>For Adams, God took a more creative and – dare I say, crueler – route. He created him only-slightly-above-average at everything except for a world-historical, Mozart-tier, absolutely Leonardo-level skill at making silly comics about hating work.
I was caught off guard by how brutal this article was at points. I don't really follow Scott Alexander much, so I was pleasantly surprised by it. While I don't have the same relationship with Scott Adams... I can see parts of this in my relationship with Kanye.
Pretty easy to take pot shots at a dead guy who lacks the ability to punch back. Especially when the dead guy hosted a daily show and would have been thrilled to have him come on and debate! Why didnt Mr Codex get around to stating his opinion re: Adams for the past 10 years?
Seems like he's just quoting Adams himself. Adams was popular for his self-deprecating humor.
Adams used to tell people the secret to success was being in the top 25% at multiple things - he could draw and he could make corporate jokes, but he was not exceptional in either of those things. It's not really a pot shot, more of a tribute. He's still saying Adams was just below Leonardo da Vinci.
Less about the degree to which Adams was talented (which, as you note, Adams might agree), more about how much his books sucked and the ideas within them were ridiculous, arguing that Adams' claims regarding hypnosis were entirely bogus, and that gaining popularity as Scott Adams the blogger-slash-podcast host (as opposed to "Dilbert guy") "destroyed him."
For what it’s worth, I think a lot of people were pretty happy to shit on Scott Adams for the last decade.
I don’t know anything about Scott Alexander, but even well before Adams had cancer, there was a thread on Something Awful making fun of all the stupid weird shit Adams would say.
That's fine - the man was certainly not above being criticized, and he had plenty of flaws. Point is, do it while he's alive, don't wait until he's dead (especially when his death was not a surprise)
Adams got plenty of criticism while alive and had plenty of chance to defend himself. He doesn't get a heckler's veto on the living. We are entitled to tell the truth about the dead to ensure the accuracy of their memory.
But this wasn't an obituary. It wasnt a recalling of facts about his life. It wasnt written for a news outlet which publishes obits about most notable figures. It was an opinion piece and a discussion of how Adams affected the writer.
Of course Alexander, or anyone, has the right to be critical. It's just cowardly to wait till he's dead when he isn't able to refute any of the points (or even to absorb them and say, yea, he's right about this, I'm going to try doing better).
"cowardly to wait till he's dead when he isn't able to refute any of the points"
It's only here in the past few days that I have ever heard this particular view: that it's somehow "cowardly" or uncouth or otherwise inappropriate to speak critically of someone who has died because being dead, they are unable to respond.
I am genuinely curious where this idea came from. I've heard "don't speak ill of the dead" all my (by now, getting to be pretty long) life but I never heard this rationale for it except here in threads related to this guy.
I agree that it would be inappropriate to, say, attend someone's funeral and walk around saying you know, in a lot of ways, this guy was a real asshole.
But to claim it as some kind of general principle, with that rationale? That is... deeply weird, or at least it strikes me that way. How on earth could anyone ever discuss any historical figure while abiding by this rule?
Or on a much smaller scale, imagine a family with an abusive member who dies. Are the remaining members never to speak of the ways they were affected by that person? That's crazy.
People are who they are, live the lives they live, and do the things they do. Most people are better than the worst thing they ever did and worse than the best thing they ever did. There's nothing wrong with assessing that fully after they die.
But it's the "because they can't respond" rationale that surprises me. I had no idea that rationale even existed, let alone seems (at least here, with respect to this guy) to be somewhat widespread.
If you're just now hearing about something which is "somewhat widespread" (your words) maybe that's a "you problem"
Were you caught off-guard when Scott Alexander wrote, of his own essay, I previously felt bad for writing this essay after Adams’ death; it seems kind of unsporting to disagree with someone who can’t respond.?
I think it boils down to the idea of "if you have something to say, say it to my face"
Abuse is an outlier, especially within a family, it is accompanied by complex, ongoing issues with trauma and possible retribution and isolation. It is perfectly normal that people would choose not to speak out while their abuser is alive. It's the reason why sexual abuse and DV victims are often granted anonymity as witnesses or accusers in criminal cases, which isn't allowed in normal situations.
"If you're just now hearing about something which is 'somewhat widespread' (your words) maybe that's a 'you problem'"
That could be but seems a little unlikely. For now, I'm sticking with what I know, which is that I have heard this idea expressed in exactly one context: people who seem to be fans of the Dilbert guy on Hacker News.
Maybe this is really a widespread, commonly-held view in the broader American culture that I somehow never heard of my entire life. Like I say, could be, but seems unlikely.
What seems more likely is that it's a somewhat common view in some subculture that I'm not familiar with but that is over-represented on HN for some reason.
Maybe I'll encounter it in other contexts also as time goes by, I don't know.
Your comment seems almost completely divorced from the tone of someone who actually read the article in good faith. It's almost like you got to the first critical thing that was said, stopped, and came back to the comments section to pout.
In no way was Scott Alexander dancing on the man's grave, in fact he spends a considerable portion of the article going over the positive influence Scott had on his life, despite not endorsing his politics and being dubious of his self-help methods.
I disagree, for me, the most objectionable parts were subjective evaluations of Adams' last chapter of life, which come rather late in the article:
The man who had dreamed all his life of being respected for something other than cartooning had finally made it.
Obviously, it destroyed him.
and later, Adams was willing to sacrifice everything for the right to say “It’s Okay To Be White”
Who is Alexander to say he was destroyed, or sacrificed anything? Yes, it is factual that Dilbert was removed from newspapers and Adams' income probably dropped 99%. But Adams was already a senior citizen who had millions of dollars and no children. I doubt he cared about the money any more. Adams probably also lost a huge number of fans. But who cares? Those fans were at arms length at best. He found (or created) a community of people he could interact with daily who deeply, deeply admired him. He "found his tribe." I can't speak for you, or for most celebrities, as I've never been one, but I'd probably feel more satisfied having a few dozen super-close friends who I admire back and with whom I'm engaged in a two-way discourse than millions of anonymous admirers that I've never met and don't know anything about.
Adams was not entirely stupid. He knew that his comic strip would be in jeopardy if he made comments about black people, and he did it anyway. He made a calculation and proceeded. It probably isn't the same decision that most people, including Alexander, would have made, but that doesn't mean it "destroyed him" or even that it was a sacrifice. He shed all the "admirers" and distant "fans" and found out who his true allies were. Far fewer, yes, but now he knew those who stood by him were aligned. Especially later in life when you have less time and patience for fighting, for nonsense, for explaining things over and over, it seems like a win.
The funny part is that Alexander comes to the exact same conclusion:
Adams is easy and fun to mock - as is everyone who lives their life uniquely and unapologetically. I’ve had a good time psychoanalyzing him, but everyone does whatever they do for psychological reasons, and some people end up doing good.
Though I can’t endorse either Adams’ politics or his persuasive methods, everything is a combination of itself and an attempt to build a community. And whatever the value of his ideas, the community seems real and loving.
My point is that I don’t think anyone “waited” like you seem to be suggesting. People were happy to insult him and make fun of him well before he died.
Scott Alexander waited. He could have written this post much earlier, when Adams was alive and could respond (if he felt it was worthy of such). Or, he could have said nothing at all about Adams when he died. Even Alexander admits "it seems kind of unsporting to disagree with someone who can’t respond" (but ignores his own gut feeling.)
> But this wasn't an obituary. It wasnt a recalling of facts about his life. It wasnt written for a news outlet which publishes obits about most notable figures. It was an opinion piece and a discussion of how Adams affected the writer.
Of course it was an obituary. It did recall facts of his life. There is no rule requiring obituaries to be positive or published in mainstream, dead-tree newspapers. There is a long historical tradition of heavily opinionated obituaries. Here's a great example about Margaret Thatcher [1].
If we can set aside your nit-picking about the word "obituary," I still don't understand your position that it's somehow "cowardly" to criticize dead people. As I've already pointed out, Adams got lots of criticism while alive and the timing of Alexander's article certainly isn't motivated by cowardice. To say only kind things of the dead is to be dishonest. We owe it to ourselves to not sugarcoat the past. Or do you think that a history book that accurately recounts Joseph Stalin's rule of the Soviet Union is "cowardly"?
Its cowardly because he had plenty of opportunities to write this piece or to criticize Adams in other ways while he was alive and could respond. The bulk of the essay is about books over a decade old, which Alexander had read long ago. The comments make it clear Adams respected Alexander and linked to his work - surely he would have invited him on to his podcast to debate. As Alexander notes, they had plenty in common and were peers in a way.
It's cowardly to go to a restaurant, smile, eat your meal, say nothing, and then decide not to leave a tip because you thought the service sucked - without ever speaking up or allowing the restaurant to fix the problem. Its just as lame to leave a 1-star review because you perecived the food to be awful without mentioning it and giving the kitchen a chance to prepare the food in a manner you'd like.
And to respond to your initial confusion, an obituary is about the dead person. This essay is about Alexander, his interpretation of Adams' work and how Adams' work affected his life.
I don’t really get your logic. Is it always “cowardly” to criticize dead people?
I don’t like Hitler, I think he was a bad person, but he’s also dead. Is it cowardly to insult him? You might argue that he died before I was born so it’s different but these kinds of dividers are getting kind of arbitrary at that point.
Just because someone dies should not make them immune to being insulted. Scott Adams is someone I have a complicated relationship with myself, but ultimately he said a lot of stupid, problematic shit. I was happy to insult him and make fun of him while he was still alive. I will also make fun of him and insult him while he’s dead.
I don’t know anything about Alexander but I don’t think it’s cowardly at all.
"It's cowardly to go to a restaurant, smile, eat your meal, say nothing, and then decide not to leave a tip because you thought the service sucked - without ever speaking up or allowing the restaurant to fix the problem."
You seem to frame many more things in terms of "coward[ice]" than I would. I'd describe the scenario above as rude but not "cowardly" and it wouldn't occur to me to frame it that way or think of it in those terms.
In the real world, in that scenario, I would leave a tip because I know how servers get paid. If this is a restaurant I've never been to before, I'm not going to speak up about it because I just don't really care very much. Not my problem.
It's also sort of hard for me to imagine hypothetically a restaurant where the "service sucked": it's not an experience I've ever had and I don't have much in the way of expectations about restaurant service. Just get me seated reasonably quickly (or tell me that you won't be able to), give me a menu, take my order, bring the food, bring the check. It's not a high bar.
"Its just as lame to leave a 1-star review because you perecived the food to be awful without mentioning it and giving the kitchen a chance to prepare the food in a manner you'd like."
Again, I can't really imagine this scenario. It's one thing, I guess, if there's something objectively wrong with the food. I remember, for example, once being served a steak marinated in whiskey that I had definitely not ordered, and I sent that back. To me, it was pretty much inedible, although I guess if someone didn't like it, it wouldn't be on the menu.
But if the food is just not very good? Ehh, I don't have time to fuss over that. I'm not gonna leave a one-star review because I don't leave reviews. I'm probably just not coming back.
All this strikes me as pretty normal, and definitely not something that can be usefully framed in terms of "cowardice." I mean, if it's "cowardly" to not complain about poor service right then and there, is it "brave" to do so? That characterization seems sort of absurd.
As a reader, can you summarize what Alexander is referencing in the two quoted paragraphs that overcomes his initial doubt and decides "after his death is the best time to disagree"?
The only thing I can possibly see is Adams writing "the reader is supposed to be looking for flaws" but it's also clear that Adams is very interested in hearing people's reactions and responses to his work.
Other has mentioned it, but I think it's worth quoting it directly for easier reference
> I previously felt bad for writing this essay after Adams’ death; it seems kind of unsporting to disagree with someone who can’t respond. These paragraphs cured me of my misgivings: after his death is by far the best time to disagree with Scott Adams.
Also I don't think this is a slander article only published after death so no one can answer. If anything I see this as a beautiful article from someone who (used to?) love him and it raises his image in my (not really cared about it before) mind.
a) my initial comment was a response to someone who called the essay "brutal." Indeed, there are some tender passages, but it feels like on balance, Alexander was more interested in getting his attacks in than the nicer stuff. In my opinion.
b) yes he tries to make an excuse for "curing his misgivings" and ignoring his initial doubt but it's an awful one. Can you succinctly describe what it is about the quoted paragraphs that would indicate "after his death is the best time to disagree"?
I really enjoyed How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big.
I think you also have to mention along his talent stack, all his failed business ideas. He really seemed to give his ideas a shot even if they didn't make much sense. I don't think most people would even pursue the Dilbert idea.
I actually watched the podcast in question. As I saw it he made a very reasonable and 100% non-racist comment (in the context of the discussion the soundbytes were later taken out of), which related more to the inflammatory, caustic nature of the media narrative on black-white relationships, and whether as a white person it is even fruitful to be engaging in that narrative, if the end outcome is that your engagement will be used out of context to cause even more strife and division by the people pushing this narrative. I.e. you will make more of a difference as a white person by trying to improve the "systems" around you, in a manner that benefits everyone, rather than by engaging in pointless arguments and debates with people who are blinded by a very deliberately promoted agenda.
I very much agree with that point, and have experienced it myself. Ironically, if nothing else, this whole affair and the rush to cancel him and call him racist and disgraced, ultimately proved his very point. Just look at how the links you shared choose to word their posthumous articles.
If you really want an accurate source, just go watch the (entire) podcast. No better source than this. Best case scenario you'll disagree with my take, but now your take is informed rather than misinformed.
And to set the record straight, Adams was the very opposite of racist in my view. He had very nuanced and pragmatic views, including how the best thing the country could do to help black communities should be investing in education across the board, instead of funding and pandering to apologists who inflame the masses but then drain the money from the education system, perpetuating ghetto-like communities.
Long before the racism thing, I remember how grossed out I was by him complaining that he only got to have sex when his girlfriend wanted it, therefore his girlfriend, and women in general, were the "gatekeepers" of sex.
Completing failing to recognize that consent is a two person affair.
Sure sounds like Adams was consenting to sex and the person gatekeeping the sex and making the consent not a two person affair was his girlfriend, which is why Adams was complaining to begin with.
You're entitled to feel grossed out by this I suppose but your feelings have nothing to do with whether Adams was correct or reasonable or not.
The weird part is, calling women gatekeepers of sex. When it is also men who gatekeeps.
The gross part is, that this reminds of older times, when men had the legal right to have sex with their wife whenever they wanted (it is a quite new thing, that there can be rape in marriage, the current chancellor of germany famously opposed this legal change). In short, patriarcharical BS that women are objects owned by men and that this is the natural order.
I would guess that Adams probably wanted to have sex more than his girlfriend did, which meant that he had lots of personal experiences of his girlfriend not wanting to have sex when he did; and few if any personal experiences of not wanting to have sex when his girlfriend did. From his perspective, this looks like women (his girlfriend in particular) being the gatekeeper of sex. And this is what he was complaining about.
On a society-wide level, men are systematically more interested in having sex more often and in more contexts than women are. So lots of people in heterosexual relationships have experiences similar to Adams' (sex not happening in cases where the man wants it and the woman doesn't), which is why the rhetorical trope that women are the gatekeepers of sex exists.
Adams took an almost deliberately obtuse interpretation of a single poll and used it to state, explicitly and not ironically, that white people should completely avoid all black people.
>For Adams, God took a more creative and – dare I say, crueler – route. He created him only-slightly-above-average at everything except for a world-historical, Mozart-tier, absolutely Leonardo-level skill at making silly comics about hating work.
A+, no notes