The Last Dilbert Post

Comments ¹⁹

1. AJ

   Scott Adams joins JK Rowling in the pantheon of “How can an otherwise intelligent person have such abhorrent views?”

   Aside from Alice and Carol, I can’t think of any other female characters in ‘Dilbert’ (wait, there is Dilbert’s Mom)
   In fact, other women were such a rare occurrence in the strip it was always a shock to see one.

   I had a few acquaintances from when I used to go to church who swore by ivermectin as some sort of miracle cure pretty much the moment Trump endorsed it. They too fell into the “How can an otherwise intelligent person have such abhorrent views?” trap. So it’s no surprise at all that Adams used it rather than get real treatment.

   1. Anon

      There was Tina, and briefly Liz and Noriko. But most women in Dilbert were only there for a single joke and then gone just as quickly.

      Also, it was kinda funny watching the comic crash and burn in the years leading up to the strip getting dropped by pretty much everyone. If only because it was a wildly political turn from someone who admitted early on that he’d be a terrible political cartoonist.

   2. Stuart Conway

      Indeed, how dare Jo Rowling demand cross-dressing biological men stay out of spaces reserved for biological women? Or be prevented from taking part in women’s sports, simply because they have a massive physical advantage due to their biological sex? After all, ‘feelings’ must be seen to outweigh boring old Reality.

2. jailerjoe

   Refreshing to read Luke Lyman’s non partisan ‘Remembering Scott Adams’ spotlight. He really captures Scott’s genius and transformative persuasion skills, cutting through mainstream media’s parochial and shallow takes.

   1. Steve

      Non-partisan? When you get home from work at the prison, do you relax by reading the even handed non-partisan wisdom of the Spectator? It’s not quite as partisan as Der Sturmer, or The New American, but it’s probably slightly ahead of Newsmax, though better written by more literate people. Every single word of Lyman’s piece is offensively partisan. He justifies “half serious” racism, Refers to anyone who didn’t appreciate that as “overlords”, compared to populist Adams, bitches about “the left”, and praises (as faintly as possible) our actual overlord as “not merely a buffoon”, but a “savant persuader” a rephrasing of “playground bully”.
      Adams was sometimes funny about his single topic, the disgustingly hypocritical thoughts and behavior of the upper regions of the business community, but that doesn’t mean that being able to “persuade” people who never tried critical thinking is a good reason to abandon the constitution, hate and punish people who don’t look like you, and believe all conspiracy theories makes you wise.
      Donald Trump and Scott Adams are both just “influencers” who should be accepted as what they appear to be, money grubbing, cynical, rich, horrible people who are admired by people who hope to be like them someday, with the emphasis on the money.

      1. John

         “n, hate and punish people who don’t look like you, and believe all conspiracy theories makes you wise.” I see you haven’t had a thought not fed to you by MSNBC, CNN or whatever rag you get your “news” from. The rest of us can actually read opinions that differ from our own without having a temper tantrum that the person even exists.

      2. Brian Busby

         Good god, man. Do you have anyone who listens to you, let alone any friends?

3. Jesse

   Interesting to hear that he managed to commit suicide through his own warped beliefs.

   Darwin wins again.

4. Eddy O'Despair

   Man, the word “genius” is over- and misused. IMHO Larson is a genius, full stop. Watterson may be; at the very least he has amazing insight, imagination and humanity. But while many over the years tried to convince me how funny Adams was, and trust me, I’ve worked in dysfunctional office environments (is there any other kind?), I always found him trite. Meh. “Oh, but Dogbert!” Yeah?

5. Mike Tiefenbacher

   Anytime anyone insists that any TV show that aired on or was made for the networks back to the mid-’50s is “lost,” unless it died in one of the studio fires a few decades back, is wrong. Anything created for any reason by 20th Century-Fox, as an example, exists in their vaults, its condition being the only thing in question. Only the independently created pilots of the ’50s which were never part of any major studios’ storage, and therefore held in extinct companies’ possession, can be considered “lost,” though usually many of these things turn up after someone dies, stuffed in a closet or under the bed. It takes actual effort to throw away film negatives or prints, and in these days when people are aware that everything old has value to somebody, it would be as stupid as throwing away old baseball cards or comic books. (This is for filmed projects only; videotaped programs were frequently recorded over by witless studio execs wanting to save money; see most ’50s and ’60s talk shows, including, most infamously, THE TONIGHT SHOW.) Just because YOU can’t find it, doesn’t mean it’s lost. (By the way, I would bet that the live-action pilot was compared to the hit series DREW CAREY SHOW, which actually featured Dilbert and Dogbert dolls on Drew’s cubicle cabinets, by whichever network ordered it, and found it wanting. Fred Applegate, known from NEWHART, NINE TO FIVE, FM and WOOPS, didn’t seem as perfect a match for Dilbert as Carey was–and I’m assuming the script wasn’t nearly as good as any episode of his series, especially if Dullbert Scott Adams had any input into it.)

6. John

   AJ, Rowling’s opinion is merely that men are not women. Anyone who can’t accept that is an intelligent person lying or a stupid person repeating a stupid ideology. The rest of your comment can only be read in the context of your inability to accept that basic reality.

   1. Different John

      Rowling has expressed much, much, much more than the single statement to which you refer. Read between the lines of her many statements on the matter and you can tell her real target is not who she says.

7. AJ

   That’s right, how could I have forgotten about Tina, the brittle tech writer.

   But yeah, Adams never had very flattering portrayals of women. They were usually either shrewish man-haters or air-headed bimbos.

8. Sheila DeBonis

   Often, I’m unsure what Adams actually believed. I see how the passage in his 2011 blog post could obviously be read as sexist, but couldn’t it also be read as an admission that he and other men are not equipped to advocate for gender equality and him allowing those with the lived experiences of sexism to take the lead? By “more important matters” could he have meant matters of which men and others in his demographic are more knowledgeable? Call it speaking out of both sides of his mouth, call it wishy-washiness, but I do think he had bipolar disorder and perhaps ADD/ADHD. He even admitted to his thirst for attention at some points. Washington Post interviewed him after Dilbert was dropped and he said his segregation endorsement was indeed, meant to agitate. “I was trying to push the box a bit,” I think was the exact wording. While he did try to shock his general audience by being conservative, he tried to shock his conservative audience by being…not that. While he gushed about Donald Trump and his “brilliant” campaign in 2015, he did admit (claim?) to have voted for Hillary Clinton “for [his] personal safety,” as he worried a “race war” would commence should someone else be in charge.
   There are many Dilbert strips that can be dismissive of spiritualism. Hypnotism I feel especially got a lot of the brunt. But…Adams himself was a trained hypnotist! How could someone go through all the accreditation of a discipline *and* be dismissive of its promise at the same time? Reminds me of how Arthur Conan Doyle was very spiritual despite his character Sherlock Holmes being an atheist (I don’t think/know that Doyle was quite as mentally divided as Adams, though).
   I know Adams, despite voting against a bill that would allow medical aid in dying in California, had said he was going to use a hospice medication when his cancer had progressed, and might’ve even already filled the prescriptive pills. He didn’t end up doing that, but yeah. He was more than a jerk, he was a showman. There’s so many layers to him you could require more Dilbert posts after this.

9. Rich

   These responses are a part of the reason I love coming to this site. Insightful, thoughtful, diverse. Thanks again for this service especially in the ultra polarized world.

10. Mark Miller

    Scott didn’t go to Ivermectin as a first cure. He had already been diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer at that point. He had suffered from what he thought was long COVID for a long period of time. I don’t remember exactly what he did for it, but I think a combination of diet and supplements that helped him feel better, until it didn’t.

11. P.S. Marchand

    Scott Adams is the type of foolish grifter that is all too common in this country; he’s like that shitgibbon Trump -he’s clever enough to gull consumers with his product. but too arrogant not to understand that when he engaged in foolish behavior he inevitably loses his audience.

12. Atanwat

    The extensive collection of links in this post led to a lengthy rabbit hole, but that happened to include “Seven Years of Highly Defective People“. Besides being a thoroughly enjoyable book, it also served as a reminder of a time when the author had not gone entirely bonkers, despite a few clear indicators of what was yet to come. The title could also form the basis for a very fitting epitaph.

13. Teddy Bumpas

    if someone dies from rejecting conventional medical care in preference to quack medicine, they’re a true believer, not a cynical fake. I don’t think Donald Trump is even true to the right. I don’t think he really believes anything. he’s not a store of beliefs really, but a process of masterful grift and bullying. a heartless soulless machine