win over votes while not having much else to offer, policy wise -- which he could legitimately believe.

FWIW, I believe that the woman card is indeed something Clinton played. Not the first to use such tactics either: Obama played the race card. And I'm not saying these things as in any way republican. I'm a foreigner, and for me even Sanders or Kucinich look right wingers. Clinton (Bill) played the "40-something youthful" card, Bush played the "more patriotic but still plain folk like ya all" card, etc. And Trump has his own "mad-dog patriot tells them like they is" card.

>I had a haunch when I replied to your first comment. Shame on me for responding.

Shame indeed, but not for responding to the parent, but for belittling them and going for a personal attack.

You are foreigner? That explains your lack of knowledge. "Woman card" and "race card" are loaded terms in the US. They are used to dismiss grievances due to discrimination and to belittle the achievements of non white males.

>You are foreigner? That explains your lack of knowledge.

That probably explains my impartiality. I'm more in tune with American culture (everyday and historical) than probably 90% of the local population. Heck, I've even been to most states than most (well, all of the continental ones). But I don't ascribe to ideological biases of either side.

>"Woman card" and "race card" are loaded terms in the US. They are used to dismiss grievances due to discrimination and to belittle the achievements of non white males.

That's a loaded way to put it itself.

Yes, "woman card" and "race card" can be used to "dismiss grievances" by white males, but can also be used to claim bogus benefits by the respective card holders.

Whether white or black, man or woman, there IS such a thing as an abuse of your race/gender to gain sympathy.

And blanket statements about this are one-sided -- whether "woman card" or "race card" is a valid or bigoted use have to be examined on a case by case basis.

People have this victim complex where they think minorities and women are playing their cards to oppress white men. Fantasizing about imaginary abuse must be fun.

Is whether or not the statement is true of interest to you?

edit: Or in other words, do you think there is actually such a thing as a woman card (race card, victim card, etc), or are these a completely manufactured ideas with no basis in reality?

How is the Trump quote "threatening" or "sexist"?

The rest of the comment is a content-free ad-hominem. Adams might very well be a "genius weasel", but not describing this quote as non-threatening, if that's what's implied here.

Threatening as in a threat to his own campaign. Good point, insignificant would have been clearer.

I'm sorry, did I offend a reader of his blog? Adams writes about himself being a weasel and manipulating journalists.

>I'm sorry, did I offend a reader of his blog?

If by reader you mean someone who read his blog maybe 4-5 times total in the last 10 years (and doesn't even own any Dilbert book), then, still no (ie., no I was not offended).

I made a statement concerning the lack of any practical proof/content in the comment.

As I said, he may very well be a weasel (and I could not care less, I might add) but that's not something that's concluded from the contents of the comment.

You write a lot for someone who could care less and isn't offended.

And you analyse people's souls a lot for someone who is not a psychiatrist.

I'm just chatty. I write a lot for every topic I'm interested in, as you can plainly see from my comment backlog.

Doesn't need to be offended on behalf of Adams to respond -- I'm just the kind of person that doesn't let an inconsistent argument slip by. And I saw "Adams is XXX because he said YYY is OK" without YYY being either bad or any justification for the XXX.

Yeeeeesh, over analyzing Internet comments. You must be fun at parties.

>People love to feel smart and be part of an exclusive group so they quote Adams' simple analysis as amazing insight.

Well, if they haven't seen the same simple analysis elsewhere (much less any more advanced analysis), then they're right to consider it amazing insight.

People with little life experience react this way to all things. They lack the imagination to understand what they discover is not new. It's common in diet and exercise. "Hey I just discovered calorie counting/keto/crossfit/powerlifting!"

If listening to someone who just discovered psych 101 is fun then they probably need to meet more people.

For educated voters he's anti-charismatic.

He's certainly unlikeable. I wonder if it's possible to separate the two: likability and charisma. I imagine there is a halo effect feedback loop for the two.

Let's be honest here.

Racism and xenophobia isn't all about scapegoating. There is a number of nations with very low level of foreign ethnics who would like to keep it that way.

You can't accuse them of scapegoating. Them being xenophobic is merely prudent? Which sane country would want a significant Arab minority - after witnessing the various bloodbaths and security scares plaguing Western Europe due to its Arab populations?