"So pink is not a fighting/protesting color if you want to keep the base energized."

I like Scott Adams, but this is silly. The 'N' word is not something to get energized over either, and neither is the 'Q' word. But those examples he ignores even though he mentions them himself earlier.

Another example: When the Dutch started their war of independence from Spain, the freedomfighters (terrorists?) called themselves 'Geus', derived from the french word 'gueux'. It means 'beggar', the lowest of social statuses. We turned 'Geus' into being a hero.

Same could happen to the color pink. So stop knit-picking (pun!) and join the fight.

The argument posited here is not that it's "terribly ineffective" but that Scott Adams - someone naturally inclined against such causes and demonstrations - doesn't "get it." (His words)

Every blog post of Scott Adams:

"Trump is a master persuader and everything he does is on purpose. I know because I'm a master persuader, too.

Here's proof for his flawless persuasion technique (an anecdote follows).

Here's more proof, because one proof isn't enough (another anecdote).

Because I understand Trump and predicted his election, this is proof that I am really a master persuader.

So now go ahead and buy my book and my app."

I read quite a bit of Scott Adams blog and truth is: He didn't predict anything. He is a comedian. He could've spinned every outcome of the election in any direction in hindsight. He is in for maximum outrage and controversy, because that drives traffic and clicks and comments and ultimately, he makes money off it.

In his book, he even says that he did some pranks that lasted for years and he only did it for the lulz. This is exactly the same. If you think Scott Adams explains it all, you're being played.

> Women are “owning” pink to rob it of its power to brand them as the so-called weaker sex.

https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2009/dec/12/pinkstin...

> The reason is that pink, being a more decided and stronger colour, is more suitable for the boy